Sitting of 18 July 1878

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Poor Law Guardians, &c. [No. 297].
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [July 17] reported—Contagious Diseases (Animals) [Salaries, Compensations, &c.]*.
Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) [204]—R. p.; Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment (re-comm.) [205]—R. P. *
Committee—Report— Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [251]; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c. * [245].
Third Reading—Police Expenses Act Continuance* [256]; Corrib (Galway) River * [265], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  UNIVERSITY COMMISSION—THE MEDI- CAL PROFESSION.—QUESTION.
  DR. CAMERONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is a fact that during the last twelve years the Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford has not delivered any course of lectures on medicine, and that the Clinical Professor of Medicine has not given any course of clinical instruction; and, whether the Government will lay before the House, Copies of the Evidence taken during the present year by the Oxford University Commissioners concerning the present state of the Medical Faculty of the University of Oxford, and the schemes for its amendment submitted to the Commissioners?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, Dr. Acland held
  1844
  the office referred to, and he was responsible to the University alone for the duties he was called upon to discharge. The Government had nothing to say on the subject. He believed the whole of the information the hon. Gentleman desired would be found in a Return which was presented to the House some years ago. He understood, however, that the University were entirely satisfied with the manner in which Dr. Acland performed his duties; and, speaking from his own personal knowledge for a great number of years, he never knew anyone who had more thoroughly devoted himself to the public service and the service of his profession than Dr. Acland had done. With regard to the hon. Member's Question as to evidence, he was informed that the Oxford University Commissioners had not yet come to any decision as to the publication of evidence; and, pending the decision to which they might come, the Government saw no reason to interfere in the matter.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL FUNDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that the age-pensions paid out of the Greenwich Hospital Funds to men above the age of 55 have for many months been withheld; and, if so, whether he can state the reason for such suspension, and when it is intended to resume their payment?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There has been no suspension in the payments of any Greenwich Hospital age-pensions which have been awarded; but no new pensions have been yet given away since the 1st of January last. It was necessary to reduce the numbers in consequence of the rapid increase which has occurred in the annual charge for these pensions—namely, from £46,509 in 1866–7, to £78,231 in 1878–9. Any vacancies which now exist in the number of 7,500 will be immediately filled up. An Order in Council has now been obtained to limit the total number of pensions to be in force at any one time to 7,500—the original number contemplated in 1865 having been 5,000—and the combined amount to be received in Greenwich and other pensions to 2s. 6d. a-day.

PRISON DISCIPLINE (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. COWENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has had his attention directed to the observations of Baron Dowse at the Armagh Assizes on Saturday last, when, before sentencing a prisoner, he asked the governor of the gaol whether the new rules which require a prisoner to lie on a plank for the first month were in force in Armagh Gaol, and whether that meant that the prisoner should sleep in his clothes for a month? Upon both questions being answered in the affirmative, Baron Dowse, who declared that Judges were not mere automatons, but had their feelings like other men, said he should give a much shorter sentence, for he considered the new rule nothing more nor less than torture; and, if he has not had other complaints of the new prison rules, and if he will take them into consideration with a view to their modification?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the use of the plank was by no means new. It had been in use a great number of years. The only effect of the rule had been to make the system uniform in all prisons. He was sure there must be some mistake in the statement of the Judge, with whom he agreed that it would be torture to compel a man to sleep in his clothes for a month. Nothing of the kind occurred in England. Bedding was served out to prisoners, though they might have to sleep on planks. So far as Ireland was concerned, he asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland to make inquiries with regard to the gaol of Armagh, and he found there must be some mistake there.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether the Home Secretary would consider the suggestion that a hollow might be made in the planks?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE WAR INDEMNITY.—QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government of Russia have relinquished their demand on the Ottoman Government for a sum of about forty millions sterling as indemnity, according to a stipulation in the so-called preliminary Treaty of
  1846
  San Stefano; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps in consequence of this demand to safeguard the interests of numerous British subjects to whom the Revenues of Turkey have been already assigned as security for money due to them?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think the best answer I can give to the hon. Gentleman is to refer him to what will be found in the Protocols when they come to be distributed. He will find in the despatch recently presented, written by my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury), that he refers to this subject, and that he gives a short account of the declarations made by the Russian Plenipotentiaries and the English Plenipotentaries on this subject; and he concludes with these observations—
  "It results from those declarations that Turkey is not internationally bound, and cannot be compelled, to pay any portion of the sum named until the claims of all creditors anterior to the war are paid in full."
  The matter, however, will best be seen by examining the Protocols.
  MR. OTWAY: May I ask if the stipulations of the Treaty of San Stefano are in force as between Turkey and Russia, or as modified by the Treaty of Berlin?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think the hon. Gentleman had better give Notice of the Question.

  ARMY—THE ARMY AND MILITIA RESERVES.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is his intention, on the disembodiment of the Army and Militia Reserves, to award to the men a sum sufficient to keep them from want until they can re-enter their old employments?
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY, in reply, said, the Secretary of State for War was absent on duty at Wimbledon. On Monday he would make a statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the Reserves.

  PRISON DISCIPLINE—PERSONAL SEARCH.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-

  1847
  ment, Whether the statement made by the Solicitor General on behalf of the Government in the debate respecting convict prison discipline on Friday night last, to the effect that the "indignities complained of were certainly not inflicted on anyone at present," was rightly understood by the House of Commons as an assurance that the unmentionable searching of the persons of prisoners, hitherto periodically practised in the male and female convict prisons, have ceased; whether this change has resulted from any orders given by the Secretary of State; and, if so, at what date those orders were given; and, if he can assure the House that such practices shall never be introduced into the county prisons, the control of which has now been assumed by the Government?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he was sorry to have to state that experience had shown that it was sometimes necessary to carry out a strict search in order to defeat the ingenuity of unscrupulous prisoners. It was left to the Governors to see that in every possible way the proper rules as to decency were observed. He should like to mention that this was a question with regard to which evidence was being taken by the Commission now sitting. If the practice were open to objection he should be the first to step in and interfere with it.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he should make some inquiry on the subject next Session.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any Correspondence that has passed between the county magistrates and himself in reference to their application for assistance in the discharge of their duties as visitors to the prisons, distinguishing cases in which an application has been made for clerical assistance from those in which the assistance of a lawyer or a medical man has been asked for?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that he thought no good end would be gained by laying the Correspondence on the Table at present. He hoped that with a little experience the Justices would see more clearly what was the nature of their duties.

  WATER COMPANIES (METROPOLIS)— INCREASED RATES.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the enormously increased charges of the Metropolitan Water Companies under certain alleged legal rights in their Acts of Parliament consequent on the re-assessment of property; and, whether the Government contemplate any Commission of Inquiry on the subject with the view of protecting the public against such charges, and making the supply of water and not rateable value the basis of payment?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The attention of the Government has recently been directed to this matter, which is one that undoubtedly requires consideration. I do not know whether it will be worth while going to the expense of appointing a Commission of Inquiry; but, as I said, it undoubtedly demands inquiry of some sort.

ARKLOW HARBOUR (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the paragraphs in the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries on the Sea and Inland Fisheries of Ireland for 1877, referring to Arklow Harbour, especially to the recommendation therein—
  "That another year may not be allowed to pass without some determined efforts being made to render it safe and easy of access;''
  and, whether the Government will take steps, before the season of the year becomes too advanced, to prevent the loss of property and life that has hitherto occurred in rough weather owing to the unsafe character of the harbour?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: My attention has been called to the subject, and I am fully alive to the importance of improving the harbour; but I would remind the hon. Member that the execution of improvement works would have been undertaken two years ago if the offer of the Government had been accepted. That offer—which they are prepared to renew—was to contribute one-half the expense by a public grant, and to advance, by way of loan, the remainder, on condition that repayment was guaranteed by the Lord of the

  1849
  Manor, the Wicklow Copper Mining Company, and the town of Wicklow. The Mining Company raised objections, and declined to accede to the terms, and the consequence has been that the Treasury have never been able to proceed with the Bill necessary for the purpose. The Mining Company are now taking the matter up themselves, and are in negotiation with the Public Works Loan Commissioners (England) for a loan of £12,000 or £13,000 under the Harbours and Passing Tolls Act; and if the Commissioners feel justified in granting a loan, though it is improbable that the harbour will be improved to the same extent as if the works had been carried out according to the original scheme, yet it is hoped that some measure of improvement may be effected.

  NAVY—NAVAL ARTILLERY VOLUN- TEERS.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked, Whether an application for permission to form a Corps of Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers in the port of Lancaster has been declined by the Government; and, whether there be any objection to place the Correspondence that has passed between the applicants and the Admiralty on this subject upon the Table of the House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Admiralty have declined an application for permission to form a corps of Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers at Lancaster. There is no objection to lay upon the Table of the House the application in question with the Admiralty reply, which is addressed to the Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves. Other letters of the Correspondence, which are of a confidential character, cannot be produced.

  NAVY—THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF THE NAVY.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the allowance as Auditor of Prize Accounts of £100 a-year to the Accountant General of the Navy is or is not included in the salary of Mr. R. G. C. Hamilton, the newly appointed Accountant General; what amount of prize money has been distributed within the official service of the last Accountant General, or whether the auditorship of prize accounts has become a sinecure; and, whether it is intended to abolish such office?
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that the late Accountant General had received the allowance of £100 per annum as examiner of prize accounts and not as auditor, the accounts having been audited by the Controller and Auditor General since the retirement of Sir Richard Bromley in 1865. The allowance was not continued to the present Accountant General. The amount of prize-money distributed during Mr. Walker's tenure of office as Accountant General (financial years 1872–3 to 1877–8) was £84,632.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, On what day he proposes to ask the House to go into Committee on the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill; and, if he will state at what (if any) stage of the Bill he will communicate to the House the names of the members of the proposed Board?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is a little uncertain, depending upon other Business; but probably we shall go into Committee on this Bill on Thursday next. With regard to the names of the members of the proposed Board, I hope to communicate them before the Bill leaves this House.

THE JUDICIAL BODY (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has noticed in the Scotch papers that one of the Judges, Lord Craighill, has by announcement in open court declined to proceed, because the Government have not filled up a vacant office; how he proposes to deal with the case; and whether the vacant Scotch offices, the abolition of which was under consideration, but respecting which no legislation has been pressed this Session, will be filled up or will be reserved for the consideration of Parliament?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I am not quite certain that I understand the Question. There has been no undue delay in filling up the vacancy; but the future duties of the office have been under consideration. With regard to

  1851
  the last Question, I may say that the Government have had under consideration the abolition of certain Scotch offices, and although I cannot give a positive pledge, I hope to bring in a Bill on the subject next Session.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Lord Craighill has, I believe, stated that in future he will not work after half-past 1, because an office has not been filled which, in his opinion, ought to be filled.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: That was the office of clerk, which really had only been vacant for a very short time, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has lost no time in filling up the vacancy. I do not believe that Lord Craighill will carry out his threat.

  CAPTAIN HOOPER'S LIFE-SAVING APPARATUS.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will lay upon the Table any Correspondence between the Board of Trade and Captain Singleton Hooper, R. N., as to his patent rocket for saving life at sea and a proposed official trial of it?
  VISCOUNT SANDON, in reply, said, he did not think the Correspondence to which the hon. Member referred was of sufficient public interest to justify the expense which would be incurred in printing it. He might, however, inform him that Captain Hooper was informed a few days ago that arrangements would be made by the Board of Trade for another trial of his rockets as soon as practicable. If the hon. Gentleman would like to see the Correspondence, he would be happy to show it to him, if he would call at the Board of Trade.

METROPOLIS—THE ISLINGTON AND DEPTFORD CATTLE MARKETS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the honourable Alderman, the senior Member for the City of London, in reference to Clause 9, sub-section (1), of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, What are the sums received for tolls, charges, and rents respectively, at the Islington Cattle Market and at the Foreign Cattle Market, Deptford, respectively?
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTON, in reply, said, that an hon. Member had given
  1852
  Notice of his intention to move for a Return relating to the subject, and he had no doubt the details would be readily given.

ARMY—DEPARTMENT OF CONTRACTS.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, To state whether any corrupt practices have been recently discovered in connection with the department of contracts under the Director of Contracts, or in any other branch of the War Office; and, if so, whether punishments of a suitable kind have been inflicted on the guilty parties?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: No, Sir; but if any such practices were discovered, I have no hesitation in saying that the offenders would receive severe punishment.

  PAROCHIAL CHARITIES (METROPOLIS) A ROYAL COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, as the Bill which he stated would be introduced either on Friday or Monday last for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the Parochial Charities of the City of London has not been brought forward, he will inform the House what course the Government now propose to take?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: After consideration, the Government have come to the conclusion that it would be better not to introduce a Bill upon the subject, but to appoint a Royal Commission in the ordinary way, and that will be done, probably, in the course of next week.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE MEDITERRANEAN FLEET—DETENTION OF BRITISH SEAMEN.—QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to give a denial to two telegrams in The Times this morning which I think ought not to go forth without denial if they are true—[Laughter]—I meant to say untrue. I allude to a telegram which states that a man-of-war's boat's crew, commanded by a lieutenant, were taken prisoners near Gallipoli by the Russians, and that another boat's crew being sent

  1853
  from a man-of-war to bring them back, were fired upon, and that two of the shots went through the boat. What I desire is to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he can contradict that statement?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The noble Lord has asked me to contradict a statement if true; but I am sure he does not really wish me to do so. There does appear to be some foundation for the statement in The Times, but the information at present received is very inadequate. Shortly before I came down to the House I received a telegram from Admiral Commerel to the following effect:—
  "Steamboat was looking for two officers of Swiftsure who were missing in her skiff; they had landed, and were being detained by Russians, but have since returned on board."
  The Swiftsure's boat was fired into, I believe; but we have no information what the circumstances were. Admiral Horn by has telegraphed to the Admiralty that he is inquiring into the matter, and will make a Report. Until we have such a Report it would be most unadvisable to make any definite statement on the subject.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE CON- GRESS OF BERLIN.—QUESTION.
  SIR. WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any statement in this House similar to the statement which we are informed is to be made in "another place" concerning the labours of the Congress; and, if so, when?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have no intention at the present moment to make any statement on the subject. If the hon. Baronet will repeat his Question to-morrow, I may be able to give an answer to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) [SALARIES, COMPENSATIONS, &c.]
  Resolution [July 17] reported and agreed to.
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 204.]
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 17th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  Cattle Plague.
  Clause 10 (Declaration of infected place in cattle plague by inspector).
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the Amendment he had to propose on this clause—namely, in page 5, line 15, to leave out from "unless" to "expedient"—was not a very great one; but, at the same time, it was of considerable importance. He did not think it would lead to any lengthy discussion, because it seemed to him that the Secretary to the Treasury would be able readily to accept it. In fact, he should have thought that the omission of it was only a slip on the part of those who had drawn up this Bill. As the clause now stood, discretion was given to the Inspector who inspected the place infected with cattle plague to give similar notices to occupants of lands or buildings, any one of which lay within one mile of the place infected. For the past three or four days they had been engaged in a discussion as to whether it was safe to admit any discretion on the part of the Privy Council. Whether they were right or not, it was clear that the agricultural interest could not trust the Privy Council. Still less could they trust ordinary Inspectors. A good deal of evidence was given before the Committee as to the status and qualifications of these Inspectors. In the last Report of the Medical Department it was shown that one of these Inspectors in Essex was only in the receipt of 17s. per week, and that the greater part of this munificent salary was expended in trap-hire and expenses. Parliament had no right to expect from these men the superior qualifications which would entitle them to be intrusted with the discretion involved in the clause before the Committee. Further, he would say that no such discretion was needed. In any case, the district round about the place infected with cattle plague ought to be declared infected. He found in 1862, when cattle plague broke out in Yorkshire, the Veterinary Department gave

  1855
  evidence that a proper district was established, and that the movement of cattle had been ordered to be stopped immediately, yet the actual existence of the disease continued for three months. When, recently, the cattle plague broke out at Willesden, the local authorities immediately took every precaution which it was proposed in this clause to take; and in foreign countries, where, one would imagine, from the fears of Members who represented agricultural interests, the precautions were less than were necessary, it was the rule to make the districts larger than were proposed in this clause. In Prussia, whenever a district was infected, an infected area was declared of 13 miles. He thought a radius of one mile was the least that was consistent with safety. In all cases it ought to be imperative on the local Inspector to declare, not only the place actually infected, but that the district for one mile around was infected. It might be said that there were exceptional cases in which such a declaration would involve injustice. As to that, he might point out that, in the same clause, provision was made that the Inspector should report his proceedings immediately to the Privy Council, who should forthwith inquire into the correctness of the Inspector's declaration. If the Privy Council thought the declaration had been improperly made, they had the power to relieve the district from the force of this clause. Under those circumstances, there could be no harm in removing the discretion he proposed in his Amendment, and he trusted the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to accept it.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would like to call the attention of the Committee to the reason why he should be unable to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Birmingham. He would point out that the omission of the words proposed to be left out would make it imperative on Inspectors to serve a notice on every individual who happened to reside within the radius of a mile from the place the Inspector proposed to declare infected. He would ask the hon. Member what would be the effect if that took place in the centre of London? If cattle plague broke out in the crowded parts of the Metropolis, the obligation would rest on the Inspector of serving notices on all persons in the radius of a mile from the spot. It was
  1856
  quite impossible that he could get through his work in time to effect any practical purpose. So long as they left discretion to the Inspector, with power to censure him if he failed, they did all they had to do, and all they were aiming at by this clause. In such a case as the outbreak of cattle plague, he would take care that due notices were served; and although he might have power in rural districts, where there were few inhabitants, to serve notices on the adjoining district, it would never do to make it compulsory on the Inspector to serve notices throughout such a radius as this. He trusted the Committee would see that in leaving the discretion where it was, they had the same control over the Inspector as a subsequent clause would give, and they would be doing all they were aiming at with regard to publicity within the infected radius.
  MR. WHITWELLheld that the moment the real cattle plague or rinderpest was in existence in any locality it ought to be declared at once an infected district. He did not see that it was necessary in such a case as that, that every inhabitant should have notice; but there should be public notice posted up, as rapidly as possible, throughout the district, declaring that the place was an infected place. On a former occasion the local authority had power to declare that no cattle should come out of an infected district. Therefore, the hon. Member was only asking for reasonable security that whenever a district, whether of a mile or less, should be declared infected, the same consequences should follow as if notices had been served.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTdid not want this discussion to go further. He thought there was a great deal in what was said by the hon. Member for Birmingham. In cases of cattle plague, he thought no option should be left to the Inspector; but that he should be bound to give notice to the Privy Council, who might at once deal with the district if necessary.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYthought there was absolute necessity for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He thought, also, there should be further alteration of the clause. What was really wanted in these districts was that all movement of cattle should be stopped. And that

  1857
  purpose would be effectively achieved by serving these notices on all the parties connected with cattle within a radius of one mile. When first these regulations were made, all movements of cattle were stopped within a radius of one mile; and in order to make the regulations effective and sure, care was taken to place a policeman continually on the spot. He should propose that the clause, as amended, should read—
  "The Inspector shall serve notice on the owners or persons in charge of animals within one mile of the infected place."
  This would get over the difficulty in crowded places, such as the Metropolis, and in the larger boroughs. The Committee ought, in the first place, to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member, and then to further amend the clause by causing notice to be served on the owners or persons in charge.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he ought to point out to the Committee that they had all the security they wanted. In the first place, they had the Inspectors of the Privy Council dealing with the disease, and then they had the local authority in counties. Suppose a case of cattle plague broke out either in the Metropolis or in a rural district, and it came to the knowledge of the Inspector. The Inspector could at once exercise his discretion as to whether it was cattle plague or not, and could serve notices as required on people near the place, and could do many of the things which were deemed necessary by the Privy Council to protect the district. On the other hand, if they altered the clause, what would be the effect? The Inspector would go to a place and would, in his judgment, think the disease had broken out, and then he would be occupied in serving notices on every owner of cattle, even if the suggestion of the hon. Member who last submitted an Amendment was adopted. But if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birmingham were adopted, the Inspector would have to prepare and serve an enormous number of those notices upon all the inhabitants of the district, and all that time his communications with reference to the disease, his dealing with it, or any action he might take with regard to it, would be rendered subservient to the necessity of his serving those particular notices.
  1858
  Now, he thought that the Committee would see that as soon as the authority under the Bill came into action, it would be sufficient to enforce the delivering of any notices that might be required. The preliminary notices would have to be served by the Inspector, and any proceedings to follow upon that would be directed by the Privy Council, should they confirm the account of the disease. Nothing could be greater than the responsibility of the local authority, and of the Inspectors, in case of an outbreak of disease under that particular clause of the Bill; and he ventured to think that the alteration, as suggested, would impede rather than tend to secure the proper working of the clause.
  MR. SYNANcould not help thinking that the task imposed upon the Inspector by the Amendment would be not only impracticable, but impossible. Let them take a radius of a mile in the City of London. Every inhabitant in that radius would have to be served with a notice by the Inspector, which would take several days—in fact, a whole week. The Inspector was an ordinary man, and the task would be impossible. There ought to be confidence in the Inspectors. An hon. Member had urged that the Inspectors were not sufficiently paid, and, therefore, their duties were neglected; but the remedy for that was to pay them sufficiently, and to make the place worthy of competent men, so as to have competent men to fill it. In those cases where it was necessary to serve the notices he would serve them; but to serve them where they were unnecessary and impracticable would be to impede the action of the Bill, and, instead of stamping out disease, would produce the contrary effect.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, that the Committee must bear in mind that the duties would have to be performed by the Privy Council, and he did not think that they ought to depart from the Bill as it stood. On the other hand, he sympathized with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain); because, whenever cattle plague broke out, he thought that notices ought to be given over a district to the extent of a mile radius. But, at the same time, he considered it very ridiculous that the occupiers of all buildings within a mile, who, perhaps, only kept a dog or a cat, should be informed of the outbreak

  1859
  of the cattle disease. He certainly thought that all the owners of cattle ought to be informed of such outbreak even in a town, and it was in all probability that the outbreak would take place in a town. Of late years all the outbreaks of cattle plague had taken place in cowsheds in seaport towns.
  MR. PEASEthought the Committee would agree with the Secretary to the Treasury that if the Amendment was carried, it would have an undesirable effect. Supposing that in Birmingham, or London, the cattle plague broke out, and the Inspector had to go forth and give these notices, he would be able to do nothing else. He actually would be taking the responsibility from those who ought to be looking after the disease—namely, the local authority or the Privy Council.
  MR. RODWELLinvited the attention of the hon. Member for Birmingham, with whom he concurred as to his views, to Clauses 11, 12, and 13 of the Bill, and would ask him whether the object he had in view was not met by those clauses? The Privy Council were responsible for carrying out those regulations; and he would ask the hon. Member whether the whole purpose of the Amendment was not answered by leaving the Privy Council to say what distance—in many cases it might be far more than a mile—should be covered by the Inspector?
  MR. MUNDELLAthought that the answer of the Secretary to the Treasury was sufficient as to the impracticability of the Inspector's giving notice in the case of the Metropolis, or any large town within the radius of a mile. But, at the same time, he thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was worthy of the attention of the Committee. They knew, from the evidence they had had before the Committee, how insidious the operation of the disease was, and how rapid was its progress. Before the Inspector could move the local authority or the Privy Council, the mischief might be done. Now, it seemed to him that the owners of cattle ought to be immediately warned, and that then the local authority and the Privy Council might be informed.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwished to know from the Secretary to the Treasury, whether there was any provision in the
  1860
  Bill, or whether it had been the practice of the Privy Council under any existing Act, to post some public notice upon some conspicuous place in the immediate locality giving information as to the outbreak of disease?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, of course, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham would not meet the case of large towns; but he could not agree with the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) in the opinion that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was open to the same objections. He thought it would be quite possible for an Inspector to give notice to all persons within a mile who had cattle in their possession.
  MR. MUNTZquite agreed with the difficulties pointed out by the Secretary to the Treasury. But, at the same time, the matter was so important, and it was so essential that there should be no delay, that it appeared to him to be a question whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire might not be accepted. The facility with which disease was spread was so great that during the couple of hours which would be occupied in giving notice to the local authority, it might travel a distance of half-a-mile.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKthought that much ought not to be left to the Inspector. He had known instances where an Inspector was unable to tell whether a case was cattle plague or not, and had to obtain an Inspector from the Privy Council, with whom he had a consultation before he could decide as to the nature of the disease.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he wished to point out that he could have no object, and that the Government could have no other object in view, than the object advocated by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and that was the best possible method of preventing the introduction of disease. But what he had before suggested to the Committee was what he still thought—namely, that that clause in the Bill gave them the very best security against disease. If they frittered away time by forcing the Inspector to serve a mass of notices, they would practically take up all the time of the Inspectors, which ought to be devoted to looking after disease. The In-

  1861
  spector would, of course, serve notices upon persons whose cattle were attacked; and he would, in his discretion, if he knew that there were cattle in the immediate neighbourhood, serve notices on those people, and he would also send information to the Privy Council. But he would remain on the spot to watch the disease, and to prevent that contact with other cattle of which hon. Members were so afraid. He must say, looking to the interests of the country and the proper working of that measure, that he believed they would get a far greater amount of security against the spread of disease by leaving the clause as it stood, than by frittering away the time of the Inspector in serving those notices.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the sub-section made all lands and buildings within a mile of the place where the outbreak was to be deemed infected places. To demand that every land and building was to be declared infected he thought was very hard indeed. It was quite true that the decision of the Inspector was not binding; but, still, he was to do the best he could before somebody came down from the Privy Council to overrule him.
  MR. NEWDEGATEagain asked whether there was any power under the existing Act, or whether it had been the practice of the Privy Council, or the local authority, or the Inspectors, as a matter of duty, to post a notice of the existence of cattle plague in some public and conspicuous place in the immediate vicinity, or at the precise spot, of the outbreak? It had come within his knowledge that after an Inspector had been aware, or, at all events, had had very shrewd suspicions, that there was disease in the neighbourhood, no notice had been given to the public, and cattle had been allowed to be brought into immediate contiguity with the danger without having any warning of the risk to which they were exposing their cattle.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONapologized to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) for having forgotten to notice his question. He thought he might answer it in the affirmative, and say that where the Privy Council had been intrusted—a trust which up to the present time had been a limited one—with this power,
  1862
  they had given public notice on the spot where any disease existed. He would remind the hon. Member that at present the local authorities had had the direction of those matters; and, speaking for a number of local authorities, he should not like to say that that practice had not been generally followed.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the objections which had been taken by the Secretary to the Treasury to his Amendment, with regard to the difficulty it would raise in serving notices in populous places, were fatal to the Amendment as it stood; and he, therefore, would propose to withdraw it in favour of that proposed by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). But he could not agree with the hon. Baronet that the proposal made in the Bill was either satisfactory or sufficient; and he thought that the hon. Baronet's opinion was contradicted by that of the officers of the Department, and gentlemen whose evidence on the question had been before the House of Lords and before the Select Committee. The opinion of Professor Simonds and Professor Brown was that the establishment of districts in all cases of cattle disease was absolutely essential to the stamping out of disease; and they suggested that similar districts should be established in the case of pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease. And as to the general public, what was the object of the whole of this legislation? It had been suggested to Parliament by the feeling outside that the flexibility of the rules previously in force were fatal to the health of cattle districts; and it was that flexibility which the hon. Baronet proposed to continue. He would, therefore, be content to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Forfarshire.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. NEWDEGATEagreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham that something should be done; and he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could not insert in the Bill some directions for the giving of these public notices?
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYproposed to amend the clause, by moving to leave out the words—
  "Unless under the circumstances this appears to him not to be expedient,''

  1863
  and to put in—
  "The Inspector shall serve a notice signed by him upon all owners or persons in charge of any animals which in his judgment are."
  He would remind the Committee that one of the great objects of the Bill was to take away discretion from individuals, and to make the rules with regard to disease as stringent as they were possible to be. Now, he thought that some hon. Members who had addressed the Committee did not quite understand what would follow upon the declaration of an Inspector. The hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) thought it was to be some appeal to the local authorities of the district. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) did not see that there was any such appeal. But that would not help matters very much, because it would require some considerable space of time to call the local authority together. What he trusted would occur was that the Inspector, when he had reason to believe in the existence of disease, should at once serve notices, or cause notices to be served, of the fact. According to the theory of the Bill, the Inspector was going to report to the Privy Council. But even if he did so by telegraph, the Privy Council Inspector could hardly come down before the space of two days, especially if the case was in Yorkshire, or Scotland. They must also recollect the sort of people with whom they had a to deal under the Bill. He had had good deal to do with these Inspectors, and out of 100 of them he had only found four or five were men whom he could depend upon to comprehend and act upon even the most explicit instructions before they had had some experience. He thought that if they were to take effective steps towards the extinction of disease, it was absolutely necessary that more stringent rules should be laid down as to what the Inspectors were to do in cases of disease breaking out.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 14, to leave out after the word "him," to the word "judgment," in line 17, inclusive, in order to insert the words "on the owners or persons in charge of any animals which in his judgment are."—(Mr. James Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. PEASEpointed out that the words proposed by his hon. Friend were not enough to carry out what his hon. Friend wanted; and wherever lands or buildings received these notices, they would become infected with cattle plague. Under this Amendment the places where notices ought to be served would be omitted, and places where no notices were required would receive them.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not accept the Amendment, which appeared to him to be quite unnecessary. He was convinced that the clause, as it stood, gave the greatest possible security. On Report he was quite prepared to introduce words to make a public notice necessary; but beyond that they would only be weakening the powers of the Privy Council.
  MR. CHAPLINhoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment. When he saw the Secretary to the Treasury and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) agreeing on the same point, he considered the Committee would do well to leave the matter as it was.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYcould not consent to withdraw his Amendment. His object was to prevent the moving of cattle out of this area until it was declared by the Privy Council whether there was cattle plague there or not. That would, at the outside, only extend over two or three days, and such a restriction was better than the risk of spreading the disease by allowing the cattle to be moved. They must indicate the duties of the Inspectors distinctly.
  MR. MUNDELLAwas a little surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be content with the Bill while, in many instances, it was lax. There was no difficulty about these notices. An Inspector could give notice to all within a mile in an hour. That was a precaution which appeared to him to be very necessary. This disease was easily spread. It could be spread by fodder, litter, and in many ways—clothes would carry it; but, if notice was given promptly, persons would avoid the affected spot. There was no difficulty about it that he could see, and the Amendment, he believed, was a good one.
  MR. M'LAGANexpressed his intention of voting for the Amendment; for, in cases of the disease breaking out, they could not have too prompt action,
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 167; Noes 68: Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 223.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Declaration of infected place in cattle plague by Privy Council) agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Declaration of infected district in cattle plague) agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Alteration of infected place or district in cattle plague) agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Declaration of freedom from cattle plague) agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Slaughter by Privy Council in cattle plague and compensation out of public money).
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, in page 6, line 19, after "plague," to insert "or being in a place affected with cattle plague." That was to cover what might, by some hon. Members, be supposed to be a slight omission.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, in page 6, after line 24, to insert the words—
  "(3.) The Privy Council shall, for animals slaughtered under this section, pay compensation as follows, out of money provided by Parliament;—(a.) Where the animal slaughtered was affected with cattle plague, the compensation shall be one-half of its value immediately before it became so affected, but so that the compensation do not in any such case exceed twenty pounds; (b.) In every other case the compensation shall be the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered, but so that the compensation do not in any case exceed forty pounds."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had two Amendments to this clause, which ought to be taken together. The first one was, in page 6, line 24, to leave out the words "Privy Council," and insert "local authority;" and the second Amendment was, in page 6, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words "out of money provided by Parliament," and insert—
  "to be defrayed out of a special rate, to be assessed and levied in the nature of a capitation or poll-tax, according to the number of cattle possessed by any person within the county at the time of the slaughter."
  There was a great feeling prevalent
  1866
  among certain classes of people that this Bill was class legislation, and that it was simply intended to compensate the farmer for trade losses. He thought it most desirable, for the agriculturists and other classes, that this matter should be thrashed out, and that it should be shown that nothing of the nature of exceptionable legislation was contemplated. The two questions raised by his Amendment were these—whether, in the first place, any compensation could be claimed in the case of loss by disease? and, secondly, where the money should come from, and what the amount of it should be? He did not see how claims for compensation could be sustained. Farmers were not entitled to compensation, even under the provisions of the Bill, except in cases of cattle disease. A farmer might lose his ricks by fire without any fault of his own, or his standing crops in consequence of a heavy storm; but in neither of those cases was any claim ever attempted to be set up for compensation from the Government. Take the more analogous case of the recent disease amongst the horses of the General Omnibus Company. When that occurred, it was not pretended that the community at large had anything to do with the matter, or were to be saddled with the cost of compensation. In no other case was any claim for compensation set up or recognized by Parliament. In all the cases he had mentioned it was left to mutual insurance. The farmers were not entitled to exceptional advantages for matters which were of the nature of a visitation of Providence. It was said that their case was different, because the loss was inflicted and caused by the action of the Government with regard to cattle. Well, look at the Education Law. In that law the State imposed a duty on the public, who, instead of being compensated, had to bear the cost of education. A working man was compelled to withdraw his children from service to send them to school, and then he had to pay the school fees. In the case of mine owners, for the public advantage very considerable restrictions and expenditure had been put on the mine owners; but they never asked for any compensation, and probably, in the long run, the mine owners did not lose very much. The same thing applied to the farmers. Parliament had imposed obligations on individuals without compensating them; and in this

  1867
  case it was very doubtful whether compulsory slaughter was a fair claim for compensation. Cattle affected by the cattle plague must die, and they, therefore, were practically valueless; and as regarded the animals which were in contact with the diseased animals, they were deteriorated in value, and the farmer would make more of them by sending them to be slaughtered than by keeping them with the risk of the disease; and, therefore, no additional loss was made by the conditions imposed by the State. It was an interesting fact, in connection with that part of the question, that even under the present system, in which very considerable compensation was allowed, the value of the diseased beasts was more than the actual value of the animals at the time of slaughter. Professor Brown had said that it seemed to him no amount of compensation was sufficient to tempt a large number of men to give notice of disease, in consequence of the interference with their business which would necessarily result from their so doing. And on being asked whether he could suggest any alteration in the method of compensation so as to secure information as to disease? he replied that he should be disposed to claim full compensation in case of cattle plague, in the hope that he should induce a large number of people to report, many of whom, from their position, would not be able otherwise to bear their loss in consequence of want of capital. That answer pointed to the fact that an increase of compensation was likely to be needed to induce farmers to give notice of disease, and brought him to the point of his contention—that compensation, as such, could not be defended, and that the compensation to farmers was not an indemnity for losses sustained, but a reward for giving information necessary to check the progress of disease. If that were admitted, the question of amount would have to be settled upon quite a different consideration. If compensation were intended, they ought not to give more than the actual value of the animal at the time of slaughter; but if the money was to be given by way of reward, they would have to pay what was necessary to bring information, just as in cases where money was offered for the discovery of robbery or murder. He would be quite willing to vote what-
  1868
  ever amount might be thought necessary to obtain the required information. That this was the right view to be taken was confirmed by what he read in the Report of the Agricultural Commission of 1866, when that question was first discussed, and where he found the Society asked that payment should be made not as compensation but as remuneration for services performed and information given. Assuming that view to be correct—and he ventured to ask that it might be so accepted by hon. Members opposite—he came to the consideration of the source from which such remuneration was to be derived. He could not see why these rewards should be paid out of the taxation of the country, and why they should not form a charge distributed over the whole of those engaged in the trade. Surely those whose property had been protected should contribute towards the payment necessary to secure that protection? He could not put out of sight the argument of Mr. John Stuart Mill, which had been used the previous day—namely, that the farmers, as a whole, were recouped for their losses in connection with disease by the increased price which they necessarily obtained for their beasts which remained, and that if the supply were reduced and the price increased, it would result that some farmers would gain by the losses of their neighbours. He (Mr. Chamberlain) was of opinion that the loss should be spread over the whole of those who profited by the misfortunes of others; and he ventured to think that his contention had been admitted by the farmers themselves. Before the Act of 1869, there existed many considerable insurance societies for the purpose of insuring cattle against cattle plague; and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had said there had existed such a society in his county, in which property to the extent of £240,000 was insured, and that the amount was rapidly increasing. He would now ask the hon. Member, if he intended to take part in the debate, what had become of that society? He was afraid that its action had been stopped by the course adopted by the Government. He would also urge that his principle of insurance was admitted by the Bill itself. He had pointed out, yesterday, that such was the case in connection with the clause by which it was

  1869
  proposed to exclude the City of London from the charges imposed by the Metropolitan Board of Works; and he was justified in saying that the principle contained in the clause, that compensation should be borne by local rate, was, in itself, an admission of his contention. What could be more unfair—even taking for granted that the whole community should contribute—than that the particular district in which the plague broke out should not only suffer in consequence of the plague, but should, in addition, be charged with extra rates for the suppression of the disease? He only asked that the admission which he found in the Bill—that those who suffered loss should themselves bear the burden—might be carried to its logical conclusion; and that those who did not derive any profit from the trade should be relieved from the obligation of contributing to the insurance fund. He found that a proposal similar to that which he submitted was mentioned by the late hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley) in the year 1869, when he suggested that a tax of 1s. per head should be levied on all cattle for the purpose of supplying compensation; but an objection which, in his opinion, was conclusive, was urged against this scheme at the time—namely, that the fixed rate would break down just at the time when it was wanted, while nobody could say the precise sum that would be sufficient. He proposed that a sum should be levied in the nature of a tax for just such an amount as might, at the time, be found to be necessary. It must not be supposed that such a principle could not be applied in practice, because they were told by Professor Müller that a precisely similar law was in force for the suppression of cattle disease in Prussia. In Prussia there was a census taken of the animals in a district, and a certain tax was levied on those animals from time to time as required, in order to establish a fund out of which compensation was made. And the laws in force in that country with regard to compulsory slaughter were precisely similar to the one then under discussion. He had a very great objection to the proposal contained in the Bill—that compensation in the case of cattle plague should be paid out of the Imperial funds—and he would repeat the words of Sir George Grey, which, to his mind, were conclusive, with re-
  1870
  gard to payments from the Consolidated Fund—
  "That the principle of applying the public funds to compensate private loss was an extremely dangerous one."
  He (Mr. Chamberlain) could conceive nothing more likely to lead to reckless expenditure than the use of the bottomless purse of the nation for such a purpose.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
  In line 3, to leave out the words "out of money provided by Parliament," in order to insert the words "to be defrayed out of a special rate, to be assessed and levied in the nature of a capitation or poll-tax, according to the number of cattle possessed by any person within the county at the time of the slaughter."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  MR. CHAPLINwas bound to say that he regarded the facts adduced in illustration of the arguments to which they had just listened with feelings exactly opposite to those entertained by his hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain), who said that farmers were not entitled to compensation in case of the slaughter of their cattle.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I said I thought it would be exceedingly desirable to give them a reward for their information; but that they were not entitled to claim compensation.
  MR. CHAPLIN: How did the hon. Member proceed? He said if their stacks were struck by lightning they should not be compensated. Of course they would not be compensated for that which was a visitation of Providence; but the slaughter of cattle was perpetrated by Order of the Privy Council. But suppose proprietors had lost, say, their horses, not because they had been compulsorily slaughtered, but because they had been requisitioned for military purposes, would they not have been entitled to compensation for the loss sustained? Again, in the case of ships that went to the bottom, the hon. Member pointed out that the owners were not compensated for their loss. Of course they were not; but would the hon. Member say that if a ship was requisitioned for the purpose of conveying troops, that the owners were not entitled to compensation? He was obliged to say, with all respect to him, that he had never, in the whole course of his life, ever heard of anything so

  1871
  preposterous. The object of the measure was to stamp out disease, and to prevent its re-introduction from abroad. It was nothing less than a national question; and he could not understand how the hon. Member could think it just that farmers should be placed in the position of having their cattle slaughtered for the national good without receiving compensation. He (Mr. Chaplin) contended that, the object of the measure being a national one, the owners of slaughtered cattle should be compensated out of the national funds.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEdrew the attention of hon. Members opposite to the circumstance that many on his side of the House were far from thinking that the Bill would be likely to give the people cheaper meat. They were watching the passage of the measure too narrowly to let that be supposed. The hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had spoken of cattle infected with cattle disease as if they were live cattle; but he wished to submit to him that, on the contrary, they were almost as certainly dead as if they had been slaughtered; and, therefore, that part of his argument fell to the ground.
  MR. CLARE READcontended that the Privy Council had let in the cattle plague. It was quite possible for the Privy Council not merely to stamp out, but to keep out, the disease by the adoption of sufficiently stringent measures. Foreign cattle were imported for the benefit of the public; therefore compensation ought to be paid by the State. It was said that this compensation was for the benefit of the farmers; but was it not the fact, in the case of cattle plague generally, that the cowkeepers were more interested than farmers? There had been, in the last outbreak, but one case of a bonâ fide farmer, and he lived in Lincolnshire, being compensated for the slaughter of his cattle. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had said there was no precedent for compensation; but only a year or two ago they had passed the Destructive Insects Act, which said that crops in which the Colorado beetle was found should be destroyed, and the owner compensated out of the local rates. The cases were exactly similar. No doubt, a glandered horse could be killed without the owner receiving compensation; but nobody pretended that glan-
  1872
  ders was not indigenous, although it might have come from abroad some hundreds of years ago. What the hon. Member for Birmingham wished to do was to punish farmers and cowkeepers for having among their cattle a foreign disease for the importation of which they were in no wise responsible.
  MR. PEASEpointed out, that the question was only as to the payment of an inconsiderable sum yearly—say £13,000—from the Imperial fund, which might be further reduced. His view was that compensation was a fair compact between the town and the country, and ought to be provided out of the Imperial Exchequer.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was surprised at the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), when he spoke of the present measure as a piece of class legislation. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) thought he must have forgotten that he was in the House of Commons, and supposed himself to be addressing some other assembly. This was really an Imperial question. They had agreed, by a large majority, that the cattle trade should not be hampered in the way which the Bill at first contemplated; and they were going to let in clean cattle without discrimination to satisfy all parties in the country. It was not their intention for one moment to stop the supply of food. But the hon. Member tried to discredit the farmer in many ways. He ironically suggested that the farmers were not to be trusted to state whether they had or had not cattle plague on their farms, and that consequently they were to be offered a reward for giving information when cattle plague broke out. The farmers were not the men to hide for one moment the outbreak of so fatal a disease; and, therefore, the whole question must be looked at in its broadest view. The hon. Member, although he stated that in Prussia, under the municipal laws, payment was made by a poll tax for the cattle slaughtered for foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia, omitted most certainly to state that in the case of cattle plague slaughtered for cattle plague, the amount of compensation was paid out of funds provided by the Prussian Government. Pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease were treated differently here, and most properly—the

  1873
  payment being made out of the rates. If, therefore, the Government in Prussia paid the money for cases of cattle plague, that case was exactly analogous to what was to be done in this country. And then he asked again, referring to the Prussian system, why should they treat things in that exceptional way and with such class legislation? This was an utterly unworthy argument to be advanced by one who had since he had been in the House shown himself, up to the present time, so fair on all occasions. They had been prepared to make great concessions with regard to the Bill, and to place as few restrictions as possible in the way of meeting a great question of that kind. The question was an Imperial one; and he asked his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury on no account to move from their resolution not to alter the clause as laid down by the Bill.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that the only application of the argument concerning the Prussian system of dealing with cattle disease made use of by the hon. Member for Birmingham was for the purpose of showing that the adoption of a poll tax was not without precedent. As he understood the Bill, the Government were going to forbid the importation of cattle from all countries; and it was only by an act of mercy on the part of the Privy Council, and after the matter had been brought before Parliament, that, by some possibility, foreign cattle from some countries might be admitted. He contended that the presumption of the Government was disease, and their general rule slaughter. The argument in favour of compensation would, therefore, hardly hold good; but as soon as hon. Gentlemen opposite turned round and gave the presumption as against disease, they might count upon the support of Members on his side of the House. When the hon. Member (Mr. Clare Read) quoted the Act relating to the Colorado beetle, he argued against himself; because, in that case, compensation was awarded from the local rates, and not from the Imperial funds. He was not willing to admit that the Privy Council could by any regulations keep out cattle disease should it prevail in neighbouring parts of the Continent. As regarded compensation, he was of opinion, in the case of cattle actually diseased and which were practically dead, that there should be little
  1874
  or no compensation. And in the case of cattle in contiguity with those infected, he was disposed to think that compensation should come from the local rates, or, better still, from a poll tax or insurance tax.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) passed for an advanced politician; but upon this subject he had proved that, though he had been a Member of the Committee on Cattle Plague, he was on this subject at least 13 years behind public intelligence. The hon. Member had adverted to the fact that at his (Mr. Newdegate's) instance Warwickshire was the second county which, in 1865, adopted the system of insurance. This was done not merely on the principle of obtaining compensation, but because the magistrates found that, without some such machinery, their police regulations were totally inoperative in the detection of outbreaks of cattle disease. He believed that that Society, in which he was proved to have taken a part, still existed; and for years it had, in Warwickshire, been used to supplement the action of Parliament; but public intelligence had enormously advanced since 1865. He regretted to say that the hon. Member for Birmingham did not seem to have profited by the information. In 1865 he (Mr. Newdegate) was Chairman of the Royal Veterinary College; The Times was engaged for six weeks in writing the veterinary profession down, because they had avowed that they could not cure the cattle plague. To such an extent did ignorance of that fact prevail that, acting with the treasurer of the college, they took upon themselves the responsibility of building a yard for cattle suffering from the plague, and invited the public to send there any specimens they chose, promising, at the same time, to see fairly applied any specifics or nostrums that could be desired. Many experiments were made. The records of the College with regard to the former outbreak of cattle plague proved that the disease was incurable, and that fact was again illustrated by the experiments of 1865. These, however, satisfied the public. It was in 1865 that, seeing the want of information which prevailed at the time, he urged his friends in Warwickshire to form the insurance association he had

  1875
  mentioned, and it was highly useful afterwards; because the first measures which Parliament adopted were insufficient, in respect of the compensation offered, to procure rapid and immediate information of the outbreaks of disease. The action of Parliament was in Warwickshire supplemented by using the funds of that Society. He believed that the existence of those societies went far to convince Parliament that the objects of their supporters were not merely selfish, and these were chiefly of the agricultural classes. These insurance societies were the forerunners of the legislation which existed. He trusted that the hon. Member for Birmingham would not press his Motion, for it reflected more on the conduct of Parliament than on the conduct of the agricultural body. It was somewhat surprising that the hon. Member, living in the county which was within a few hours the first to manifest its readiness to protect itself, should now come forward, after experience had proved that no local efforts could meet the difficulty, and impute to the agricultural body generally, and to his immediate neighbours, motives, which the conduct of his neighbours had, from the first, proved them to be incapable of entertaining.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINthought it his duty immediately to reply to the very strong personal attack which had been made upon him, and which, he ventured to say, was not justified by anything he had said in the course of the debate. He was quite unable to understand what was meant by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), and was not aware that he had said anything unworthy of his position as a Member of the House. He said that he (Mr. Chamberlain) was forgetting his position as a Member of the House, and supposed that he was addressing some other assembly. He had not spoken to any assembly outside. The hon. Member suggested that he had spoken of the Bill as a piece of class legislation. All he had said was that measures of the kind were regarded with a great deal of prejudice by persons who were not conversant with the trade; but after the observations of the hon. and gallant Member, he did not mind saying that the Bill did constitute one of the worst Acts of class legislation which had been
  1876
  passed, or was likely to be passed, for some years. He had shown that there was absolutely no precedent for compensating any trade at the expense of the whole community. With regard to the precedent of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), it was another case of the agricultural interest endeavouring to protect itself against what he called the visitation of Providence. The hon. and gallant Member had continued to impute that he had ironically charged the farmers with an offence against which they so strongly protested; but he had only quoted the words of Professor Brown, in the evidence which he gave before the Committee, when he said that he could not depend upon the then compensation as a means of securing information. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not make this as a charge which involved any moral obliquity on the part of the persons concerned. He had read it to the Committee as part of the reason why that reward or compensation should be hereafter very considerably increased.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the Amendment suggested to the Committee was that, instead of following the legislation with regard to compensation which had been acted upon for so many years, it should create a fresh system of compensation, and that it should be levied on the district where the disease broke out. Now, with respect to the kind of cattle plague with which they were dealing, it had been held to be so fatal that it was desirable to hold out inducements for procuring the earliest information on the subject, and the object which the Committee had in view was to provide compensation for the cattle that were slaughtered; and if cattle were to be slaughtered indiscriminately, he considered it only fair that compensation should be given out of Imperial funds.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYopposed the Amendment. The cases which had apparently guided the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) to his conclusions were not really applicable. The instances really in point showed that the proposal of the Government was a just one, and founded on experience. He would take the case of cargo jettisoned at sea in stress of weather, which was exactly in point. It sometimes happened that a ship's captain

  1877
  was justified, according to law, in throwing overboard a part of the cargo. The owner of the part of the cargo which was thrown overboard did not bear the sacrifice which was made for the benefit of all. On the arrival of the vessel at port, the loss was distributed amongst the owners of the rest of the cargo and of the ship. According to the reasoning of the hon. Member for Birmingham, the owner of the cargo which had been jettisoned was not to receive compensation at all, notwithstanding that his property was sacrificed to save the rest. The Government proposed, in the clause under discussion, to interfere with the animals belonging to individuals, and to cause them to be slaughtered for the general benefit of the nation, which was thus exactly in the same place as the owners of the ship and cargo at sea. In the present case, the cost was not for the benefit of the farmers or cow keepers, but for that of the nation generally, and he had not heard it even contended that this was not an Imperial question. If it were only a question of dealing with disease amongst their herds, it would be simply a matter for the farmers, and the House would have nothing to do with it. But he defied hon. Members to show a case where the property of individuals had been destroyed, however worthless at the time, and where the owners of that property had not received compensation. The question, in his opinion, was not one affecting farmers only, and he thought it could be safely said that if pleuro-pneumonia were to be put down, the reduction in the cost of milk would be very considerable. There was, no doubt, an enormously heavy loss continually arising throughout the United Kingdom from that disease, which largely increased the cost of the production of milk, and added very much to its cost to the consumer. He wished particularly to dwell upon, the point that if pleuro-pneumonia were exterminated by this legislation, the nation would greatly benefit by getting a better and a cheaper supply of milk. The principle which was behind the custom of general average for loss at sea seemed to him to be entirely in point in the present case; it was a principle which was not disputed amongst mercantile people, and, he believed, was adopted by all civilized nations. The question before the Committee was, whether the country was to
  1878
  compensate the owners of the destroyed property or not? He was very much opposed to sanctioning claims upon the Imperial Exchequer, for he believed that much more extravagant demands were made upon the Imperial funds than were usually claimed from local rates. Therefore, he should wish, as far as possible, to place a burden of this kind upon the local rates. The case of cattle plague was very different from that of pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease. Both the latter diseases were now indigenous in this country; whereas cattle plague had been, for the present at least, stamped out. For that reason, he thought the burden arising from pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease should be placed upon the rates. Cattle plague, he believed, was almost in every case brought into the country by imported cattle, which cattle had been imported for the general benefit of the nation. From the nature of the disease it was likely to break out in any locality, and not in the particular district which might happen to be benefited by the importation of foreign stock. It was only fair, in the case of the cattle plague, to make the loss an Imperial one. With regard to the other diseases, he considered that the charge should be made upon the local rates rather than upon the Imperial Exchequer. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birmingham as to the imposition of a poll tax, a great deal, no doubt, could be said in its favour. But, considering that the adoption of such a policy would be much akin to that with regard to turnpike roads, when it used to be thought sound policy that only the people who used the roads should pay for them, but when now it was recognized to be better policy to impose the burden upon the whole locality which the roads benefited. Upon the principle of the modern turnpike legislation, he thought that the rates should be levied upon all the owners of property in the locality, and not upon the owners of animals only; for there could be no doubt that the inhabitants of the locality would be benefited by the suppression of the disease in their midst, besides obtaining meat and milk at reduced rates. Therefore, if there were to be interference with the property of the owners of animals for the general benefit and advantage, he thought it would be

  1879
  just, as well as expedient, to allow them compensation from the local rates.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas surprised at the extreme amount of heat which had been introduced into the discussion, for he must confess that he did not look upon this particular question as one of very great importance. No doubt, all questions of compensation were important as a matter of principle; but, in the present case, there was not much fear that there would be an annual charge. They had had two attacks of cattle plague since the great one; both were quickly got rid of; and he should look forward to the time when its appearance would be met by measures which should at once insure its being checked. Although, by the Act of 1869, compensation was to be paid out of the local rates to the owners of animals slaughtered as being infected or suspected, the Committee of 1867 recommended that it should be paid out of the Imperial funds. He thought there was a great deal to be said for keeping these burdens upon the local rates. Generally speaking, he considered this burden ought to fall upon the locality which might fairly be said to be benefited. But it must be admitted that there were, in this special case, two circumstances to be taken into consideration. In the first place, the Bill proposed to take from the local authority power to deal with the cattle plague. The Privy Council were to take the matter entirely into their own hands, and he had no doubt that this would be the better plan. But to pass from model justice to practical legislation, he thought it would be very inconvenient if the Inspectors of the Privy Council were to have the power of imposing serious expenses on the local rates. Therefore, he should reserve his opinion with regard to the principle, remembering that their object was then to meet an exceptional case by an exceptional remedy, and to allow the Privy Council to take the matter into their own hands. If the cattle plague re-appeared, it would probably come upon one or two districts, either London, or the East of Lincolnshire, or the East Riding of Yorkshire. They were more open to this disease than other places. No doubt, a district suffered very considerably by the cattle plague; because it was the duty of the Privy Council instantly to interfere with particular localities in the
  1880
  most serious manner. There was something to be said, therefore, in favour of placing the burden on the Exchequer, although it would not be sufficient to justify infringing a principle, if such were involved. The proposition of the hon. Member for Birmingham was not to place local rates in the place of the Imperial taxes, but to substitute a poll tax on the owners of cattle within a county at the time of the slaughter. The chief objection to that proposition was that it would be extremely difficult to levy such a tax; and, in his opinion, it would cost more to collect than would be procured by it. It was the business of the Government to keep out the cattle plague. While Vice President of the Privy Council, he was extremely anxious when he found he had to deal with the cattle plague. He thought it was the business of the Government to keep it out; and, therefore, he did not consider that they would be acting fairly in compensating for loss by the cattle plague by means of a poll tax. If the tax were only to be imposed to compensate for loss from pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease, his only difficulty was that he did not see how it could be done. He quite admitted that it would be a right principle upon which to assess compensation; but after admitting so much, it was hardly necessary that he should say that he did not think that this was a case for the poll tax. With regard to the other questions, he would reserve his opinions.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, that with regard to the case of general average, the fact was that when goods were thrown overboard the loss was borne by all who received benefit from the sacrifice. That was exactly what was proposed by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain); for he wished compensation to be paid by the other farmers and cowkeepers in a county whose animals would suffer from disease if those infected were not destroyed. Moreover, the owners of goods in a ship did not contribute beyond 3 per cent, nor could they recover anything for their loss, unless the ship was insured. With respect to the question whether this ought to be a burden upon the Imperial funds or not, he did not consider that those who contended it was an Imperial matter had proved their case. It had been said that the suppression of the

  1881
  disease would increase the number of cattle and reduce the price of milk; but, judging by numerous communications which he had had from farmers, he concluded that under no circumstances would more cattle be kept than at the present time. The question was, whether this destruction of cattle was for the benefit of the owners of cattle generally, or for that of the public? With reference to stamping out the disease, he did not think that it would be possible altogether to do so, and as the benefit to the public was based only on the presumed increased supply of meat and milk, he could not see that the effect of the Act would be exclusively for their benefit.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYwished to state that he believed the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) was entirely mistaken in supposing that there was any such limitation as he had indicated in the case of goods jettisoned. It was what was called a general average, and the loss was borne by the ship freight in cargo, in proportion to their several values, when they arrived in port.
  Amendment, to insert "local authority," instead of "Privy Council," negatived.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he proposed to take a division upon the second Amendment, which provided that compensation, payable out of this Bill, should be paid out of a special rate in the nature of a poll tax, according to the number of the cattle possessed by any person within a county at the time of slaughter.
  Question put, "That the words 'out of money provided by Parliament' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 30: Majority 154.—(Div. List, No. 224.)
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved, in page 6, line 31, after "be," to insert "three-fourths of the loss arising from the slaughter of the animal based on." The hon. Gentleman said, he moved the Amendment because, from his experience, it was a great advantage to induce farmers to co-operate with the local authorities in making the loss as small as possible. By the Bill as it stood, the farmer would get compensation, whether
  1882
  he put himself to some trouble to diminish the loss, or whether he was regardless in the matter. Directly a place was declared to be infected with cattle plague, if a farmer knew that he could get compensated in full he would take no trouble. But if the Amendment were adopted, the farmer would understand that one-fourth of the loss would fall upon himself, and he would therefore do his best to diminish it. This question occupied a considerable portion of the time of the Committee of 1873. They recommended that whatever compensation was paid should bear some proportion to the owner's loss. He hoped that the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would consider that recommendation, and whether legislation would not act best if the farmer were given an interest in diminishing the loss. Several local authorities supported this view.
  MR. CLARE READagreed with the principle propounded by the hon. Member for Forfarshire, that the farmer should be given an interest in the salvage, and so aid in diminishing the evil from the slaughter of his cattle. But in cattle plague he thought compensation of half the value was enough. It should also be remembered that there was a difference with regard to cattle plague, where the carcase was buried, and pleuro-pneumonia, where the salvage was considerable.
  MR. WHITWELLthought it would be better to leave the question as it was, although it might be well to disqualify the farmer under certain circumstances from receiving a portion of the compensation.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that Clause 29, paragraph 7, provided that the Privy Council were to have power to withhold compensation in such cases as in the exercise of their discretion they thought fit. He could not accept the Amendment proposed. In the first place, it was on the recommendation of the Committee that it was proposed in the sub-section to give compensation amounting to half the value of diseased animals for the full value of animals that were not diseased. It was proposed that in the latter case the awarding of the full compensation should be in the discretion of the Privy Council, with respect to the point raised as to whether the value given should be that

  1883
  of the animals slaughtered, or loss arising to its owner from its slaughter. The Committee would see how difficult it would be to estimate the amount of evil arising to an owner from the slaughter of his cattle; whereas the value of the animal was easily ascertained, and no difficulty would arise.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that the Bill as it stood proposed that the owners of animals not infected should be compensated for their loss. He believed that it was quite possible to give a fair compensation, and yet to treat it in such a manner that the cowkeeper or farmer was given an interest in reducing the evil. He, therefore, proposed that the compensation should be three-fourths of the loss arising to the owner. In estimating that loss, he did not contemplate taking into account general or indirect damage. But he thought that if owners had interest in reducing the loss, the owner of the animal affected would put himself to trouble to prevent the spreading of the disease amongst his herd, and also see that proper precautions were taken in respect of quarantine when bringing in new animals.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that it would be a fair question to consider whether the owners of animals slaughtered should be compensated for the full value, or for some proportion of it; but, in any case, it was the value of the animal which must be the basis of the compensation, or else the matter would become unnecessarily complicated.
  MR. SYNANthought the Amendment was rather ambiguous in its terms, and that before it could be adopted by the Committee it must be made clearer. He hoped that the hon. Member, in the interest of those whose cause he advocated, would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that the Amendment would be free from ambiguity, as it provided that the compensation should be three-fourths of the loss arising from the slaughter of the animal, based upon the value of it immediately before it was so slaughtered. But after the expressions of opinion to which he had listened, he should ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, who had given Notice of the following Amendment, in page 6, after line 33, to insert:—
  1884
  "Provided, That no compensation shall be granted in respect of any animal slaughtered when the owner or the person having charge thereof has teen guilty in relation to such animal of any act in contravention of this Act, or of any order, regulation, or licence of the Privy Council, or of a local authority, or has, in relation to such animal, failed to comply with the provisions of this Act, or of any such order, regulation, or licence, in respect of the giving of notice of disease, or in any other respect;"
  said, he did not now propose to move it, because he found it was provided for in Clause 29.
  Clause agreed to.

  Pleuro-pneumonia.
  Clause 16 (Declaration of infected place in pleuro-pneumonia by local authority).
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN MR. CHAMBERLAIN moved, in page 6, line 35, to leave out "twenty-eight," and insert "fifty-six." There was an inconsistency in the Bill as it now stood. The insertion of 28 days in the clause was inconsistent with Clause 20, where 56 days appeared as the period after the expiration of which the local authority might order a place to be declared free from pleuro-pneumonia. Professor Brown said that he had repeatedly known two months to elapse before pleuro-pneumonia appeared. In cross-examination, he said that nothing had occurred since 1872 to shake his opinion upon that subject. That testimony was confirmed by Professor Simonds, who said that 56 days was not always sufficient for the period of incubation. And an Irish witness, Professor Baldwin, who seemed to represent the agricultural interests of Ireland, had an interview with the Lord President of the Council with reference to this matter, and pointed out that cases had arisen in his experience in which the outbreak of disease had occurred at a much longer period than 56 days, and in one of the cases which he mentioned, three months had elapsed between the outbreak of cases. In the interest of stock owners, therefore, it would be well that a period from which the Inspector could declare the place for pleuro-pneumonia should be stated.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought that the hon. Member for Birmingham had slightly misunderstood the clause. It referred to a case in which an Inspector discovered pleuro-pneumonia, and it was only on that

  1885
  account that he was to declare the place infected. If declared infected, it would remain so for 56 days after the disease had ceased.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINdid not think that the hon. Baronet quite followed the point which he wished to make.
  MR. SYNANconsidered the circumstances upon which the hon. Member for Birmingham based his Amendment to be extremely doubtful. There had been instances in Ireland in which the disease had re-appeared after three months' immunity; but that was not due to previous infection, but to an entirely fresh and separate outbreak. Indeed, he had never known a case of a farm where, after a lapse of 28 days, the disease had propagated itself by succession; so that it appeared to him it was really very little matter, practically, whether they made the period 28 days or 56.
  MR. O'SULLIVANalso asserted that the recurrence of disease within three months was generally due not to a continuation of a former outbreak, but to fresh infection; and, therefore, he contended that the limit might stand at 28 days, as proposed by the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SYNAN MR. SYNAN moved, in page 6, line 37, to insert the words "not being a fair, or market-place, or wharf," after the word "place" in the clause. In Ireland the fair-places were not so well in closed, nor the market-places so ornate as in England; there were neither sheds, nor stalls, nor pens, nor anything else for the accommodation of animals. The gatherings, in fact, were generally held in a field, upon which, perhaps, there had not been any cattle for a year before; therefore, there could not be any pleuro-pneumonia existing in such a "place." Yet, under the Bill, it would be open to an Irish Inspector—perhaps an unprofessional man, knowing nothing about cattle diseases, and consequently likely, in most cases, to be mistaken—of his own motion to serve notice on the occupiers declaring the field to be an "infected place." What would be the result of such a proceeding at Ballinasloe, for instance? Why, that all the people would rush from the fair under the apprehension that their beasts would be detained there for 56 days—and, as a consequence, an
  1886
  end would virtually be put to the whole cattle trade of Ireland—every market and fair would practically be extinguished. He could not conceive that the Secretary to the Treasury would decline to make a concession which was simply intended to plainly and unmistakably define what to every lawyer was the obvious meaning of the clause. The clause as it was framed would work the greatest mischief that had ever been inflicted on Ireland, and would stir up the dealers to active hostility towards the Bill.
  MR. WHITWELLurged that it was very desirable that the exemptions under the Bill should not be made too numerous or too large, otherwise markets and fairs would very speedily become the centres of infection.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that he had not, since the Amendment was placed on the Paper, had an opportunity of consulting the draftsman who drew the Bill. His own opinion had been that no tribunal having to construe the clauses would have any difficulty in coming to the opinion that markets and fairs were dealt with under Clause 26; but, as it was now stated that an exceptional state of things existed in Ireland, he would agree to look into the question with the draftsman with a view to seeing if some words could not be inserted in the clause that would get over the difficulty which had been raised. He could not, however, at that moment, undertake to accept the Amendment.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYhoped that the Secretary to the Treasury would place the meaning of the Bill beyond all doubt by inserting a Proviso that the Bill should not apply to any markets or fairs in Ireland.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONrepeated that he had not had an opportunity of consulting with the draftsman as to the effect of the words of the clause in reference to markets and fairs in Ireland; but that he would do so, and communicate the result to hon. Members the next day.
  MR. ANDERSONwas afraid, if exceptions were made in favour of markets and fairs in Ireland, that the real object of the Bill would be defeated, and that the "places" themselves would become hotbeds of disease. The exceptional state of things alluded to by the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr.

  1887
  Synan) was, in his opinion, fully provided for under Clause 26; and, therefore, he thought the Secretary to the Treasury ought at once to refuse to make any alteration in the Bill.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYmaintained that it was perfectly clear that Clause 16 was intended to apply to markets and fairs such as had been referred to by the hon. Member for Limerick County; but what was wanted was that the Government should make clear its intention on the subject, especially as the condition of the two countries was entirely different. He agreed that if the clause were enforced against Ireland, the result would be to stop the whole cattle trade of the country.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINadmitted that those who desired to make the Bill a real Bill would have to give their attention to the case of Ireland; but, in this matter, he confessed his opinion that if the farmers of England were ready to submit to severe restrictions for stamping out disease, the farmers of Ireland should do the same, or else consent to be treated as a foreign country. Professor Simonds, in his evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords, stated that if it were seriously intended to stamp-out pleuro-pneumonia and "foot-and-mouth," it would be absolutely necessary to stop such a fair as Ballinasloe, at least until the disease had passed away; and that being the testimony on which they ought to act, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would not alter the clause as suggested.
  MR. SYNANthought the spirit of his Amendment had been misapprehended. He did not want any special advantages for Ireland; all he claimed was that Ireland should not be put under conditions which in England would not be tolerated for a moment. He contended that, under the 26th clause, it was within the power of the Privy Council to stop Ballinasloe, or any other market or fair in Ireland; and he was entirely at a loss to see what objection there could be to remove an ambiguity which might lead to mischief and bad feeling. He was ready, however, to accept the offer of the Secretary to the Treasury, on the understanding that the consideration of that part of the clause to which his Amendment applied was postponed.
  Mr. J. COWENwas of opinion that the question raised by the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan) affected the whole point of the Bill. One of two things ought to be done; either Ireland should be treated in absolutely the same way as England, or she should be put in the category of a foreign country. How could Ireland expect to be placed on a footing with England unless she consented to the same restrictions? It was an irrefutable fact, that in the North of England more disease came from Ireland than from any Continental country he could mention. If the object of the Bill was really to stamp out disease, it was well that the Government and the Committee should fully understand the position of Ireland in this matter, and that they should see that it was absolutely necessary that the restrictions should apply equally to both countries.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, his opposition to the second reading of the Bill was because it seemed conceived in the spirit of that legislation which, in a former age, treated cattle importations from Ireland as a common nuisance, and prohibited them entirely; and that he thought was, to some extent, the spirit in which the Bill was framed, and as it was desired it should pass, and if Irish Members endeavoured to get special exemptions, that was what they might bring on themselves. If the exceptional provisions which the Irish Members were now trying to obtain were conceded, before the Privy Council could interfere, the fairs or markets would become hotbeds of disease; so, unless the Secretary to the Treasury retained the clause as it stood, the purpose of the Bill would be defeated.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. M'LAGANreferred to the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, making it compulsory, instead of optional, to extend the limits of the "declared" place to adjoining buildings, and announced that he intended to withdraw it in favour o the Motion about to be proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, by which he thought the largest amount of security would be obtained.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN MR. CHAMBERLAIN moved, in page 7, line 16, at end, to insert—

  1889
  "And should include within those limits all other lands or buildings adjoining or near thereto, and in the same occupation."
  The object of the Amendment, he said, was to carry out the recommendations made to the Committee of the House of Lords. Professor Simonds, in his evidence before their Lordships, objected to the limited area which it was competent for an Inspector to declare infected, and advised that the "declaration" should be enlarged to all lands and premises held by the same occupier, with power to extend the area even further. In "another place," both Professor Simonds and Professor Brown agreed that some such regulations were absolutely necessary, if an attempt was to be made to stamp out disease. He thought the Committee must agree that it was undesirable to place any more discretion in the hands of the local authorities than had already been conceded; but if they were unwilling to trust the Privy Council in this matter, it would be a curious thing to leave so much to the subordinate body.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 17, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "relates," in line 19, inclusive, in order to insert the words "shall include."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CLARE READwished the Committee to remember the great difference between pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease. Experiments seemed to prove that pleuro-pneumonia could only be communicated by the breath of the living animal; what made it so dangerous was the long and uncertain period of its incubation. In the case of pleuro-pneumonia, therefore, a comparatively small area of "declaration" would suffice. He begged to call the attention of the hon. Member for Birmingham to the fact that the evidence he had quoted was given entirely in reference to foot-and-mouth disease. He thought the Bill, as it stood, was quite sufficient to meet all cases of pleuro-pneumonia.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be practically to take away the discretion of the local authorities. The difference
  1890
  between pleuro-pneumonia and the diseases to be dealt with by the Privy Council, under previous clauses, was very great. If, in pleuro-pneumonia, the period of incubation lasted a considerable time, the means of communicating the disease was much more limited; and, therefore, the necessity for proscribing a very large area did not exist. By the present clause, they simply gave power to the local authority to "declare" any place which it might think it wise or necessary to place under that ban; and he ventured to think that if they deprived the local authority of that discretion in the matter of a disease which, whilst it was contagious, was not so subtle as others, it would be a tendency to induce such local authority to slacken its action.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, by further quotation from the evidence given before the Lords' Committee, showed that the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) was mistaken in supposing that the testimony of Professor Simonds referred only to foot-and-mouth disease. He reminded the Committee that witnesses well qualified to represent the agricultural interest had stated, over and over again, that the farmers were quite willing to submit to severe regulations if a really effective attempt was to be made to stamp out disease. It would be very unwise, then, now that they were engaged in such an attempt, that all the sacrifices which were ready to be made should be rendered useless by concessions to just one of the many interests concerned.
  MR. MACDONALDmaintained that if Professor Simonds classed pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease together, he could not have been a very reliable authority, since everyone knew that they required entirely different treatment. He would only say, so much for experts. Pleuro-pneumonia, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk had said, could only be communicated by the breath of the living animal; and it was possible, therefore, to confine the disease to a small space. He thought it would be unwise to put upon the farmers, or those who kept cattle, any unnecessary restrictions.
  MR. M'LAGANremarked, that as this was the first Bill that had been introduced with the avowed object of stamping out cattle disease, the farmers

  1891
  of the country ought to show a disposition to submit to very severe regulations. It was quite true that pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease required different treatment, and that the latter was more infectious than the former; but yet it seemed to him to be necessary that they should have as strict regulations for the one as for the other, since when pleuro-pneumonia broke out it most frequently extended to a whole district. The object of the hon. Member for Birmingham was to make a prescribed area greater than that contained in the Bill, and that was also the object of the Amendment of which he (Mr. M'Lagan) had given Notice. The number of animals that had been lost through pleuro-pneumonia had been very great indeed, and an extension of area would be in the interests of the farmers themselves; because it would make those who occupied adjoining farms look after the matter and endeavour, as far as they could, to prevent their herds becoming affected. In this way the extension of the area would not only be in the interests of the farmers, but also in the interests of their neighbours. In every district he found that the farmers were anxious to go to the markets and purchase cattle, without taking the trouble to ascertain whether they were affected by disease or not. They brought them home to the very gates of their neighbours, and no one was able to tell what the loss really was which resulted from this practice. Therefore, if an extension of the prescribed area would have the effect of making the persons living in that area look after not only their own interests, but those of the adjoining farmers, a very good result would be accomplished. On these grounds, it would be advantageous that they should extend the area as suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham. So far as his (Mr. M'Lagan's) Amendment was concerned, he should not move it, if he found the general feeling of the House against the principle of the hon. Member for Birmingham. If, however, his hon. Friend carried his Amendment to a division, he (Mr. M'Lagan) should feel bound to support him.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary to the Treasury to explain, whether Sub-section 2 of Clause 17, on page 8 of the Bill, would apply to those cases? That sub-section said that—
  1892
  "The Privy Council may, from time to time, if they think fit, by order extend the limits of a place infected with pleuro-pneumonia, declared either by a local authority or by the Privy Council."
  It was a matter for consideration whether it would be necessary for the hon. Member for Birmingham to propose a new clause when they had already a clause in the Bill which carried out the same object.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the sub-section referred to did not meet his intentions in proposing the Amendment. It provided that—
  "The Privy Council may from time to time, if they think fit, by order extend the limits of a place infected with pleuro-pneumonia declared either by a local authority or by the Privy Council."
  That was a very round a bout way. What he wanted to insist upon was that the local authorities should in every place, without an appeal to the Privy Council or anybody else, declare that all lands in the same occupation constituted an infected place. He considered the Amendment to be of considerable importance, and he should certainly carry it to a division.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the Amendment tended to carry out the principle he had himself endeavoured to establish. It was quite true that pleuro-pneumonia could not be communicated to a live animal except by contact; but they were bound to make provision against the possibility of contact in taking cattle from one field to another. Then, again, animals might come in contact with each other across fences. The question was, however, whether this Amendment was necessary, or whether it was desirable that the district or infected place should be extended so as to include all lands and buildings in the same occupation? He understood this to be the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He certainly thought that in that case they should make the regulations as stringent and effectual as possible, and not leave the matter to the discretion of the Inspector, who might be open to local influences. His own opinion was that in every case where disease existed the provisions of the Act ought to be carried into effect, whether one particular field or stable was infected or not.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, it was provided by the Bill that the Inspector was to

  1893
  make a declaration, which declaration was to be sent to the local authority; and the local authority was then, if they considered it necessary, to call in extra assistance—namely, that of the veterinary surgeon. The clause gave them the power to go even beyond the land referred to in the declaration. The section or clause now under discussion said—
  "If the local authority are satisfied of the correctness of the Inspector's declaration as regards the existence or past existence of disease, they shall by order determine and declare accordingly, and prescribe the limits of the place infected with pleuro-pneumonia, and may, if if they think fit, include within those limits any lands or buildings adjoining or near to the cowshed, field, or other place to which the Inspector's declaration relates."
  He was afraid that the adoption of the Amendment would, in reality, limit the jurisdiction of the local authority to something definite; whereas, at present, the clause gave them full power to go beyond the Inspector's declaration, and to take cognizance of adjoining lands, which might by possibility be infected by disease.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought there was a difficulty in the matter. It was exceedingly important, in regard to the action of the Privy Council, that it should be known what the Government meant by the word "place." He thought it was most desirable that they should have a definition of that word, especially in connection with the home diseases. At present the clause read—"cowshed, field, or other place;" but something more definite ought to be given. Until they knew exactly what was meant by "place," they did not know what they had to deal with at all; and, therefore, he thought he might fairly ask the Government what they meant by "place" in the words "cowshed, field, or other place?" They had now before them an Amendment to increase the limits within which the Act should apply; but, in the first instance, it was necessary that they should know what the place was before they increased the limit of it. He should be much obliged if the Secretary to the Treasury would give some information to the Committee.
  MR. SYNANwas sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not present when the discussion occurred on the word "place" in connection with another
  1894
  part of the Bill. Probably the right hon. Gentleman might have forced the Treasury to come to some conclusion on the subject. He (Mr. Synan) offered what he considered convincing arguments to show that the word "place" ought not to be allowed to remain undefined, and that it should not include such places as fairs, markets, and wharves. He could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham on plain and obvious grounds. In the first place, it was somewhat strange that they, not being professional men, acquainted with this particular disease, should endeavour to draw a hard-and-fast line in the clause, taking away all discretion from professional men who were called upon to report as to the disease, and who were the best judges how a particular locality infected with the disease ought to be extended. No doubt, in the case of pleuro-pneumonia, the narrower they made the area the better it would be for the purpose of stamping out the disease. The hon. Member for Birmingham, however, seemed to be of opinion that the best course would be to make the area as large as possible. Now, suppose the hon. Member had two farms, of 1,000 acres each, with a cowshed at the end of one of them and another cowshed at the end of the other. If the disease affected one of the farms, the shed upon that farm would be very far away from the shed upon the other, and it would not be necessary to include the whole of the two farms in the application of the Act. To his (Mr. Synan's) mind, it would be better to leave this matter to the professional men who were investigating the case. They would know what parts of the farm were infected, and would be the best judges within what limits to extend or define the boundaries of the infected area. He thought it would be much better to leave this matter to the professional men, rather than draw a hard-and-fast line taking all discretion away from him.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that as he understood the clause and the object of the Bill, it was, while giving the fullest possible power to the local authority to extend the limits whenever they thought it desirable, to restrict, as far as possible, the first initiative or the first danger. In the Act passed by the right hon. Member for Bradford

  1895
  (Mr. W. E. Forster) the area was similarly limited to a cowshed, field, or other place.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked what was the meaning of the word "place?"
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsupposed that place meant about the same thing as was meant by the other words in the clause. A "place" would be a similar thing to a cowshed or a field—a farm-yard or a building connected with a farm-yard. When they wanted to go into a larger area the local authority had to define what the limits were. He thought that would be safer than laying down a distinctly larger area in the first place. There was considerable force, he thought, in the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan). If they took the terms of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham, they might have a person who had two farms or even more in common contiguity, and who, under these words, would practically be restricted from removing his cattle in a farm where no disease existed, because he happened to have disease on another farm in his occupation. He thought that, on the whole, the Committee would see that ample power was given to the local authorities to deal with this disease, which was admitted not to be as infectious as the disease they had dealt with in a previous clause. It was not desirable to extend the meaning of the word "place," so as to cover any amount of ground as foreshadowed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, there was no doubt that power was given to the local authority to extend the limit; but the question was, what the local authority were directed to do? His hon. Friend said that "place" meant something like a cowshed or field. But the point was—what was like a cowshed or field? [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: A farm-yard.] Was it to apply to a wharf, pen, or lair? The Committee at present were absolutely in the dark, unless they knew what the "place" was where the disease existed, because the stamping-out arrangements were to spring from the "place" where the disease began. When they once came to the conclusion that a place was infected, then there was to be power to
  1896
  enlarge it—and if a case of pleuro-pneumonia was discovered, it would be possible to declare the district round it infected with the disease; but, unless they knew what the area was to be, they would be absolutely in the dark. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham was that they should include within that limit all other land and buildings adjoining. What he wanted to know was what it was adjoining, and what it was near? He knew it was not a very easy thing to define; but he thought that the Government, before carrying into effect any stamping out measures, should define, in their own minds, what waste be the place to begin with. He understood what a cowshed was, and what a field was; but he had a very vague notion of what a "place" was, especially when the Secretary to the Treasury told him that it was something like this. He wanted to know in what respect it was like it?
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, it occurred to him that the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and those who took the same view, that a very precise definition should be given to the word "place," they were defeating the object they had in view in passing the Bill. If there was a cowshed or lair in any other part of a farm away from the spot where the disease broke out, it might be said that the disease did not occur there; and, therefore, he thought that the word "place" was the proper word to use, because, under that word, they could lay hold of any portion of the farm and of any place which came within the meaning of the Act. If the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted, they would only give a more vague definition, which might, he thought, have the effect of enabling an offender to escape, if the part of his property infected with the disease did not happen to come within the definition. Under these circumstances, he thought the word "place" was the most correct word that could be put into the Bill. He had listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan). There was no man in the House whose observations upon any question respecting cattle or farming would be received with more respect, except, probably, those of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read); but his argument upon the

  1897
  Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham was a very extraordinary one. The hon. Member said that if pleuro-pneumonia broke out in one farm, it would be sure to break out in the next. Now, what did that mean? If it were correct, it meant that when once pleuro-pneumonia occurred, it must extend all over the country. Now, as far as his own knowledge and experience went—and ho knew something about it, personally—he was not aware that when pleuro-pneumonia broke out in one farm, it was a necessary sequence that it should break out in the farm adjoining.
  MR. CLARE READwas prepared to endorse what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald). It was quite possible for cattle on a farm to be free from disease, while cattle on the same farm were affected with it. If, however, they were allowed to come into contact with each other, or to smell each other across a hedge, it was possible for the disease to be communicated. But his own experience—which, he was sorry to say, ranged over a long period—in regard to pleuro-pneumonia, was directly in contradiction to the experience of his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan). He did not think that the disease did spread from farm to farm, unless the animals were brought into immediate contiguity to each other. In regard to this clause, he thought they must give the local authority a certain discretionary power. The circumstances, for instance, were not always the same. Take a farm in the winter and in the summer. As his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) said, in the winter months the cattle might be in a cowhouse or in a yard, and what would be the use of declaring the whole of 1,000 acres of land infected, when they could isolate all the cattle desired in a much smaller area? On the other hand, if that same farm was a grazing farm, in the summer months it would be found necessary to place the whole of it under a ban, and, perhaps, to go considerably beyond the farm itself. He, therefore, thought that this was a matter that ought to be left to the discretion of the local authority. He was certainly of opinion that the disease was not so contagious as any other disease they had to deal with.
  MR. PEASEwished to point out to his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), that by Sub-section 6—
  "If the local authority are satisfied of the correctness of the Inspector's declaration as regards the existence, or past existence, of disease, they shall, by order, determine and declare accordingly, and prescribe the limits of the place infected with pleuro-pneumonia, and may, if they think fit, include within those limits any lands or buildings adjoining, or near to, the cowshed, field, or other place to which the Inspector's declaration relates."
  Therefore, as his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had pointed out, the discretion in defining what was to be a "place" really rested with the local authority, and that was the only thing, he thought, the Committee could adopt. If they assented to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, they would place the farm which he (Mr. Pease) occupied in a condition of very considerable difficulty. The farm he referred to, which was in his own occupation, was several miles long, and situated on a hill side. If disease broke out upon it, there was no reason whatever why the whole place should be declared infected, especially when the place where the disease broke out could be easily defined.
  MR. GREGORYcould not help thinking that they were fighting for a shadow in taking issue upon that word "place." They ought to take the whole of these clauses together; and, if they did, they would find that the Inspector was to make a report and serve a notice. Upon that notice and report, the cowshed, field, or other place infected with the disease would be determined. It was to such a place so determined as infected that Sub-section 6 would apply. If they attempted to define the place more strictly, they would miss their whole object, and exclude a number of buildings, fields, or pens, which would be brought within the meaning of the clause by using the term now applied. Now, with respect to the clause and the Proviso proposed, he would point out a case within his own knowledge. He happened to have a farm held by a tenant who held another farm under another landlord. Both, however, were in the same occupation, although one was two miles away from the other. The

  1899
  Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham said—"adjoining or near to." Now, "near to" was very vague, and if they gave it to any local authority to determine the meaning of these words, they might depend upon it that very different definitions would be given. In another case within his own knowledge, a tenant occupied two farms, one a mile from the other. Was this to be considered "near?" The two farms were certainly in the same occupation. He certainly thought that these words went much too far, and would give rise to considerable difficulty.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas sorry to be so pertinacious; but it was simply because he wanted to know how they were going to form the Act. His hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) said he thought it would be better to leave the clause as it stood, and the hon. Member who had just sat down confirmed that view. But he wanted the Secretary to the Treasury to tell the Committee whether, if pleuro-pneumonia were found in some animals in a marketplace, that market place was to be considered a "place" within the meaning of the clause? Really, they ought to know this. It would be impossible to frame measures for stamping out disease until they knew how they were to deal with such cases as this. Were they to be expected to declare, in such a case as this, that a market-place was something like a cowshed, field, or farm, or was it to be left to the discretion of the local authority? If it were left to the discretion of the local authority, it would be very unlikely that they would get anything approaching uniformity of action. The local authority in one case where the disease was found in a market-place might declare that that was a place within the meaning of the Act; whereas, in another case, no such declaration would be made. What chance, therefore, would there be of having that kind of action in the country which they required in order to stamp out the disease? An hon. Member behind him said it would be easy to pen off a certain portion of a market. Now, he did not know that that would be a very easy thing to do, as there must be some kind of general understanding. It would not do to leave such a matter to haphazard. Their only chance of stamping out the disease would be to take away
  1900
  the diseased animals where there was the slightest infection, and there would be the greatest amount of infection where there was the greatest number of animals about—and, surely, that would be in a market? He wanted to know whether the clause was to deal with a market-place or not?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he hoped to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman on that point. The question with regard to the word "place" was entirely governed by what had been stated by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). If the Inspector found that the infection had broken out on a particular farm-yard, he would, for the purposes of the Act, declare that farm-yard to be an infected place, and he would then let the local authority know, and the local authority would define what the limits of that place were—either that the whole of that farm was infected, or that the whole of two or three farms in the same occupation were infected, as the case might be. He (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) happened to hold three farms, not in contiguity; one was half-a-mile, and another was a mile from the third, and it would be a great injustice to put them all under the same ban. That was a case in point. As to the question about markets, if the right hon. Gentleman would refer to Clause 96, he would find that the Privy Council were to lay down rules and regulations which would show how all animals in every district throughout the country were to be dealt with when disease showed itself, if they were exposed for sale or exhibition in a market or other place, and in a previous sub-section there were provisions with regard to animals on a wharf. This showed that the Privy Council were to define where the action was to be universal, and that where it happened in the district of a local authority the local authority should define the limits of the place which was to be considered infected.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that this merely brought the Committee to a point which he thought most unfortunate. He did not know that this was exactly the time, but the sooner they got it the better, for he thought they had a right to ask the Government what sort of order they intended to promulgate with regard to markets? In what direction was it to be? He did not want

  1901
  details; but was it to be to the effect that when they found an animal in the market-place affected with pleuro-pneu-monia, they were to consider that market-place infected or not? Unless they could tell the Committee what they were going to do when they found the disease in a market-place, they were asking the Committee to pass the Bill in the dark. The observations of the hon. Baronet would seem to mean that they were going to give absolute discretion to the Privy Council, and he did not know that he should object to that; but that was not the way in which they were dealing with the foreign trade. The position the Government now took was that they gave the Privy Council discretion in certain directions in respect to the foreign trade; and he thought they had a right to ask, in the interest of all parties, for some sort of information as to what the Government intended to do in such a matter as this—how they meant to deal with those animals when they were found in a market-place? The evidence of the experts, Professors Brown and Simonds, and of others who knew anything of the practical working of these Acts, showed that they knew that this was a crucial test. They knew how to deal with a stable or a cowshed, but it was different with a market-place; and if the Bill was to become an Act without their being informed on that point, they would be absolutely in the dark.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the explanation of the hon. Baronet. The principle of the Bill he understood to be that the Privy Council were to lay down general orders as regarded market-places and other places; the local authority, having a special knowledge of those places, were to convey those orders out, and having taken the advice of a veterinary surgeon, in addition to that of their own Inspector, were to declare the limits of the place. The Amendment now before the Committee would limit a "place" to lands and buildings in the same occupation; whereas the place might be in contiguity to another occupation, and the local authority would, under the proposal in the Bill, have authority to declare that an infected place as well as the place the man occupied. He submitted that the Committee should not adopt the limit proposed.
  MR. EARPsaid, he very much questioned whether the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) was justified in expressing himself so confidently with regard to the necessity of actual contact between living animals in order to spread this contagious disease. He thought it would be very unwise to pass this clause without some qualifying words.
  MR.CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought there was some force in the objection of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), and that his Amendment would have the effect of limiting the discretion of the local authority. But if the Committee and the Secretary to the Treasury saw fit to accept his Amendment, it might be further amended by omitting the word "and," and making it read "also in the same occupation." It was quite true that, under the existing Act, the local authority had ample powers; but could they trust the local authority in all cases to exercise those powers? Were they certain that there would be anything like uniform action throughout the country? What really had been the foundation for all this legislation? It was that the local authorities in respect to this particular work had been tried and found wanting. In the Reports of the Veterinary Department, and also in the evidence given before the Committee on the subject of the cattle plague, there ran a continuous thread of complaint against them; and if they had failed in the cattle plague, they were à fortiori more likely to fail with respect to pleuro-pneumonia. Objection had been taken that the Amendment would be very unfair in such a case as that mentioned by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), who told the Committee that he had a farm which was two miles long. But the proposal was merely to apply to pleuro-pneumonia what was already the law with regard to cattle plague. Section 34 of the Act of 1869 stated that where an Inspector found the cattle plague or the sheep pox existing within a district, he should forthwith make a declaration under his hand to that effect; and that, thereupon, the place specified in the declaration, together with all the lands and buildings contiguous thereto and in the same occupation, should become an infected place. The construction he put upon that was that all the

  1903
  lands and buildings in the same occupation would be included in the place; and, therefore, the farm mentioned by the hon. Member for South Durham would, under that provision, become an infected place. This very question was distinctly put to some of the witnesses who were called before the Committee, and they said they knew of instances in which, owing to the absence of some such provision, cattle had been removed from one part of a farm to another, and that the disease had thereby been spread. But if serious objection was taken on the ground of possible hardship in exceptional cases, it might be met by giving discretion to the Privy Council to reduce the limits in cases in which they thought fit. But the proposal only was to apply in this case what hon. Gentlemen opposite claimed in the case of the foreign trade—namely, that exclusion should be the rule, and that inclusion should be within the discretion of the Privy Council. He asked them to treat the foreign trade and the home trade on the same principle—that the declaration of an infected district should be made imperative on the local authority, and that the Privy Council should be allowed to remit it in exceptional instances. He would trust the discretion of the Privy Council rather than the discretion of the local authority, who might not be ready to do what involved great annoyance to some of their own number or their colleagues in trade, and it was therefore undesirable that the discretion should be left in their hands. There was one other point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee. It would be observed that in the next sub-section it was provided that the local authority might include in an infected place part of a district within the jurisdiction of another local authority with the previous consent in writing of that authority, but not otherwise.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that this Amendment was unnecessary, even from the hon. Member for Birmingham's own point of view. The hon. Member had expressed his confidence in the discretion of the Privy Council; but he had omitted to observe that in the succeeding clauses the Privy Council had power to declare a place infected, to define the limits of the place, and to declare a district infected. Therefore, the object of the
  1904
  hon. Member was met, according to his own statement, by the three succeeding clauses of the Bill. He wished to say one word by way of appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were told by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) that, in consequence of the concession made by the Government, hon. Members on his side of the House had no longer any desire to obstruct the Bill; they only desired to criticize it fairly. Now, he had not a word to say against the criticisms that had been made already; but, considering the time that these Amendments had occupied, considering also the number of Amendments still on the Paper, he was afraid they would have to sit there till the month of October.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYwished to know whether the hon. Member used the word "obstruction" in the sense in which it had been recently applied? [Mr. CHAPLIN: Certainly not.] He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) could only assure the Committee that his desire was to make the Bill an improvement on the existing state of matters. The question was, whether they were going to give the local authority discretion in this matter of declaring a place infected? He asked the Committee to recollect that one of the reasons given for this Bill was that there had been complaints as to the want of uniformity of action on the part of the local authorities; and it was understood that under this Bill they were going to dispense with all that, and lay down hard-and-fast rules, and make stringent regulations with regard to the diseases it dealt with. It was pointed out that this would cause a considerable amount of trouble to the farmers; but the reply was that the farmers were ready to submit to any inconvenience or stringency, in order to get rid of these diseases. But now that they were beginning to apply these stringent rules, and endeavouring to make the Bill more stringent and effective than the existing Act, they were met by the Representatives of the English farmers complaining of the inconvenience which they involved in cases of farms 2,000 acres in extent, or in such cases as that mentioned by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) of a farm two miles in extent. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) maintained that the rules certainly ought to be applied to such cases. The pre-

  1905
  sumption was that pleuro-pneumonia had existed there for some time previous to its detection, and where the cattle on a farm of any extent had been mixing together, the presumption was against the whole herd. He therefore insisted that if this Bill was to be made at all effective, if it was to accomplish the objects intended—namely, to exterminate the diseases it professed to deal with—then they must have stringent regulations dealing with those diseases when discovered. This provision proposed to take effect when the disease of pleuro-pneumonia was discovered on the farm of any individual; and he thought it would be admitted by those who knew anything about the disease and its character, that if it was discovered on any part of a farm, the presumption should be that the disease existed upon the whole of that farm, and the land contiguous in the same occupation. He, therefore, thought that it was absolutely necessary, in order to carry out the professed objects of the Bill, that the clause should be made more stringent than it now stood.
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsaid, it was proposed to put the home trade and the foreign trade on precisely the same footing, and he thought it was a waste of time to argue otherwise.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not vote for the Amendment; but he thought that it would be absolutely necessary for the Government to give a more clear definition of what they proposed, and that when they got to the clause with regard to markets, it would be absolutely necessary that they should say distinctly what they were going to do. His hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) made a definition of the word "place;" but he thought it was too big a definition. It would include all the land adjoining the place where the disease broke out; but he thought that was too great a definition of "place." Also, he did not think the fact of land being in the same occupation had very much to do with the question. He, therefore, could not vote for the Amendment.
  MR. STORERsaid, that from the indefinite way in which the Amendment was worded, it would cause great inconvenience. Although land might be in the same occupation, there might be other occupations intervening. One occupation might consist of two farms, and
  1906
  both might be infected, and there might be intervening another place in another occupation which might not be infected.
  MR. MURPHYsaid, he wished to point out to the Secretary to the Treasury and to the Committee, one point in the clause which he thought had been entirely overlooked, and he could only suppose that it was never intended; but if his interpretation was the right one he feared it might lead to the greatest possible inconvenience, and to the total stoppage of the export trade from Ireland to England. The clause gave the local authority certain powers to declare a place infected with pleuro-pneumonia; and if the local authority were satisfied that the disease was in a particular place, they were bound to declare it an infected place. In the port of Cork they shipped from 50,000 to 60,000 head of cattle a-year, and they had a special cattle yard near the wharf. That yard was fitted up to receive the cattle for examination by the Government officer, and not a single head could be shipped unless it passed through the yard. The cattle were regularly examined by a veterinary surgeon, appointed under the sanction of the Privy Council, and the moment they left it, the place was disinfected and swept as clean as the floor of this House. And yet—if he was right in his construction of this clause—if the local Inspector stopped a beast, and, on examining it, found that it had pleuro-pneumonia, it was instantly sent away and killed; yet the fact of pleuro-pneumonia having been in the place at all made it necessary under this clause for the local Inspector to report the fact to the local authority, and the effect would be that the whole yard would be placed under absolute prohibition. From that time no beast could go in there, and not a single head of cattle could be shipped until the Privy Council chose to say—perhaps a week after—that they did not think that this was a place to come under the operation of the clause; and, during that week, 5,000 or 6,000 head of cattle would be debarred from exportation, and the trade absolutely disorganized. He did not wish to delay the Committee, but he submitted that he was perfectly justified in pointing out to the Committee and to the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury the consequences which might ensue if this clause were not looked into.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that if they were to omit from the Amendment the words "adjoining or near," which were exceedingly vague, and substitute the words used in Section 34 of the Act of 1869, "other lands or buildings contiguous thereto in the same occupation," he thought the whole difficulty would be met. That would make the Bill uniform with existing legislation. It would place this Bill and the Act of 1869 on all-fours, and there had been no complaint that he was aware of respecting the latter Act in this particular.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought that the difficulty might be met by the omission of Sub-section 7. The previous sub-section effected the whole object that was aimed at by providing that in the event of a local authority including some place within the jurisdiction of another local authority, the local authority whose district was invaded should have an appeal to the Privy Council. He thought Sub-section 7 might very well be spared.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 33: Majority 111.—(Div. List, No. 225.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Declaration or extension of infected place in pleuro-pneumonia by Privy Council) agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Declaration of infected district in pleuro-pneumonia by Privy Council) agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Rules for pleuro-pneumonia) agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Declaration of freedom from pleuro-pneumonia) agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Slaughter in pleuro-pneumonia, and compensation out of local rates).
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved, in page 8, line 27, at beginning, to insert the words "The Privy Council, or." He said that the Bill already gave the Privy Council power to declare a place infected, power to declare the limits of that place, and power to declare a district infected. Besides that, powers of all kinds were given to the Privy Council; and he thought that they ought also to have the power of slaughtering cattle affected with pleuro-pneumonia.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought the theory of the Bill with regard to pleuro-pneumonia was that the Privy Council should only interfere on the local authority failing to do its duty. But this Amendment placed the same duty on the Privy Council for all purposes, and created a double responsibility, and, if agreed to, might induce failure in both directions. If the Amendment was to be made effective, it should be worded to the effect that if the local authority failed to do its duty within two days, then the Privy Council should intervene. He should deprecate any division of responsibility in the first instance between the two bodies.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was afraid he could not accept the Amendment, which conflicted with the whole principle on which they had been acting.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR MR. LYON PLAYFAIR moved, in page 8, line 27, to insert—
  "The Privy Council under such safeguards as they deem fit may authorize experiments to be made in a district declared to he infected with pleuro-pneumonia with the view of giving protection to healthy animals, and may, for such purpose, authorize the retention and removal of live animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia."
  He said, his Amendment had the same object in view as Clause 29 of the Government Bill, and there was, therefore, no difference between them as to the intention. The only point which he wished to have brought out clearly was whether, in the opinion of the legal authorities, the clause as it stood would meet the case? The French Government had had a Commission for making experiments by inoculating animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and had spent £25,000 in pursuit of that inquiry. They found that the animals so inoculated with pleuro-pneumonia were protected from taking the disease, but that in the process 2 per cent of them died; and that mortality being equal to the mortality from pleuro-pneumonia, taking all the country together, they had been forced to the conclusion that there was no use carrying out such a system of inoculation. In Australia, also, experiments had been carried out; and in this country, too, there had been experiments on a smaller scale and on a different plan—namely, by inoculating the matter into

  1909
  the vein under the skin, and so at once getting the matter into the circulating blood. The animals thus experimented on in this country had shown no signs of the disease—or, at any rate, in so slight a form that it was impossible to detect any constitutional disturbance—although they had been kept close to animals which were undoubtedly affected with the disease. But these experiments had been tried on too small a scale to establish anything like a principle. Only eight or ten animals had been tried. At the same time, it would be a thousand pities if, by any measures of Parliament, they were to prevent such experiments, which might enable them to decide whether pleuro-pneumonia could be prevented by simple means. He therefore hoped that the Government would coincide with him in his desire to allow such experiments under such safeguards as the Privy Council might deem sufficient; and his only doubt was as to whether Clause 29 might or might not be sufficient for the purpose. He, yesterday, asked the Secretary to the Treasury to consult the Legal Advisers of the Government in order to see whether Clause 29 as it stood would answer all the purposes he had in view in moving this Amendment.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had consulted the Legal Advisers of the Government on the point, and their opinion was that all the objects contemplated by his right hon. Friend would really be met by Clause 29. His right hon. Friend was aware that under Clause 29, power was reserved to the Privy Council to keep animals on farms or places where the infection broke out for the purposes of experiment and for the treatment of the disease. He had no wish at all to prevent any such experiments. He believed it might be very much in the interest of science that such experiments should be made, and the promoters of the Bill—that was, the Government—believed they had provided all that was necessary in that respect by inserting Clause 29. If his right hon. Friend considered it necessary to insert additional words, he should not object; but he believed those already in the Bill to be sufficient. In any case, however, he should object to the word "removal" in the latter part of the Amendment, as he believed that the use of that word might open the door to the
  1910
  removal of animals in a way that would spread the disease.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SYNAN MR. SYNAN moved, in page 8, line 28, after the word "days," to insert the words "or such other time as Inspector may order." He said that different cases of pleuro-pneumonia were differently treated, and he thought some discretion ought to be left to the Inspector. No harm could be done, and some good might be done, by giving some discretion as to treatment. He, therefore, moved his Amendment.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought the Committee ought not to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. There were already exceptions reserved to the Privy Council, who were the proper authority to deal with questions of treatment, and the great object they had in view was to stamp out the disease as quickly as possible. He thought, therefore, that it would be unwise to allow the Inspector any discretion in deciding upon the time during which an animal affected with the disease was to be kept before being slaughtered.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ANDERSON MR. ANDERSON moved, in page 8, line 30, to leave out the words "may, if they think fit," and insert "shall." He said, he thought his Amendment would test the sincerity of those hon. Members who said the farmers were willing to submit to all reasonable restrictions in regard to the home trade. The Bill provided that in cases of cattle plague the Privy Council should slaughter animals that had been in contact with other animals affected with that disease; but in cases of pleuro-pneumonia a different system was pursued. In the latter case, it was left entirely to the discretion of the local authority. The result would be that this disease, incubating sometimes for a period of 56 days before it was discovered, would have infected the whole of the herd with which the diseased animal had been in contact. Notwithstanding that, they were not to be killed, and thus every animal of the herd became a centre of disease. If the object of the Bill really was to stamp out disease, there was no way of doing it but by ordering peremptory slaughter in such cases.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that if the hon. Member really thought that his Amendment would test the sincerity of those who said that the farmers were ready to accept all reasonable restrictions, he was afraid he would be disappointed, for this was not a reasonable restriction. On the contrary, it was a most unreasonable one. Cattle plague and pleuro-pneumonia were two widely different things. Animals hardly ever recovered from cattle plague; from pleuro-pneumonia they constantly recovered. He therefore thought that the restriction was one which the Government ought not to accept.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). He was of opinion that such an extreme measure as compulsory slaughter ought not to be adopted in any but extreme circumstances. Cattle plague was an extreme circumstance, and there, he was afraid, they must resort to compulsory slaughter in every case. But pleuro-pneumonia was entirely different; and, with respect to that disease, it appeared from what they had heard that night, that there was reason to hope that the resources of science might be equal to the emergency, and that sooner or later some certain cure would be discovered.
  MR. STARKIEsaid, an instance had come under his own observation, in which a farmer, who was also a butcher, slaughtered an animal affected with pleuro-pneumonia, and yet not another animal of the herd with which it had been associated was afterwards similarly affected. With such an instance within his own knowledge, he could not consent to a proposal for the compulsory slaughter of a whole herd because one of the herd had been affected with pleuro-pneumonia.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, pleuro-pneumonia was very different when the disease broke out upon a farm to when it broke out among a cargo of foreign cattle. If, in the latter case, an animal was discovered to be infected, it was impossible to keep the remainder of the cargo for 56 days to determine how many of them had been infected on the voyage. In the case of home cattle, however, it was quite a practical proceeding. This explained the different treatment in the two cases, without imputing any partiality.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not accept the Amendment, and the reasons given appeared to him sufficient.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, as the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was the only Member of the bucolic party who had shown any sincere desire to impose such restrictions upon the home trade as would be effective, and as he disapproved of the Amendment, he (Mr. Anderson) would not press it upon the Committee. But, at the same time, if it was intended to stamp out disease—and that was the ground taken up by Professor Brown, and others—he maintained it could not be done except by slaughter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SYNAN MR. SYNAN moved, in page 8, line 31, after "herd," to insert "being in the same field or place." The use of the word "herd" might have a very wide application, and might be understood to refer to the whole of the cattle on a farm. A herd might be a large one, and spread over several fields; and he could not suppose it was intended to include the whole number. He proposed, therefore, the insertion of the words given.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that there was another Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member, and which he would be precluded from moving should he now pass it over.
  MR. SYNANsaid, it was not his intention to move that; but it was in order to define the number of cattle he made his suggestion, and with the same object he intended further on to move that the number of cattle should be indicated by the Inspector.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, this sub-section of the clause was to give a discretionary power to the local authority to decide what number of cattle should be slaughtered if disease broke out amongst the herd. He did not think the use of the term "herd" would have the effect suggested, or that it would be necessary to adopt the words proposed.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYpointed out that it was a discretionary, not a compulsory, power to be placed in the hands of the local authority, and there was not the slightest risk of their carrying their power too far.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. SYNANthen moved the insertion, in the same line, after the word "or," the words "so many of the cattle as the Inspector may order." To this, in his mind, there seemed no objection; but he did not know the opinion of the Secretary to the Treasury.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the introduction of the words, though they did not materially alter the sense, at all events did not improve the English, of the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved, in page 8, line 33, at beginning, to insert "the Privy Council or." His object was to provide the compensation for animals slaughtered for pleuro-pneumonia out of monies voted by Parliament, instead of from the local rates. It was quite clear that, if pleuro-pneumonia was to be effectually stamped out, a great number of animals must be slaughtered. He had heard of a great number of outbreaks, and so, as the Bill stood, a large amount for compensation would fall upon the local rates. He commended this to the attention of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), who was Chairman of the Taxation Committee. He remembered that at the time the Conservative Party were not in the fortunate position they now occupied, a Resolution was brought forward, asserting—
  "That it was unjust to impose taxation for national objects on one description of property only."
  That Resolution was introduced by an hon. Baronet now on the Treasury Bench (Sir Massey Lopes). He (Mr. Chaplin) did not suppose he would have the adhesion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who objected to the payment of compensation out of Imperial funds; but unless it could be shown that when slaughter for pleuro-pneumonia was insisted upon it was not in pursuance of a national object, then he was entitled to claim the support of the right hon. Gentlemen below, and those who voted for the Resolution in 1872. He relied, also, on the support of the Chairman of the Local Taxation Committee.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, with regard to compensation, there was a distinct difference between the slaughter of cattle for cattle plague and slaughter for pleuro-pneumonia. If it
  1914
  had been proposed to charge compensation in respect to the latter disease upon the Imperial funds, that proposal could only be justified by the adoption of the same precautions as were practised in cases of cattle plague. That was, that officials of the Government, directed by the Privy Council, should undertake the management of the disease and the slaughter of animals infected. It was not thought right to charge the compensation upon the Imperial funds when the slaughter of animals was left to the discretion of the local authority. That was the reason Government had for drawing the clause, and why he could not allow the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
  MR. PELLsaid, his hon. Friend had referred to him and to that famous Resolution brought in some years ago. In quoting that Resolution, the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had left out a passage at the end, which contained something more specific, and distinctly raised the position as to when charges should fall on the Exchequer and on local rates. He had observed most faithfully the terms of that Resolution, and he had resisted every attempt at the application of funds from the Exchequer to other objects, such as a direct grant for the maintenance of roads, just as he did now when it was sought to take compensation from Government money for the slaughter of animals having pleuro-pneumonia. And there was another reason against the proposal. In the case of rinderpest, that was a foreign disease, and the State took upon itself to stamp it out. At the present moment, they had not got the disease in England; and if the State acted with rigour and discretion it would be kept out, or if admitted, be confined to such narrow limits that no very large charge would be imposed upon the Imperial Exchequer. But if the proposal of his hon. Friend were accepted, there was reason to apprehend a good deal of jobbery. There would be no end of applications made for public money, and some difficulty in distinguishing between ordinary lung complaints and pleuro-pneumonia. The country would have to be covered with Veterinary Inspectors, and there would be a heavy expense, not commensurate with any benefit owners might derive from the acceptation of the Amendment. He hoped his hon. Friend, with whom he usually

  1915
  acted in concert, would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, a short time before the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) deprecated the protraction of the debate; it was to be hoped, therefore, he would consent to withdraw.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, if he thought there was the slightest prospect of success he would press his Amendment. As, however, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) withheld his support, he had little hope of sufficient support from the rest of the Committee, and a division would be an useless waste of time. Still, he wished to place on record his individual opinion that when the slaughter of animals was for a national purpose, Members on that side of the House would be true to their principles, if they inserted his Amendment in the Bill. On the other side, an opinion had been declared, that only when the amount was a large one should it fall on the local rates.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN MR. CHAMBERLAIN moved the omission of the words "the local rate," from line 33, and the insertion of the words—
  "A special rate, to be assessed and levied in the nature of a capitation or poll-tax, according to the number of cattle possessed by any person within the county at the time of slaughter."
  He had not put this Amendment down in the first instance, because he anticipated that the decision of the Committee upon the first would settle the other cases raised. He did not wish to trouble the Committee with a repetition of his arguments; but, in the course of the earlier discussion, many hon. Members—among them, he thought, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), and certainly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)—accepted those arguments, but objected that pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease differed materially from cattle plague, and he would be glad to give those hon. Gentlemen the opportunity of voting with him now. The hon. Member for South Norfolk said the proposal was a fair one to make in respect to diseases having their origin in this country, but would not be a fair law dealing with cattle plague, a disease which always
  1916
  came in from other lands. It was not to be supposed he was alluding to pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease, for these had been so long in the country that they might be considered permanent here. Probably many hon. Members were absent when his previous Amendment was under consideration, and a few words might be permitted to show the grounds of his contention. He contended—and, unfortunately, he had been misunderstood by the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin)—that in no other case was there a precedent for compensation being given for the result of an accident, or for a visitation of Providence; and he had mentioned that if the General Omnibus Company lost all its horses from an epidemic, there would be no claim allowed on the public fund, as an illustration of his statement. It was an illustration in point; but when the hon. Member said—''Suppose the horses of the General Omnibus Company were requisitioned for State service, would there not be a fair claim for compensation?" Certainly there would; and he would be the first to demand it as their due. But to be a parallel case the cattle must be healthy cattle, and requisitioned for the use of the Army, or other Government purposes, and then he would agree full value should be paid. The next point in his argument was, that in no case did the Legislature allow compensation where it imposed obligations on individuals; and he had given the Education Act as an instance, where an obligation was imposed upon individuals for the benefit of the community, yet the community did not compensate individuals, but the latter were required to pay the cost of the obligation imposed upon them. Another instance was found in the Mines Regulation Act, where new obligations were imposed upon a particular class of tradesmen; but they were not, therefore, compensated by the State. If his view was right, then no case could be made out for compensation to farmers, unless on the ground of payment for service rendered. It could not be made out that the animals slaughtered would live after taking the disease; and if not slaughtered, they would be a source of danger to the remainder. The only plea on which the case could be sustained was that of payment for early information, so that the authorities might take measures to prevent the spread of

  1917
  disease. The taxation, then, should fall upon the owners of cattle. Sooner or later the cost would come out of the pockets of consumers; but, in the first instance, the burden should be borne by those most interested.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, before the Question was put, as he had been alluded to, he desired to say that he did not vote for the Amendment on the previous division, and he should not do so now. The principle was just; but he could not see how it could be carried out at present. If compensation reached a very large amount, Parliament might be obliged to apply the principle.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYhoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with having made his speech a second time. True, some Members had not been present on both occasions; but he had, and so had many more. Having repeated his speech, he hoped the hon. Member would be content without a division.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINdid not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing; but he claimed from hon. Members the courtesy of an answer.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, as he had been referred to, he would say that as to the previous Amendment of the hon. Member, he thought his argument could not apply, and even in this Amendment was extremely bad.
  MR. CHAPLINthought the argument of the hon. Member turned upon the definition of what was "a visitation of Providence." He called compulsory slaughter a visitation of Providence; but he (Mr. Chaplin) regarded it as a visitation of the Privy Council.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, earlier in the evening, he had heard statements from the other side that cattle plague was an imported disease, but that pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease were indigenous. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had accepted the distinction; and when it was said that he had made his speech before, it must be remembered he applied his arguments to a different disease. It might be said that the late Mr. John Stuart Mill made the same speech before; and it was to be regretted that the principles he inculcated had not taken a stronger hold in the House. He (Mr. Mundella) felt quite sure that, with the exception of this class, no manufactures would be allowed to have the advantage of this
  1918
  system of compensation. The production of beef for the market was as much a manufacture as that of iron or of calico; and those engaged in the trade should accept the losses and contingencies just the same. He hoped his hon. Friend would go to a division, for the principle could not be impressed too strongly.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, in page 8, after line 33, to insert the words—
  "(3.) The local authority shall out of the local rate pay compensation as follows for cattle slaughtered under this section:—
  (i.) Where the animal slaughtered was affected with pleuro-pneumonia, the compensation shall be three-fourths of its value immediately before it became so affected, but so that the compensation do not in any such case exceed thirty pounds.
  (ii.) In every other case the compensation shall be the value of the animal immediately before it was slaughtered, but so that the compensation do not in any case exceed forty pounds."
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved to amend the Amendment, by leaving out from the words "section," in line 2, to the word "animal," in line 8, inclusive, in order to insert the words—
  "Three-fourths of the loss arising from the slaughter of the animal, based on its value immediately before it became affected with disease, and, if not so affected."
  According to the arrangement in the Government proposal, the compensation for the slaughter of an animal suffering from pleuro-pneumonia was fixed at three-fourths the value of that when healthy; and in the cases of animals slaughtered after being in contact with diseased animals, it was proposed to give the full value. If they made the compensation depend upon the absolute loss, compensating the owner by giving him three-fourths of the actual loss sustained—namely, the value of the animal before slaughter, less the proceeds of the carcase, he thought the farmers would receive ample compensation.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
  To leave out from the word "section," in line 2, to the word "animal," in line 8, inclusive, in order to insert the words "Three-fourths of the loss arising from the slaughter of the animal, based on its value immediately before it became affected with disease, and, if not so affected,"—(Mr. James Barclay.)
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not accept the proposal of the hon. Member, as he did not think the definition of the loss contained in the Amendment was the proper one. The compensation was for the loss the owner would sustain, rather than for the value of the animal slaughtered.
  MR. CLARE READquite agreed with the principle enunciated by his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay). In Norfolk they always compensated for the loss rather than the value. The feeling of the Committee was, he believed, strongly against this proposal; and he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire would not press it. The 29th clause authorized the Privy Council
  "to withhold compensation or other payment in respect of an animal slaughtered under this Act by their respective order, where the owner or the person having charge thereof has, in their respective judgment, been guilty, in relation to the animal, of an offence against this Act, or where the animal, being a foreign animal, was, in their respective judgment, diseased at the time of its landing."
  The clause also provided that
  "if, in any case, the sum received by the Privy Council or the local authority on sale of a carcase exceeds the amount paid for compensation to the owner of the animal slaughtered, the Privy Council or local authority, as the case may be, shall pay that excess to the owner, after deduction of reasonable expenses."
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYcalled attention to the fact that the proposal contained in his Amendment was a proposal which was recommended by the Committee of 1873, after their attention had been specially directed to the subject. His right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was Chairman of the Committee; and it reported that, in the interests of the farmers themselves, and also in the interests of the public, the compensation ought to be based upon the loss. There was no more difficulty in ascertaining the loss than in fixing the value of the animal. It was the practice now followed in Aberdeenshire and Forfarshire, and, he was informed, also in Norfolk, in all cases where animals were slaughtered in consequence of disease.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that as he understood the proposition, it went further than his hon. Friend had stated—namely, that in the case of an animal slaughtered in consequence of having been infected with pleuro-pneumonia, three-fourths of the loss, based on the
  1920
  value immediately before it became affected with disease, and, if not so affected, immediately before it was slaughtered—should be paid to the owner. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) thought that where an animal was compulsorily slaughtered which had not absolutely got the disease—considering that pleuro-pneumonia was a very curable disease, and it was by no means certain that all the animals on a farm would take it, the compensation, if awarded at all, should be the full value.
  Question put, "That the words '(i.) Where the animal slaughtered' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 236; Noes 34: Majority 202.—(Div. List, No. 226.)
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG moved, in page 8, after line 41, to insert—
  "(3.) A local authority may require the value of any animal slaughtered under this Act to be ascertained by officers of the local authority o by arbitration, and generally may impose conditions as to evidence of the slaughter and value of the animals slaughtered."
  He thought it would be a wholesome thing to see that the owners of the animals slaughtered did not obtain more than their full value.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not consent to the introduction of these words. The Committee had already determined that a sum should be paid to the owners for the compulsory slaughter of an animal as an inducement to him to make known the existence of disease. If there was to be any doubt upon the point, the inducement would not be sufficiently strong. Such a stipulation as that proposed to be introduced did not exist in the old law, and one of the objects of amending the old law was to introduce an element of greater certainty.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYbelieved that the adoption of the Amendment would defeat the object of the Bill. It would certainly introduce uncertainty. The owners of the cattle would never know what compensation they would get, and would feel themselves at the mercy and discretion of the authorities.
  MR. WHITWELLthought the Amendment was simply an amplification of the previous section, and enabled the authorities to ascertain the value of the cattle which, to a great extent, would depend upon the kind of cattle.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that as the Amendment did not meet with the approval of the Committee, he would withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MURPHYwished to point out to the Committee, before they passed the clause, that it might probably work an injustice. In 1876, an Act was passed for Ireland, giving somewhat analogous powers in cases of pleuro-pneumonia to those which existed in England, and requiring that the local authority should pay to the owner of the cattle the value of the animals slaughtered. By a Proviso introduced to one of the clauses of that Act, it was made applicable to ports of export in Ireland, and for a very obvious reason. If animals were found in Dublin, Cork, or Belfast, affected with disease, the local authority was bound to pay the value; but it was a manifest injustice for the locality to pay at the port of shipping for the value of an animal which might have been brought from some place 50 or 60 miles away. To meet that case of injustice, a Proviso was added, providing always it was proved that in respect of any animal for which compensation was required, it was brought within seven days into the Union solely for the purpose of being shipped, and that the owner had not been guilty of any act in contravention of the Orders of the Privy Council. In that case, the Chief or Under Secretary of State might order payment of compensation in respect of such animal. The present clause, as it stood, virtually repealed the Irish Act of 1876; but, unless it contained a Proviso similar to that introduced into the Irish Act, a manifest injustice would be done. It appeared to him that a Proviso to this effect should be added to the sections printed in the Bill in red letters. He would suggest that so much of Section 14 of the Cattle Diseases (Ireland) Act, as provided payment to the local authorities of the money disbursed by them under the said Act, should continue in full force and effect. He should be perfectly satisfied if the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would promise to give consideration to the facts of the case upon the Report.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONassented.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished, before the clause passed, as it was the last of the pleuro-pneumonia clauses, to ask a question of the Secretary to the Treasury as to the whole operation of these clauses. A "place" was to be declared, and also a "district;" but he thought there was an omission in the Bill in not defining what a district was. In Clause 9, there was a definition of a district which applied to Part II. of the Bill; but he did not take it that it went further. No such definition was given in regard to cases of pleuro-pneumonia; and, although power was taken to extend the limits of a district, there was no power to contract them. As the Bill stood, the whole of a county or of a borough would be a district for pleuro-pneumonia. He wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if that was his intention? If the clause and stipulations in the Schedule were carried out, no animal could be moved out of the county of Norfolk, for instance, if pleuro-pneumonia broke out in Norfolk. The same thing would apply to any animal coming into Liverpool, say from Ireland, infected with pleuro-pneumonia; no animal then could get out of Liverpool, except there were exemptions made which it would be very inconvenient to make. He wished to point that out. He had no desire to obstruct the Bill; but he considered this a matter which would have to be very seriously looked into; and he thought, also, that they ought to know about it, not to-night, but before they left Committee. They ought certainly to know what was intended to be the definition of the district for pleuro-pneumonia.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYconsidered it would be advisable to leave out districts for pleuro-pneumonia, and to make the Act more stringent as regarded places.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had asked him what was intended to be the definition of the word "district?" It would be left to the local authority to define what was a district, and what

  1923
  should be its limits and so forth. He would, however, look further into the matter, as the right hon. Gentleman had suggested; and before Report he thought he should be able absolutely to tell the right hon. Gentleman the meaning of district.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas sorry to persist, but he thought they must have an answer, not necessarily now, but before the Report. Perhaps they could get it when they came to the 27th clause, because they must, in Committee, try to settle what would be these regulations; and it was only fair they should know pretty thoroughly what was the nature of the home regulations, before they came to the foreign regulations. He thought the Secretary to the Treasury would find there was no power given to the local authority to define the district. There was a sort of limit given in Sub-section 9 of Clause 16, which made him think that the Government did not intend the district to be that which by the Bill it was defined to be, the whole county or borough. In Subsection 9 of Clause 16, it said—
  "The local authority shall forthwith report to the Privy Council the declaration of the Inspector, and the proceedings of the local authority thereon, and shall state whether or not it is, in their opinion, expedient that an infected district, comprising the infected place, shall be declared, and, if so, what should, in their opinion, be the limits of that district."
  He took it that the Act of Parliament gave them power to express an opinion, but not to define a district, if it was without the power of the Privy Council to comply with that opinion. Most certainly, as the Bill stood, there was only one definition of district. The Bill distinctly said—"Any district shall be as described by the Schedule;" and there was absolutely no power given to the Privy Council to make a less district than the district described.
  Clause agreed to.

  Foot-and-mouth Disease.
  Clause 22 (Declaration of infected place in foot-and-mouth disease by local authority).
  Mr. SYNAN Mr. SYNAN moved, in page 9, line 3, after "place," to insert "not being a fair, or market-place, or wharf." He had already moved this Amendment on
  1924
  a previous part of the Bill; and he would really like to know what the opinion of the Secretary to the Treasury was in respect to it. It was for the purpose, more or less, of defining the word "place," and it had reference particularly to Ireland. If, in the case of Ireland, a "place" was intended to apply to a fair, the cattle trade of the whole country would be greatly endangered. By chance an Inspector, who might not be a professional person, might, on the morning of a fair, come to the place and declare a certain animal to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease. He could immediately serve a notice on the occupier of the close in which the fair was held, and that place at once became an infected district. What were they to do with all the cattle of that infected place? They could not be removed, and all because it might happen to be an ignorant Inspector who had declared an animal to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease. His Amendment was that a place should not include "a fair, market-place, or wharf," all of which stood in a like position. This was a difficulty which ought to be removed; and if the Secretary to the Treasury wished for time for consideration—say until to-morrow—he would be glad to postpone it; but he thought that it was too long to leave this subject until the Report.
  MAJOR NOLANstrongly supported the Amendment, remarking that if "place" did include a fair, the great fairs of Ireland would be very injuriously affected. At the Ballinasloe fair there were something like 16,000 head of cattle; and if it was competent for an Inspector to declare the fair-ground an infected place, it would be impossible to know what should be done with this large stock. The whole thing would be reduced to an absurdity, the Privy Council would have to step in, the fair would be spoiled, and rents would be difficult to collect—in fact, the whole agricultural system of Ireland would be disturbed. There were other large and important fairs in Ireland, which it ought not to be in the power of the local authority to disturb in the way mentioned.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the words were not necessary, inasmuch as such matters would practically be controlled by the Privy Council,

  1925
  Under these circumstances, the Amendment was unnecessary; and, therefore, he could not consent to it without further consideration.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas sorry to say that left them completely in the dark as to what the Government intended to do in regard to foot-and-mouth disease. The Government had said, in reference to the treatment of foreign animals, that they meant to regulate the slaughter according to the prevalence of disease—including foot-and-mouth disease—in the country exporting the cattle; and they had acknowledged that they did not intend to do that except, at the same time, regulations were made at home. They must know, in such a very important matter as this, what the regulations were to be. If the Committee would refer to the evidence of Professors Brown and Simonds, they would find these gentlemen at once went to the difficulty of a market; and they said that one great difficulty in stamping out foot-and-mouth disease would be to know how to deal with it when it was found in a market. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) was perfectly aware of that difficulty, because both in the House and out of it he had dealt with it; he had said he was so aware of it that he would be inclined to stop the market at Norfolk if disease broke out there. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) wanted to know what the Government intended to do in this matter—whether they intended that a market was to be an infected place as regarded foot-and-mouth disease, if so declared by the local authority? If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would leave absolute discretion to the Privy Council as regarded foreign animals he would support him; but the Amendment the hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had put down provided that, in case of animals coming from a foreign country, the Privy Council was to act accordingly as foot-and-mouth disease prevailed in that country. He desired to be informed whether the Privy Council were to act accordingly as it was prevalent in a market-place or on a wharf? This was a matter which ought to be explained with as little delay as possible; and he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Synan), that it was too long to wait until the
  1926
  Report before an explanation was afforded.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had said, he did not see any necessity for this Amendment. Did he see any objection to it? Either the Government intended that the word "place" should include market-place or fair, or they did not. If they did not intend that a market-place, or fair, should be included, what objection could there be to adopting the words of his hon. Friend, which would make the point clear? To him there seemed to be a doubt about it, otherwise the Government would adopt the Amendment.
  MR. PAGET, in order to meet the difficulty, suggested that after the word "place," the words should be inserted which were to be found in Sub-section 7 of Clause 26—namely—"in the possession or occupation or under the control of the owner of the animal." If those words were inserted, it would make it perfectly clear what the meaning of the word "place" was. As there was an Amendment before the Committee, he would suggest that it should be withdrawn; and he ventured to think that the acceptance of the words he proposed would have the effect that was desired.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman did not put matters in a better position than the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), inasmuch as it had the same object—namely, the exemption of fairs and markets from the control of the Inspector. It had been said that it was quite as important that the regulations in respect to foot-and-mouth disease should be as strict as those in reference to pleuro-pneumonia, and that local Inspectors should have power to act where it was found to exist. Hon. Members from Ireland began to think that the Bill was going to pinch them, and now they wanted matters to be arranged in their favour. No English or Scotch Member had attempted to obtain an exemption for English and Scotch fairs and markets; and he did not think it proper that there should be an exemption given to Irish fairs. The three countries ought to be dealt with alike; and he was of opinion that the Irish Members would do well to accept what the English and Scotch Members

  1927
  were willing to accept for England and Scotland.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreminded the Committee that, on previous occasions, the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had consented to withdraw his Amendment similar to the present one, on his (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) promising to move it on Report if he was convinced of its advisability. Under those circumstances, he could not consent to the alteration now proposed; but he would do with regard to it as he had said he would do with respect to the other Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had said that the Committee must know what the Privy Council were to do. He would remind the Committee that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's argument up to one portion of the Bill was to trust implicitly in the Privy Council; but, as soon as trust was placed in the Privy Council, the right hon. Gentleman turned round and said—"We must know what the Privy Council has to do." The right hon. Gentleman compared the action of the Government with regard to foreign animals and the home trade. There was a considerable difference between dealing with disease in a foreign country over which they had no control, and a country which was absolutely under their control. In the case of foreign trade, where they had no means of following what was happening in a particular district, they did require greater knowledge of what was happening than they did in the regulations dealing with the home trade. Although he considered the clause sufficient to meet the case, he would promise to consider the matter.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that as the Bill now stood it was perfectly contradictory, and there must be a determination by the Government which course they intended to take. Until the definition of "place" was afforded by the Government, the Committee were reasonable in pressing their request. The hon. Member for Limerick very properly desired that a fair, market-place, or wharf, should be excluded from the meaning of the word "place." If his Amendment was not carried, without doubt, place would include "fair, market-place, or wharf." The statements made by the hon. Baronet did not go to hoist the
  1928
  authority of the local authority under Clause 22. Express authority had been given to the local authority to perform particular duty in Ireland; and they would not successfully hoist their jurisdiction by giving general power to the Privy Council to make general rules and regulations. If the Government desired to be consistent, they must accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that under the law at this moment local authorities could close fairs and markets, and he could not see with what object such a power could be taken away. Instead of taking the power away, the exercise of that power should be made compulsory by the Privy Council. He had heard nothing inconsistent with the local authority being so armed in what had fallen from Her Majesty's Government. He could see no reason for exempting Ireland—and what was necessary for England was equally necessary for Ireland—and no case had been made out to exempt the latter country from provisions already in force here.
  MR. SYNANwas quite willing to give full power to the Privy Council.
  MAJOR NOLANsaw no objection to the Privy Council having authority; but the powers were too large to be placed in the hands of the local authority. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) said, why not agree to what had been done in England and Scotland? and, so far as markets were concerned, there was a good deal of sense in that, for Irish markets were not more important than those of England. But when fairs came to be considered, then the case was very different, and the Irish system was ten times as important as the English. That was the reason the Amendment was pressed. Not only would the whole agricultural system, but almost the social system, would break down, if fairs were stopped. Indeed, he did not know how he should face his constituents if fairs, such as that of Ballinasloe, were stopped, and had not done his utmost to prevent it. They would consider that one of the most important interests with which he had been charged had been neglected. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would be pressed. If the Privy Council held the power, and, after hearing the evidence as to the presence of foot-and-mouth

  1929
  disease, came to the determination to stop the fair, well and good; but if the power was vested in the local authority, it would lead to the greatest confusion in Ireland.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcalled the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) to a clause which he appeared to have overlooked. He referred to Clause 26, which gave the Privy Council power to override the authority of the local authority. The 3rd and 4th sub-sections provided that, from time to time, the Privy Council might, by Special Orders, control the action of the local authorities in cases where cattle were
  "exposed for sale, or exhibited in a market, fair, sale yard, place of exhibition, or other place; or while placed in a lair, or other place, before exposure for sale."
  And then the section went on—
  "The Privy Council shall, by General Orders under this section, from time to time make such provisions as they think fit for the consequences under this Act."
  As he understood the clause, this would distinctly override the action of the local authority.
  SIR HENRY JAMESknew that nothing was more distasteful to the House than a legal discussion; but if the Bill was to be framed, words must be discussed, and unless they gave up their functions, the discussion could not be avoided. He could not agree with the Secretary to the Treasury, whose explanation did not seem to meet what had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), that local authorities might walk into a fair and exercise their power at once, after receiving the declaration of their Inspector. The Secretary to the Treasury had referred to the action the Privy Council might or might not take. This was not sufficient to override the local powers, with whom, when once the declaration of their Inspector was received, action was immediate. What the hon. Baronet referred to—that the Privy Council might, from time to time—[Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Should.]—he (Sir Henry James) was reading from Section 3—
  "The Privy Council may, from time to time, by Special Orders under this section relating to particular places, make such provision as they
  1930
  think fit for the consequences aforesaid with regard to those places."
  But suppose the Privy Council did not interfere? The hon. Baronet wished to refer to Sub-section 3, but that gave the powers to make General Orders for all places suspected of disease. That was a General Order, not a Provisional Order. An Inspector might go into a fair and exercise his jurisdiction before the Privy Council could act. In that way he submitted the explanations of the Secretary to the Treasury did not meet the objections raised.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwas anxious that his hon. Friend should state what was the intention of the clause. What he wished to know was, had the local authorities the power to stop fairs or markets? In dealing with this clause he desired to have that distinctly stated. His hon. Friend said there would not be that power; then, if so, why not introduce words having clearly that effect? If that power rested solely with the Privy Council, then local authorities would understand what they were about. He also wished to hear an explanation of words of an ominous import which fell from the hon. Gentleman in reference to Ireland. He insisted that England and Ireland should be placed on exactly the same footing as regarded foot-and-mouth disease.
  MR. DODSONthought the force of Clause 22 had not been seen quite. There seemed to be an impression that there was a discretionary power placed in the local authority; but he did not think the section covered that meaning—
  "Where it appears to an Inspector of a local authority that foot-and-mouth disease exists, or has within ten days existed, in a cowshed, or other place,"
  —which, as he understood, meant fair or market—
  "he shall forthwith make and sign a declaration thereof. He shall serve a notice, signed by him, of that declaration, on the occupier of that cowshed, field, or other place; and thereupon that cowshed, field, or other place shall become and be a place infected. … and the local authority, if satisfied of the correctness of the Inspector's declaration, shall proceed to deal with, this place as infected."
  This was imperative—the word was "shall," and the place, be it fair or market, became a place infected. No optional power being given, it must be

  1931
  done; and then the place was left to the mercy of the Privy Council, who might, under Clause 26, release the place from the ban. If it was not so, then the case was worse than he supposed; and he should like to hear the hon. Gentleman's explanation. Would the 26th clause give the Privy Council power to override the local authority or not? [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONL: Yes, beforehand.] He (Mr. Dodson) would be glad to know the section of the Bill under which that took place. As he read the 22nd clause, the power was compulsory on the local authority.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwas sorry he had not made his meaning distinct. He understood the case thus—As soon as the Bill became law, the Privy Council were bound by Clause 26 to make, as soon as possible after the passing of the Act—which meant immediately—General Orders dealing with several things, one of these being what should be done in the case of animals exposed in markets, fairs, or places of exhibition. Those Orders, when made, were to have full effect, notwithstanding other provisions in the Bill. Then, to come to Clause 22. Under that clause the Inspector would have the power to declare, or must declare, when any place was infected, subject to his other instructions, to the local authority. But Clause 26 distinctly overrode the action under Clause 22 under certain cases, and the Orders of the Privy Council would guide the Inspector.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Committee had got into a legal debate, and he could not help thinking his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) was correct in his view. But to go off on the question of policy. The Secretary to the Treasury said that absolute discretion was given to the Privy Council in the matter. If the discretion in regard to foot-and-mouth disease were the same as that in force for the foreign trade, he would be quite content to leave it there; but he did not think it was fair that they should be told by the Government that the foreign regulations depended upon the home regulations, and that Government should avoid giving information of what they would do in one of the most important of home regulations. He was sure the Secretary to the Treasury would not deny, or the
  1932
  hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) dispute, the statement, when he said that whether they did or did not get rid of foot-and-mouth disease depended as much as anything what was done in reference to the disease when discovered in markets. The Secretary to the Treasury said, trust to the discretion of the Government; and he replied, did the Government mean to interfere with fairs and markets? Then they were to wait until Clause 26 was reached, and then for the issue of the Privy Council Orders. He did not know what was going to be done; and he fully believed the reason was that Government had not, in the slightest degree, made up their own minds how they would deal with markets, or knew, in the slightest degree, what direction their action would take. He did not ask for a definite statement; but he wished to know if markets were or were not to be interfered with when foot-and-mouth disease was found? Unless strict regulations were to be made in this respect, the foot-and-mouth regulations might as well be struck out of the Bill altogether.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, there was no doubt whatever that cattle in fairs, markets, or in transit could not be dealt with as they could be treated at home. When the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) and others spoke of Ireland being so different to England in the matter of fairs, he could not quite agree with that. There were large fairs held in England—at Barnet, for instance—and there were many others held in fields. What he wanted to know was, in what way fairs and markets were going to be treated? It certainly would be impossible to treat cattle under those circumstances as they might be treated on the farm. At the fair at Ballinasloe, and elsewhere, they could not be kept for even 14 days. The treatment must be different, and the question was, what was it to be?
  MR. DODSON, after hearing the explanation of Clause 26, and the manner in which it was to be put into operation, could not understand the objection to the adoption of the Amendment to Clause 22; because, according to the Secretary to the Treasury, as soon as the Act was passed, the Privy Council would lose no time in making General Orders respecting its operation in

  1933
  fairs and markets, and those instructions would override Clause 22, so far as markets and fairs were concerned. If the action of the Inspector was to depend upon Orders in Council under Clause 26, he could not see what objection there was in accepting the Amendment that Clause 22 should not apply to fairs.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, the effect of the clause would be to throw fairs in Ireland into a state of the utmost uncertainty and confusion. Where large fairs were held, at which, perhaps, there were as many as 16,000 cattle and 70,000 sheep, there was considerable preparation to be made. If these fairs were liable to be stopped at any moment, the greatest inconvenience and mischief would be the result. The cattle having been brought together, would be suddenly distributed again, harm would be done, and much uncertainty created. It appeared to him there should be a regulation requiring the authorities to give notice some days beforehand that the fair was not to be held. There should not be the momentary doubt of the fair being held; and it would be better to go on with the fair than to scatter the germs of disease about the country.
  MR. CHAPLINagreed with the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), as to the necessity of knowing what was going to be the course adopted as regarded fairs. He thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee and the Government if the latter would give an undertaking to consider the question to-morrow, or when the 26th clause was reached.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONforesaw great difficulties in taking away the entire power of Inspectors to deal with fairs and markets. The 22nd clause was subject to the provisions of the 26th; but if the power were struck out absolutely from the 22nd, a difficulty would arise. The regulations issued might have reference to a particular fair, and the part of that fair might be set apart as infected, the rest of the animals being kept apart in some way. He was only suggesting that might possibly be one of the Orders. If any alterations were made, they should be made on Clause 26. The whole thing turned on the powers becoming statutory in that
  1934
  clause, and they would then override Clause 22. Much depended on the powers exercised under Clause 26, by which the power under Clause 22 would be remitted. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government should know what they proposed to do; but until there was a fair prospect of the Bill passing, it would be impossible to state. The Orders were not drawn; but they were under consideration, and before the Bill passed through Committee he hoped to be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. But he maintained that the abstraction of the words as proposed would prevent the Inspector from carrying out the instructions he would receive in the Orders issued under Clause 26 with regard to fairs and markets.
  MR. MURPHYsaid, if he understood the matter rightly, the addition of a few words to the 1st section of Clause 22 would carry out the idea of the hon. Baronet, and reconcile the Act with the principle it was intended to carry out. By the 1st section the Inspector was bound to make a declaration, being allowed no discretion whatever. But if it were true, as he was inclined to think it was, that the controlling words of Clause 26 would enable the Privy Council to override that—if that was so, what objection could there be to add to the end of the section a few words to that effect? The section might read thus—
  "Where it appears to an Inspector of a local authority that foot-and-mouth disease exists, or has within ten days existed, in a cowshed, field, or other place, he shall forthwith make and sign a declaration thereof, subject to instructions received from the Privy Council under section 4 of Clause 26."
  If those additional words were put in, it would explain the matter. It would override the mandatory clause; make the local Inspector subject to Clause 26; and remove the conflict which appeared to exist between the 1st section and the powers of the Privy Council. He could not see how, as the clause stood, the local Inspector could escape from the mandatory clause. Supposing a fair was about to be held in Ireland, and that for two or three days previously cattle were sent from various parts for sale, it would be quite possible for two men acting in collusion to send a beast affected with foot-and-mouth disease into the fair field, and then give

  1935
  notice. So the fair might be stopped, and the cattle jobbers would be enabled to buy at short prices. Such a possibility might occur. He ventured to think that the introduction of the words he suggested at the end of the section would meet the point raised.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not venture to accept the words without consideration; but he was quite sure the Committee and himself had the same wish, and that was, to prevent fairs and markets becoming hot-beds of disease, and, at the same time, to avoid, as far as possible, interference with ordinary trade. With Clause 26, it was proposed to limit the action of the Inspector in dealing with fairs and markets. He might be authorized to deal with a part of the fair as an infected area. He was quite willing to consider words in the spirit and sense of those proposed by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy), and bring them up on Report; but he could not consent to adopt the Amendment suddenly.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERtrusted the Committee would not suppose he was acting in a spirit of obstruction to the Bill, when he moved that Progress be reported. They had met with a legal difficulty, and there was another difficulty in point of policy. They could not now go through the clause, for until it was known in what way the Government were going to act, it would be impossible to vote for the last Amendment proposed. Perhaps, after consideration, the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to furnish some information.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)
  MR. STORER, before the Question was put, wished to know how, in the case of a fair, the occupier was to be defined, and he expressed a hope that the Government would not yield on the point raised.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL— [BILL 251.]
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Board may raise money by bills).
  MR. THOMSON HANKEY MR. THOMSON HANKEY moved, in page 6, lines 28 and 29, to leave out "two million three hundred and two thousand pounds," and insert "five hundred thousand pounds." The object was to limit the power of raising money for permanent improvements. It appeared to him that the whole clause was an extraordinary one, and he was sorry that the Metropolitan Board of Works should have thought it necessary to insert it. The only justification he could possibly understand was that it was inserted in the Bill last year; but that was no reason whatever. It was perfectly inconceivable to attempt to raise money for permanent improvements by borrowing at three, five, and 12 months. It was very undesirable to borrow the whole of this money at a particular moment. The state of the money market might be such that it would be highly inconvenient to borrow. They might borrow money on disadvantageous terms, and so put an additional tax on the Metropolitan ratepayers. It was left to the Metropolitan Board of Works whether they would borrow the whole of the money on bills of three or six months. Suppose the state of the markets to be favourable, money might be obtained extremely cheap. But securities of the kind they gave ought not to be issued for three or six months, without the possibility of repaying them. It was perfectly monstrous. The hon. and gallant Member (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), who had joint charge of the Bill, said that it might be exceedingly convenient that a portion of this money should be so raised. If that were so, he should waive his objection as to the principle. He believed his present proposal would meet the views of the Secretary to the Treasury, and he, therefore, begged to move his Amendment.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the Bill was brought in by

  1937
  the Treasury under an arrangement with the Metropolitan Board of Works, and no objection was taken to it last year. He quite admitted the force of all that had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Hankey), and now that objection had been raised, he agreed with him that it would be far better to limit these powers in the way the hon. Member proposed to do. Some power of that sort existed, and it was in the interest of the ratepayers that money should be borrowed for a short period whenever it was not possible to raise the money on advantageous terms. The Metropolitan Board had to raise money compulsorily for carrying out these works; and it was quite possible that at the time they had to raise the money there might be difficulty in getting the money at a proper rate, and it might be advantageous to take short bills until the time was more favourable.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHthought the Metropolitan Board of Works ought to be much obliged to the hon. Member who had brought this matter forward.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that not being really in charge of the Bill, but being in favour of it, he might say that after the advice that had been given, he should be glad to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Hankey). He might say that the Bill had been brought in for the last three or four years. Before that time the Metropolitan Board of Works came to Parliament and took power to raise money for carrying out improvements. The Treasury thought proper, a few years ago, to exempt the Metropolitan Board from carrying that out. The proposals now made brought before the purview of Parliament every year the whole of the liabilities of the Metropolitan Board. There was a statement of everything the Metropolitan Board had borrowed, and of the various improvements which had been sanctioned by Parliament. He should like to point out that, in former times, they could choose the time when they could raise loans. They were not obliged to go into the money market at a particular time, but could go in at any time they pleased that was advantageous. It was well known in the money market that the Metropolitan Board had to raise money every year, to carry out their
  1938
  works. The Board wished to obtain terms that were advantageous to the public at large; and, therefore, last year they went to the Treasury to ask for power to issue a certain number of short bills, so that they might take advantage of money being cheap, and need not go into the market. Hon. Members knew that there were such things as rigging a market, and knocking it down when a loan was expected; and that was disadvantageous to the public. Therefore, they sought power to issue these bills, in order to prevent the necessity of raising money in a manner that might be injurious to ratepayers. The Metropolitan Board of Works was not able to raise money by these bills without the consent of the Treasury, and they acted in the manner most advantageous to the public interest.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHsaid, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) was entitled to the thanks of the House for calling attention to the subject. From what was said by the Secretary to the Treasury, it was quite clear the subject was not sufficiently considered last Session, when legislation took place of which he could not entirely approve. He should like to ask two questions whilst they were on this Bill. It was a new mode of raising money by the Metropolitan Board of Works. He wanted to know what security there was to prevent fraud on these bills? Another explanation he would like to be given was as to how the banking of the Metropolitan Board of Works was done? That was a subject which he thought ought to be more fully discussed by the House at some other time. It was obvious, from explanations given, that the Metropolitan Board of Works did not bank with the Bank of England. He had heard that the Metropolitan Board of Works had a very expensive system of banking. It was said that there was a large sum of money left at a certain bank by the Metropolitan Board which might as well be left at the Bank of England, and for which the ratepayers of London might have got a large sum of money. He should like some explanation as to the precautions proposed for preventing the fraudulent issue of these bills.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwould remind hon. Members that he was not responsible for the action under this

  1939
  Bill last year. It was thought to be for the interest of the public that power should be given to allow the Metropolitan Board of Works to raise money in this particular way. He could not give any answer as to the banking account, because he had nothing to do with it.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGthought the hon. Member who had used the term "fraudulent" could not have made himself acquainted with the facts. The bills were issued by the Board, and countersigned by the Treasury. He did not quite catch what the hon. Member said about banking account; but the facts of the case were these. They obtained interest for a certain portion of the money of the Board. Their bankers were the London and Westminster Bank. A great many rumours had been set about, and statements more than erroneous had got into the public prints. He had not taken the trouble to answer them; because, if he did, he might have nothing else to do. The London and Westminster Bank became the bankers of the Metropolitan Board of Works 10 or 11 years ago. That bank gave interest which the Bank of England did not. In one year the interest which the ratepayers of London received on deposits was upwards of £30,000. That was better than leaving the money idle at the Bank of England. He did not know whether the hon. Member wished for any further explanation; but, if so, he would be happy to give it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Mode of Issue of Metropolitan bills).
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, this was a clause which prescribed the forms and conditions under which bills were to be issued, and by what authority they were to be sanctioned. It appeared they were to be issued on the warrant of the Treasury; but it was not provided that any notice of this warrant should appear on the face of the bills, and the warrants would not be inseparably attached to the bills so as to become part of them. It was quite possible that bills might be issued by the Board without the warrant of the Treasury, or, at all events, without
  1940
  the observance of every prescribed formality. The bills were negotiable, and would probably pass into the hands of bankers without any warrant; and having no reason to suspect informality, the question would then arise, whether those who had taken them for value ought not to be protected, even though the bills had been irregularly issued? It might be that the Courts of Law would protect such holders without any express provision on their behalf, as it was the essential and distinguishing characteristic of a bill of exchange, that a person taking it for value, without notice of any equities binding it in the hands of the previous holder, held it discharged from these equities; but the point should be made clear. Those who took the bills bonâ fide ought to be protected, and their rights should be perfect. He did not wish to arrest the progress of the Bill on the present occasion; but he would ask whether, next year, words could not be inserted to protect the holders of those bills from loss by the bills having been irregularly drawn?
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the Government would not assent to the proposal. Those who took the bills of the Metropolitan Board of Works, if they had been irregularly issued, ought not to have any greater facilities for recovering the amounts than those at present existing in analogous cases.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYcould not agree with the observations of the hon. Gentleman (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), because the object was to enable the Metropolitan Board to get money at a cheap rate. In order to do that, it was necessary that their bills should be secure.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsimply wished that no more facilities should be given to the executive officials of the Metropolitan Board of Works than to those of any other public body to make irregular bills of exchange indefeasible securities.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  TELEGRAPHS BILL— [Lords]— [BILL 257.]
  (Lord John Manners.)

  SECOND READING DEFERRED.
  MR. WHITWELLwished to ask the Government whether they intended to proceed with the Bill? It had aroused strong feeling, and he would like to know whether the Government proposed to refer it to a Select Committee, or to go forward, or what course they poposed to take?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would be able to inform the hon. Member on Monday. He had not conferred with his noble Friend at the head of the Post Office (Lord John Manners), but he would refer to him upon the question that had been raised.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.
  (Sir Windham Anstruther, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Edward Colebrooke, Sir Graham Montgomery, Mr. Ramsay.)

  [BILL 205.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  On Question, "That the Preamble be postponed?"
  MR. R. W. DUFF MR. R. W. DUFF moved that the Chairman report Progress, because the Bill raised important questions as to the assessment of railways, besides other matters, and it was impossible to enter into them at that late hour.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Robert Duff.)
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYurged that the late period of the Session rendered it necessary to proceed with the Bill. The question of rates on railways had been settled by the Select Committee of 1870; and all he proposed to do was to carry their recommendation into effect. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. W. Duff) would allow the Bill to proceed.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the measure involved important principles with regard to rating. He was not prepared
  1942
  to say whether he approved altogether of those principles or not, as embodied in the Bill; but they were so important as affecting the incidence of taxation in Scotland, that he questioned whether it was competent to introduce a measure on the subject in the form which this Bill had taken. It presented a new mode of levying taxation, and, in point of fact, added to the taxation of the country; or, at least, provided that it should be levied upon a higher valuation than at present. This was not a time for the discussion of the question. It might be quite true that these matters had been reported upon by the Select Committee of 1870; but that very fact showed that a measure of so much importance ought to have been brought forward on the responsibility of the Government, and not by a private Member. The public of Scotland, who were so vitally affected by the Bill, knew nothing about its present provisions; for, since its introduction, it had been entirely altered, and they had had no opportunity of knowing what change the measure proposed with regard to the mode of levying taxation. The effect of the Bill would be to increase the taxation upon certain classes of property for the benefit of others. Under these circumstances, he thought the people of Scotland ought to be informed, as they might be by a report of this discussion in the newspapers, what was the real nature and effect of the change contemplated by the Bill in its altered form. He would appeal to the Chairman whether a measure dealing with so important a question, and affecting the taxation of the people of Scotland, ought to be introduced in the form in which it was now brought forward?
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the Bill, in its present form, was in Order, as it dealt with a question of local rating only.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought it was scarcely fair to proceed with the Bill at so late an hour, and, therefore, supported the Motion for reporting Progress, as a reasonable proposition. It could not be complained by the hon. Member (Sir Graham Montgomery), who had charge of the measure, that it was likely to be damaged in any way by putting the Committee off for another night or so; because the hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, have a fair chance of bringing it on between 1 and 2 o'clock

  1943
  on some of the nights in the course of next week. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. Member would not proceed with it now.
  MR. ADAMexpressed a hope that the hon. Gentleman (Sir Graham Montgomery) would persevere with the Bill to-night. It was absurd to say that the Bill was not known. It had long been before the public, and they had had ample opportunity for making themselves acquainted with the changes it contemplated. To say that the hon. Member (Sir Graham Montgomery) ought not to bring the Bill on at that hour of the night was, considering the advanced period of the Session, as much as to say that he should not bring it forward at all. It was hard that an hon. Member should sit there till a late hour, in order to bring on a Bill, and yet be told that he must not proceed with it, because the hour was late. If Bills of that kind were not taken at a late hour, they could not be taken at all. He, therefore, trusted that the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would persevere with it, as it was a measure which ought to be passed, and was much wanted in Scotland.
  DR. CAMERONshared the view just expressed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adam). The Bill had long been before the House, and for many weeks in its present shape before the public. If it were proceeded with in Committee, the public would, in no way, be damnified. The discussion of the Bill, if opposed on Report, would not come on at a later hour than half-past 12. He hoped the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would do his best to get it through Committee to-night. There was not the smallest danger of any injury to constituents, as the hon. Member below him (Mr. R. W. Duff) would, if the Bill passed through Committee in a shape to which he objected, still have it in his power to prevent its discussion at the next stage at any hour later than half-past 12.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, passing Bills was one thing, but passing bad Bills was another. The House, which had been sitting for many hours, would have to meet at 2 o'clock the next day; and he did not think it was either convenient or desirable to proceed with the discussion of a Bill at an hour when the Committee could not very well arrive at right conclusions. It was an objectionable
  1944
  practice to force Bills through at a late hour. It was resorted to generally towards the close of the Session; and he did not think that legislation, under such circumstances, was calculated to effect improvements. He hoped the Motion for reporting Progress would be agreed to. It was much more difficult to discuss Bills at that late hour than it would be at 2 o'clock the next day.
  MR. R. W. DUFFdid not wish to appear as an obstructive. This was an important Bill. It was true that it had been before the country, and the consequence was that many representations had been made to him of the unfair character of the measure. It was really a most audacious attempt on the part of the railways to assess other properties, and to save their own from taxation. The existing Act provided that one-half the expenses of improvements might be deducted; but this Bill proposed to levy the whole of the expenses upon other property, entirely excluding that of railways. If that principle were adopted in Scotland, it would next be applied to England. Under these circumstances, he thought the Committee would acquit him of obstruction, if he persevered with his Motion for reporting Progress.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. R. W. Duff) would have been a most reasonable one if he had limited his opposition to the clauses which dealt with the matter in question. The Bill contained some very valuable clauses, which had not been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. For his own part, he did not see why the hon. Member who had the Bill in charge should not be permitted to go on with the clauses, excepting those which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. W. Duff) had objected to. If that course were adopted, a discussion on the latter might be taken at a future stage. The Bill contained provisions which were necessary for the administration of the law of valuation in Scotland.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAdeprecated proceeding at that hour of the night with a Bill to which there were no fewer than 23 Amendments. The Committee could not fairly consider so many at that time. No doubt it was a very meritorious measure; but as it would, if passed, be made a precedent for both England and Ireland, he protested

  1945
  against its being considered at 10 minutes past 1 in the morning.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, referring to what had just fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) as to the number of Amendments on the Paper, assured the Committee that their consideration would not occupy more than five minutes, as they were all agreed upon by the parties interested in the Bill. With regard to the remark that the rating of railways was a question which the Government ought to undertake, he could only say that they had never been able to find an opportunity to deal with it, but the present attempt had their approval; and, therefore, he hoped the Committee would consent to proceed with the Bill.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 57: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 227.)
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he had to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. He wished to explain that this was a very important measure, as it altered the incidence of taxation in Scotland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) had said that the subject had been before, and had been reported upon by, a Select Committee; but if that were so, and if the Bill were approved by the Government, surely it ought to have been brought forward as a Government Bill. But he wished particularly to call attention to Clause 9, which raised a very important question as to the incidence of taxation. He might fairly say that the people in Scotland did not know anything as to what was proposed in the Bill. It would, no doubt, be very acceptable to the Railway Companies, as it would relieve them of a very considerable amount of taxation; but he hoped that the Government would see that there were a number of Scotch Members who were determined not to allow the Bill to pass through Committee that night.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that all he wished to point out was that there
  1946
  were two questions in the Bill. There was one, which he granted was a very important question—namely, that which was contained in the 8th clause, and had reference to the rating of railways, and he thought that ought to be fairly discussed by the House. But all the other part of the Bill was matter about which there was no dispute. Of course, if the Committee were determined not to go on with the Bill, he would advise his hon. Friend in charge of it not to get into a wrangle and waste time; but he certainly was of opinion that the Committee might get through those clauses about which there was no dispute. They were matters which were absolutely essential for the rating in Scotland, and had nothing whatever to do with that part of the Bill which dealt with railways.
  MR. R. W. DUFFasked, whether the Government would give an assurance that the 8th and 9th clauses of the Bill would not be pressed until the principle contained in them was adopted in England?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that his name was on the back of the Bill, but it had been placed there before these particular clauses were added. The Bill had had for its objects the establishment of committees of assessment and the giving certain facilities for appeal. It had since been extended to other matters, and he was not at present prepared to say whether he agreed or disagreed with them; but he thought his hon. Friend in charge of the Bill was quite entitled to take the first seven clauses, which really were the original Bill, and the rest of the clauses might be left over for future consideration.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that after the explanation that had just been given, they ought not to take the Bill at all at that hour of the night; for it appeared that some of the most serious clauses had not appeared in the Bill when the hon. Gentleman's name was upon the back of it. It was, as a matter of fact, another Bill substituted for the original measure.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he was very much in the position of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), for his name was on the back of the Bill; but it had been placed there when neither the 8th, 9th, or 10th clauses were in it, and those were the very parts of the Bill to which objection

  1947
  had been taken. Therefore, he had not wished to interrupt the progress of the Bill, and had, accordingly, left the House when the division took place; but he felt that if the Home Secretary would say that the Government were going now to object to progress with the 8th, 9th, and 10th clauses, then he would beg of his hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff) to allow them to proceed with the useful clauses which were contemplated when the Bill was first introduced.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he should not wish to proceed with these clauses that night.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, that that was not enough. He wished the Government to say that they would not proceed with them at all. If they would do that, Members on his side of the House would allow the useful part of the Bill to pass.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought it would be better to adjourn the debate, as it was only wasting time to go any further.
  Motion (Mr. J. W. Barclay), by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Committee to consider of authorising the extension of the several provisions of "The Irish Church Act, 1869," with respect to Advances to he made by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to the Commissioners of Church Temporalities, and with respect to the powers of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury in relation to the Money to be so raised, to the provisions of any Act of the present Session to promote Intermediate Education in Ireland (Queen's Recommendation signified), To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Debtors Acts Amendment* (163).
Second Reading—Commutation of Tithes* (151); County of Hertford* (154).
Third Reading—Innkeepers* (160); Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) * (158), and passed.

CONGRESS—CORRESPONDENCE AND PROTOCOLS.
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, in laying on the Table of your Lordships' House, as I am about to do, the Protocols of the Congress of Berlin, I have thought I should be only doing my duty to your Lordships' House, to Parliament generally, and to the country, if I made some remarks on the policy which was supported by the Representatives of Her Majesty at the Congress, and which is embodied in the Treaty of Berlin and in the Convention which was placed on your Lordships' Table during my absence.
My Lords, you are aware that the Treaty of San Stefano was looked on with much distrust and alarm by Her Majesty's Government—that they believed it was calculated to bring about a state of affairs dangerous to European independence, and injurious to the interests of the British Empire. Our impeachment of that policy is before your Lordships and the country, and is contained in the Circular of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in April last. Our present contention is that we can show that, by the changes and modifications which have been made in the Treaty of San Stefano by the Congress of Berlin and by the Convention of Constantinople, the menace to European independence has been removed, and the threatened injury to the British Empire has been averted. Your Lordships will recollect that by the Treaty of San Stefano about one-half of Turkey in Europe was formed into a State called Bulgaria—a State consisting of upwards of 50,000 geographical square miles, and containing a population of 4,000,000, with harbours on either sea—both on the shores of the Euxine and of the Archipelago. That disposition of territory severed Constantinople and the limited district which was still spared to the possessors of that city—severed it from the Provinces of Macedonia and Thrace by Bulgaria descending to the very shores of the Ægean; and, altogether, a State was formed which, both from its natural resources and its peculiarly favourable geographical position, must necessarily have exercised a predominant influence over the political and commercial interests of that part of the world. The
1754
remaining portion of Turkey in Europe was reduced also to a considerable degree by affording what was called compensation to previous rebellious tributary Principalities, which have now become independent States—so that the general result of the Treaty of San Stefano was, that while it spared the authority of the Sultan so far as his capital and its immediate vicinity, it reduced him to a state of subjection to the great Power which had defeated his Armies, and which was present at the gates of his capital. Accordingly, though it might be said that he still seemed to be invested with one of the highest functions of public duty—the protection and custody of the Straits—it was apparent that his authority in that respect could be exercised by him only in deference to the superior Power which had vanquished him, and to whom the proposed arrangements would have kept him in subjection. My Lords, in these matters the Congress of Berlin have made great changes. They have restored to the Sultan two-thirds of the territory which was to have formed the great Bulgarian State. They have restored to him upwards of 30,000 geographical square miles, and 2,500,000 of population—that territory being the richest in the Balkans where most of the land is rich, and the population one of the wealthiest, most ingenious, and most loyal of his subjects. The frontiers of his State have been pushed forward from the mere environs of Salonica and Adrianople to the lines of the Balkans and Trajan's Pass; the new Principality, which was to exercise such an influence, and produce a revolution in the disposition of the territory and policy of that part of the globe is now merely a State in the Valley of the Danube, and both in its extent and its population is reduced to one-third of what was contemplated by the Treaty of San Stefano. My Lords, it has been said that while the Congress of Berlin decided upon a policy so bold as that of declaring the range of the Balkans as the frontier of what may now be called New Turkey, they have, in fact, furnished it with a frontier which, instead of being impregnable, is in some parts undefended, and is altogether one of an inadequate character. My Lords, it is very difficult to decide, so far as nature is concerned, whether any combination of circumstances can ever be brought

1755
about which would furnish what is called an impregnable frontier. Whether it be river, desert, or mountainous range, it will be found, in the long run, that the impregnability of a frontier must be supplied by the vital spirit of man; and that it is by the courage, discipline, patriotism, and devotion of a population that impregnable frontiers can alone be formed. And, my Lords, when I remember what race of men it was that created and defended Plevna, I must confess my confidence that, if the cause be a good one, they will not easily find that the frontier of the Balkans is indefensible. But it is said that although the Congress has furnished—and it pretended to furnish nothing more—a competent military frontier to Turkey, the disposition was so ill-managed that, at the same time, it failed to secure an effective barrier—that in devising the frontier, it so arranged matters that this very line of the Balkans may be turned. The Congress has been charged with having committed one of the greatest blunders that could possibly have been accomplished by leaving Sofia in the possession of a Power really independent of Turkey, and one which, in the course of time, might become hostile to Turkey. My Lords, this is, in my opinion, an error on the part of those who furnish information of an authentic character to the different populations of Europe, who naturally desire to have correct information on such matters. It is said that the position of Sofia is of a commanding character, and that of its value the Congress were not aware, and that it was yielded to an imperious demand on the part of one of the Powers represented at the Congress. My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that there is not a shadow of truth in the statement. I shall show that when the Congress resolved to establish the line of the Balkans as the frontier of Turkey, they felt that there would have been no difficulty, as a matter of course, in Turkey retaining the possession of Sofia. What happened was this. The highest military authority of the Turks—so I think I may describe him—was one of the Plenipotentiaries at the Congress of the Porte—I allude to Mehemet Ali Pasha. Well, the moment the line of the Balkans was spoken of, he brought under the notice of his Colleagues at the Conference—and especially, I may say, of the Plenipo-
1756
tentiaries of England—his views on the subject; and, speaking as he did not only with military authority, but also with consummate acquaintance with all these localities, he said nothing could be more erroneous than the idea that Sofia was a strong strategical position, and that those who possessed it would immediately turn the Balkans and march on Constantinople. He said that as a strategical position it was worthless; but that there was a position in the Sandjak of Sofia which, if properly defended, might be regarded as impregnable, and that was the Pass of Ichtiman. He thought it of vital importance to the Sultan that that position should be secured to Turkey, as then His Majesty would have an efficient defence to his capital. That position was secured. It is a pass which, if properly defended, will prevent any host, however powerful, from taking Constantinople by turning the Balkans. But, in consequence of that arrangement, it became the duty of the Plenipotentiaries to see what would be the best arrangement in regard of Sofia and its immediate districts. The population of Sofia and its district are, I believe, without exception, Bulgarian, and it was thought wise, they being Bulgarians, that, if possible, it should be included in Bulgaria. That was accomplished by exchanging it for a district in which the population, if not exclusively, are numerically, Mahomedan, and which, so far as the fertility of the land is concerned, is an exchange highly to the advantage of the Porte. That, my Lords, is a short account of an arrangement which I know has for a month past given rise in Europe, and especially in this country, to a belief that it was in deference to Russia that Sofia was not retained, and that by its not having been retained Turkey had lost the means of defending herself, in the event of her being again plunged into war.
My Lords, it has also been said, with regard to the line of the Balkans, that it was not merely in respect of the possession of Sofia an error was committed, but that the Congress made a great mistake in not retaining Varna. My Lords, I know that there are in this Assembly many Members who have recollections—glorious recollections—of that locality. They will know at once that if the line of the Balkans were

1757
established as the frontier, it would be impossible to include Varna, which is to the North of the Balkans. Varna itself is not a place of importance, and only became so in connection with a system of fortifications which are now to be rased. No doubt, in connection with a line of strongholds, Varna formed a part of a system of defence; but of itself Varna is not a place of importance. Of itself it is only a roadstead, and those who dwell upon the importance of Varna and consider that it was a great error on the part of the Congress not to have secured it for Turkey, quite forget that between the Bosphorus and Varna, upon the coast of the Black Sea, the Congress has allotted to Turkey by far a much more important point on the Black Sea—the harbour of Burgas. My Lords, I think I have shown that the charges made against the Congress on these three grounds—the frontiers of the Balkans, the non-retention of Sofia, and the giving up of Varna—have no foundation whatever.
Well, my Lords, having established the Balkans as the frontier of Turkey in Europe, the Congress resolved that South of the Balkans, to a certain extent, the country should be formed into a Province to which should be given the name of Eastern Roumelia. At one time, it was proposed by some to call it South Bulgaria; but it was manifest that with such a name between it and North Bulgaria, there would be constant intriguing to bring about a union between the two Provinces. We, therefore, thought that the Province of East Roumelia should be formed, and that there should be established in it a Government somewhat different from that of contiguous Provinces where the authority of the Sultan might be more unlimited. I am not myself of opinion that, as a general rule, it is wise to interfere with a military Power which you acknowledge; but, though it might have been erroneous, as a political principle, to limit the military authority of the Sultan, yet there are in this world other things besides political principles—there are such things as historical facts, and he would not be a prudent statesman who did not take into consideration historical facts as well as political principles. The Province which we have formed into Eastern
1758
Roumelia had been the scene of many excesses, by parties on both sides, to which human nature looks with deep regret; and it was thought advisable, in making these arrangements for the peace of Europe, that we should take steps to prevent the probable recurrence of such events. Yet to do this and not give the Sultan a direct military authority in the Province, would have been, in our opinion, a grievous error. We have, therefore, decided that the Sultan should have the power to defend the barrier of the Balkans with all his available force. He has power to defend his frontiers by land and by sea, both by the passes of the mountains and the ports and strongholds of the Black Sea. No limit has been placed on the amount of force he may bring to bear with that object. No one can dictate to him what the amount of that force shall be; but, in respect of the interior and the internal government of the Province, we thought the time had arrived when we should endeavour to carry into effect some of those important proposals intended for the better administration of the States of the Sultan which were discussed and projected at the Conference of Constantinople. My Lords, I will not enter into any minute details on these questions. They might weary you at this moment, and I have several other matters on which I must yet touch; but, generally speaking, I imagine there are three great points which we shall have before us in any attempt to improve the administration of Turkish Dominion. First of all, it is most important—and we have so established it in Eastern Roumelia—that the office of Governor shall be for a specific period, and that, as in India, it should not be for less than five years. If that system generally obtained in the Dominions of the Sultan, I believe it would be of incalculable benefit. Secondly, we thought it desirable that there should be instituted public assemblies, in which the popular element should be adequately represented, and that the business of those assemblies should be to levy and administer the local finances of the Province. And, thirdly, we thought it equally important that order should be maintained in this Province, either by a gendarmerie of adequate force or by a local militia, in both cases the officers holding their commissions from the Sultan. But the whole

1759
subject of the administration of Eastern Roumelia has been referred to an Imperial Commission at Constantinople, and this Commission, after making its investigations, will submit recommendations to the Sultan, who will issue Firmans to carry those recommendations into effect. I may mention here—as it may save time—that in all the arrangements which have been made to improve the condition of the subject-races of Turkey in Europe, inquiry by local commissions in all cases where investigation may be necessary is contemplated. Those commissions are to report their results to the Chief Commission, and, after the Firman of the Sultan has been issued, the changes will take place. It is supposed that in the course of three months from the time of the ratification of the Treaty of Berlin, the principal arrangments may be effected.
My Lords, I may now state what has been effected by the Congress in respect of Bosnia—that being a point on which I think considerable error prevails. One of the most difficult matters we had to encounter in attempting what was the object of the Congress of Berlin—namely, to re-establish the Sultan as a real and substantial authority—was the condition of some of his distant Provinces, and especially of Bosnia. The state of Bosnia, and of those Provinces and Principalities contiguous to it, was one of chronic anarchy. There is no language which can describe adequately the condition of that large portion of the Balkan Peninsula occupied by Roumania, Servia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and other Provinces. Political intrigues, constant rivalries, a total absence of all public spirit and of the pursuit of objects which patriotic minds would wish to accomplish, the hatred of races, the animosities of rival religions, and, above all, the absence of any controlling power that could keep these large districts in anything like order—such were the sad truths, which no one who has investigated the subject could resist for a moment. Hitherto—at least until within the last two years—Turkey had some semblance of authority, which, though it was rarely adequate, and when adequate, was unwisely exercised, still was an authority to which the injured could appeal, and which sometimes might control violence. But the Turkey of the present time was in no condition to
1760
exercise that authority. I inquired into the matter of those most competent to give an opinion, and the result of my investigation was a conviction that nothing short of an Army of 50,000 men of the best troops of Turkey would produce anything like order in those parts, and that, were the attempt to be made, it would be contested and resisted, and might finally be defeated. But what was to be said at a time when all the statesmen of Europe were attempting to concentrate and condense the resources of the Porte with the view of strengthening them—what would have been the position of the Porte if it had to commence its new career—a career, it is to be hoped, of amelioration and tranquillity—by despatching a large Army to Bosnia to deal with those elements of difficulty and danger? It is quite clear, my Lords, that such an effort at this moment by Turkey might bring about its absolute ruin. Then what was to be done? There have been before, in the history of diplomacy, not unfrequent instances in which, even in civilized parts of the globe, States having fallen into decrepitude, have afforded no assistance to keep order and tranquillity, and have become, as these districts have become, a source of danger to their neighbours. Under such circumstances, the Powers of Europe have generally looked to see whether there was any neighbouring Power of a character entirely different from those disturbed and desolated regions, but deeply interested in their welfare and prosperity, who would undertake the task of attempting to restore their tranquillity and prosperity. In the present case, you will see that the position of Austria is one that clearly indicates her as fitted to undertake such an office. It is not the first time that Austria has occupied Provinces at the request of Europe to insure that order and tranquillity, which are European interests, might prevail in them. Not once, twice, or thrice has Austria undertaken such an office. There may be differences of opinion as to the policy on which Austria has acted, or as to the principles of government which she has maintained; but that has nothing to do with the fact that, under circumstances similar to those which I have described as existing in Bosnia and the Provinces contiguous to it, Austria has been invited and has interfered in the

1761
manner I have described, and has brought about order and tranquillity. Austria, in the present case, was deeply interested that some arrangement should be made. Austria, for now nearly three years, has had upwards of 150,000 refugees from Bosnia, which have been supported by her resources, and whose demands notoriously have been of a vexatious and exhausting character. It was, therefore, thought expedient by the Congress that Austria should be invited to occupy Bosnia, and not to leave it until she had deeply laid the foundations of tranquillity and order. My Lords, I am the last man who would wish, when objections are made to our proceedings, to veil them under the decision of the Congress; it was a decision which the Plenipotentiaries of England highly approved. It was a proposal which, as your Lordships will see when you refer to the Protocols which I shall lay on the Table to-night, was made by my noble Friend the Secretary of State, that Austria should accept this trust and fulfil this duty; and I earnestly supported him on that occasion. My Lords, in consequence of that arrangement, cries have been raised against our "partition of Turkey." My Lords, our object has been directly the reverse—our object has been to prevent partition. The question of partition is one upon which, it appears to me, very erroneous ideas are in circulation. Some two years ago—before, I think, the war had commenced, but when the disquietude and dangers of the situation were very generally felt—there was a school of statesmen who were highly in favour of what they believed to be the only remedy—what they called the partition of Turkey. Those who did not agree with them were those who thought we should, on the whole, attempt the restoration of Turkey. Her Majesty's Government at all times have resisted the partition of Turkey. They have done so, because, exclusive of the high moral considerations that are mixed up with the subject, they believed an attempt, on a great scale, to accomplish the partition of Turkey would inevitably lead to a long, a sanguinary, and often-recurring struggle, and that Europe and Asia would both be involved in a series of troubles and sources of disaster and danger of which no adequate idea could be formed. These professors of
1762
partition—quite secure, no doubt, in their own views—have freely spoken to us on this subject. We have been taken up to a high mountain and shown all the Kingdoms of the earth, and they have said—"All these shall be yours if you will worship Partition." But we have declined to do so, for the reasons I have shortly given. And it is a remarkable circumstance that after the great war, and after the prolonged diplomatic negotiations, which lasted during nearly a period of three years, on this matter, the whole Powers of Europe, including Russia, have strictly, and as completely as ever, come to the unanimous conclusion that the best chance for the tranquillity and order of the world is to retain the Sultan as part of the acknowledged political system of Europe. My Lords, unquestionably after a great war—and I call the late war a great war, because the greatness of a war now must not be calculated by its duration, but by the amount of the forces brought into the field, and where a million of men have struggled for supremacy, as has been the case recently, I call that a great war—but, I say, after a great war like this, it is utterly impossible that you can have a settlement of any permanent character without a re-distribution of territory and considerable changes. But that is not partition. My Lords, a country may have lost provinces, but that is not partition. We know that not very long ago a great country—one of the foremost countries of the world—lost provinces; yet, is not France one of the great Powers of the world, and with afuture—a commanding future? Austria herself has lost provinces—more provinces even than Turkey, perhaps; even England has lost provinces—the most precious possessions—the loss of which every Englishmen must deplore to this moment. We lost them from bad government. Had the principles which now obtain between the Metropolis and her Dependencies prevailed then, we should not, perhaps, have lost those provinces, and the power of this Empire would have been proportionally increased. It is perfectly true that the Sultan of Turkey has lost provinces; it is true that his Armies have been defeated; it is true that his enemy is even now at his gates; but all that has happened to other Powers. But a Sovereign who has not yet forfeited his capital,

1763
whose capital has not yet been occupied by his enemy—and that capital one of the strongest in the world—who has Armies and Fleets at his disposal, and still rules over 20,000,000 of inhabitants, cannot be described as a Power whose Dominions have been partitioned. My Lords, it has been said that no limit has been fixed to the occupation of Bosnia by Austria. Well, I think that was a very wise step. The moment you limit an occupation you deprive it of half its virtue. All those opposed to the principles which occupation was devised to foster and strengthen feel they have only to hold their breath and wait a certain time, and the opportunity for their interference would again present itself. Therefore, I cannot agree with the objection which is made to the arrangement with regard to the occupation of Bosnia by Austria on the question of its duration.
My Lords, there is a point on which I feel it now my duty to trouble your Lordships, and that is the question of Greece. A severe charge has been made against the Congress, and particularly against the English Plenipotentiaries, for not having sufficiently attended to the interests and claims of Greece. My Lords, I think you will find on reflection that that charge is utterly unfounded. The English Government were the first that expressed the desire that Greece should be heard at the Congress. But, while they expressed that desire, they communicated confidentially to Greece that it must on no account associate that desire on the part of the Government with any engagement for the re-distribution of territory. That was repeated, and not merely once repeated. The Greek inhabitants, apart from the Kingdom of Greece, are a considerable element in the Turkish Empire, and it is of the greatest importance that their interests should be sedulously attended to. One of the many evils of that large Slav State—the Bulgaria of the San Stefano Treaty—was, that it would have absorbed, and made utterly to disappear from the earth, a considerable Greek population. At the Congress the Greeks were heard, and they were heard by Representatives of considerable eloquence and ability; but it was quite clear, the moment they put their case before the Congress, that they had totally misapprehended the reason why the Congress
1764
had met together, and what were its objects and character. The Greek Representatives, evidently, had not in any way relinquished what they call their great idea—and your Lordships well know that it is one that has no limit which does not reach as far as Constantinople. But they did mention at the Congress, as a practical people, and feeling that they had no chance of obtaining at that moment all they desired—that they were willing to accept as an instalment the two large Provinces of Epirus and Thessaly, and the Island of Crete. It was quite evident to the Congress that the Representatives of Greece utterly misunderstood the objects of our labours—that we were not there to partition Turkey, and give them their share of Turkey, but for a very contrary purpose—as far as we could, to re-establish the Dominion of the Sultan on a rational basis, to condense and concentrate his authority, and to take the opportunity—of which we have largely availed ourselves—of improving the condition of his subjects. I trust, therefore, when I have pointed out to your Lordships this cardinal error in the views of Greece, that your Lordships will feel that the charge made against the Congress has no substantial foundation. But the interests of Greece were not neglected, and least of all by Her Majesty's Government. Before the Congress of Berlin, believing that there was an opportunity of which considerable advantage might be made for Greece without deviating into partition, we applied to the Porte to consider the long-vexed question of the boundaries of the two States. The boundaries of Greece have always been inadequate and inconvenient; they are so formed as to offer a premium to brigandage—which is the curse of both countries, and has led to misunderstanding and violent intercourse between the inhabitants of both. Now, when some re-distribution—and a considerable re-distribution—of territories was about to take place—now, we thought, was the opportunity for Greece to urge her claim; and that claim we were ready to support, and to reconcile the Porte to viewing it in a large and liberal manner. And I am bound to say that the manner in which our overtures were received by the Porte was encouraging, and more than encouraging. For a long period Her

1765
Majesty's Government have urged upon both countries, and especially upon Greece, the advantage of a good understanding between them. We urged that it was only by union between Turks and Greeks that any re-action could be obtained against that overpowering Slav interest which was then exercising such power in the Peninsula, and which had led to this fatal and disastrous war. More than this, on more than one occasion—I may say, on many occasions—we have been the means of preventing serious misunderstandings between Turkey and Greece, and on every occasion we have received from both States an acknowledgment of our good offices. We were, therefore, in a position to assist Greece in this matter. But, of course, to give satisfaction to a State which coveted Constantinople for its capital, and which talked of accepting large Provinces and a powerful Island as only an instalment of its claims for the moment was difficult. It was difficult to get the views of that Government accepted by Turkey, however inclined it might be to consider a re-construction of frontiers on a large and liberal scale. My noble Friend the Secretary of State did use all his influence, and the result was that, in my opinion, Greece has obtained a considerable accession of resources and strength. But we did not find, on the part of the Representatives of Greece, that response or that sympathy which we should have desired. Their minds were in another quarter. But though the Congress could not meet such extravagant and inconsistent views as those urged by Greece—views which were not in any way within the scope of the Congress or the area of its duty—we have still, as will be found in the Treaty, or certainly in the Protocol, indicated what we believe to be a rectification of frontier which would add considerably to the strength and resources of Greece. Therefore, I think, under all the circumstances, it will be acknowledged that Greece has not been neglected. Greece is a country so interesting that it enlists the sympathies of all educated men. Greece has a future; and I would say, if I might be permitted, to Greece, what I would say to an individual who has a future—"Learn to be patient."
Now, my Lords, I have touched upon most of the points connected with Turkey in Europe. My summary is that at this
1766
moment—of course, no longer counting Servia or Roumania, once tributary Principalities, as part of Turkey; not counting even the New Bulgaria, though it is a tributary Principality, as part of Turkey; and that I may not be taunted with taking an element which I am hardly entitled to place in the calculation, omitting even Bosnia—European Turkey still remains a Dominion of 60,000 geographical square miles, with a population of 6,000,000, and that population in a very great degree concentrated and condensed in the Provinces contiguous to the capital. My Lords, it was said, when the line of the Balkans was carried—and it was not carried until after long and agitating discussions—it was said by that illustrious statesman who presided over our labours, that "Turkey in Europe once more exists." My Lords, I do not think that, so far as European Turkey is concerned, this country has any right to complain of the decisions of the Congress, or, I would hope, of the labours of its Plenipotentiaries. You cannot look at the map of Turkey as it had been left by the Treaty of San Stefano, and as it has been re-arranged by the Treaty of Berlin, without seeing that great results have accrued. If these results had been the consequences of a long war—if they had been the results of a struggle like that we underwent in the Crimea—I do not think they would have been even then unsubstantial or unsatisfactory. My Lords, I hope that you and the country will not forget that these results have been obtained without shedding the blood of a single Englishman; and if there has been some expenditure, it has been an expenditure which, at least, has shown the resources and determination of this country. Had you entered into that war for which you were prepared—and well prepared—probably in a month you would have exceeded the whole expenditure you have now incurred.
My Lords, I now ask you for a short time to quit Europe and to visit Asia, and consider the labours of the Congress in another quarter of the world. My Lords, you well know that the Russian arms met with great success in Asia, and that in the Treaty of San Stefano considerable territories were yielded by Turkey to Russia. In point of population, they may not appear to be of that importance that they are generally considered;

1767
because it is a fact which should be borne in mind that the population which was yielded to Russia by Turkey amounted to only about 250,000 souls; and, therefore, if you look to the question of population and to the increase of strength to a State which depends on population, you would hardly believe that the acquisition of 250,000 new subjects is a sufficient return for the terrible military losses which inevitably must accrue from campaigns in that country. But, although the amount of population was not considerable, the strength which the Russians acquired was of a very different character. They obtained Kars by conquest—they obtained Ardahan—another stronghold—they obtained Bayazid, and the Valley of Alashkerd with the adjoining territory, which contain the great commercial routes in that part of the world. They also obtained the port of Batoum. Now, my Lords, the Congress of Berlin have so far sanctioned the Treaty of San Stefano that, with the exception of Bayazid and the Valley which I have mentioned—no doubt very important exceptions, and which were yielded by Russia to the views of the Congress—they have consented to the yielding of the places I have named to Russia. The Congress have so far approved the Treaty of San Stefano that they have sanctioned the retention by Russia of Kars and Batoum. Now the question arises—the Congress having come to that determination—was it a wise step on the part of the Plenipotentiaries of Her Majesty to agree to that decision? That is a question which may legitimately be asked. We might have broken up the Congress, and said—"We will not consent to the retention of those places by Russia, and we will use our force to oblige her to yield them up." Now, my Lords, I wish fairly to consider what was our position in this state of affairs. It is often argued as if Russia and England had been at war, and peace was negotiating between the two Powers. That was not the case. The rest of Europe were critics over a Treaty which was a real Treaty that existed between Russia and Turkey. Turkey had given up Batoum, she had given up Kars and Ardahan, she had given up Bayazid. In an examination of the question, then, we must remember that Russia at this moment, so far as Europe is concerned, has acquired in Europe
1768
nothing but a very small portion of territory, occupied by 130,000 inhabitants. Well, she naturally expected to find some reward in her conquests in Armenia for the sacrifices which she had made. Well, my Lords, consider what those conquests are. There was the strong fort of Kars. We might have gone to war with Russia in order to prevent her acquiring Kars and Batoum, and other places of less importance. The war would not have been, probably, a very short war. It would have been a very expensive war—and, like most wars, it would probably have ended in some compromise, and we should have got only half what we had struggled for. Let us look these two considerable points fairly in the face. Let us first of all take the great stronghold of Kars. Three times has Russia captured Kars. Three times, either by our influence or by other influences, it has been restored to Turkey. Were we to go to war for Kars and restore it to Turkey, and then to wait till the next misunderstanding between Russia and Turkey, when Kars should have been taken again? Was that an occasion of a casus belli? I do not think your Lordships would ever sanction a war carried on for such an object and under such circumstances. Then, my Lords, look at the case of Batoum, of which your Lordships have heard so much. I should have been very glad if Batoum had remained in the possession of the Turks, on the general principle that the less we had reduced its territory in that particular portion of the globe, the better it would be as regards the prestige on which the influence of the Ottoman Porte much depends there. But let us see what is this Batoum of which you have heard so much? It is generally spoken of in society and in the world as if it were a sort of Portsmouth—whereas, in reality, it should rather be compared with Cowes. It will hold three considerable ships, and if it were packed like the London Docks, it might hold six; but in that case the danger, if the wind blew from the North, would be immense. You cannot increase the port seaward; for though the water touching the shore is not absolutely fathomless, it is extremely deep, and you cannot make any artificial harbour or breakwater. Unquestionably, in the interior the port might be increased, but it can only be increased by first-rate engineers,

1769
and by the expenditure of millions of capital; and if we were to calculate the completion of the port by the precedents which exist in many countries, and certainly in the Black Sea, it would not be completed under half a century. Now is that a question for which England would be justified in going to war with Russia? My Lords, we have, therefore, thought it advisable not to grudge Russia those conquests that have been made—especially after obtaining the restoration of the town of Bayazid and its important district.
But it seemed to us the time had come when we ought to consider whether certain efforts should not be made to put an end to these perpetually recurring wars between the Porte and Russia, ending, it may be, sometimes apparently in comparatively insignificant results; but always terminating with one fatal consequence—namely, shaking to the centre the influence and the prestige of the Porte in Asia and diminishing its means of profitably and advantageously governing that country. My Lords, it seemed to us that as we had now taken, and as Europe generally had taken, so avowedly deep an interest in the welfare of the subjects of the Porte in Europe, the time had come when we ought to consider whether we could not do something which would improve the general condition of the Dominions of the Sultan in Asia; and instead of these most favoured portions of the globe every year being in a more forlorn and disadvantageous position, whether it would not be possible to take some steps which would secure at least tranquillity and order; and, when tranquillity and order were secured, whether some opportunity might not be given to Europe to develop the resources of a country which Nature has made so rich and teeming? My Lords, we occupy with respect to this part of the world a peculiar position, which is shared by no other Power. Our Indian Empire is on every occasion on which these discussions occur, or these troubles occur, or these settlements occur—our Indian Empire is to England a source of grave anxiety, and the time appeared to have arrived when, if possible, we should terminate that anxiety. In all the questions connected with European Turkey we had the assistance and sympathy sometimes of all, and often of many of the European Powers
1770
—because they were interested in the question who should possess Constantinople, and who should have the command of the Danube and the freedom of the Mediterranean. But when we come to considerations connected with our Oriental Empire itself, they naturally are not so generally interested as they are in those which relate to the European portion of the Dominions of the Porte, and we have to look to our own resources alone. There has been no want, on our part, of invitations to neutral Powers to join with us in preventing or in arresting war. Besides the great Treaty of Paris there was the Tripartite Treaty, which, if acted upon, would have prevented war. But that Treaty could not be acted upon, from the unwillingness of the parties to it to act; and therefore we must clearly perceive that if anything could be effectually arranged, as far as our Oriental Empire is concerned, the arrangements must be made by ourselves. Now, this was the origin of that Convention at Constantinople which is on your Lordships' Table, and in that Convention our object was not merely a military or chiefly a military object. Our object was to place this country certainly in a position in which its advice and in which its conduct might at least have the advantage of being connected with a military power and with that force which it is necessary to possess often in great transactions, though you may not fortunately feel that it is necessary to have recourse to that force. Our object in entering into that arrangement with Turkey was, as I said before, to produce tranquillity and order. When tranquillity and order were produced, we believed that the time would come when the energy and enterprize of Europe might be invited to what really is another Continent, as far as the experience of man is concerned, and that its development will add greatly not merely to the wealth and the prosperity of the inhabitants, but to the wealth and prosperity of Europe. My Lords, I am surprised to hear—for though I have not heard it myself from any authority, it is so generally in men's mouths that I am bound to notice it—that the step we have taken should be represented as one that is calculated to excite the suspicion or enmity of any of our Allies, or of any State. My Lords, I am convinced that when a little time

1771
has elapsed, and when people are better acquainted with, this subject than they are at present, no one will accuse England of having acted in this matter but with frankness and consideration for other Powers. And if there be a Power in existence to which we have endeavoured to show most consideration from particular circumstances in this matter it is France. There is no step of this kind that I would take without considering the effect it might have upon the feelings of France—a nation to whom we are bound by almost every tie that can unite a people, and with whom our intimacy is daily increasing. If there could be any step which of all others was least calculated to excite the suspicion of France, it would appear to be this—because we avoided Egypt, knowing how susceptible France is with regard to Egypt; we avoided Syria, knowing how susceptible France is on the subject of Syria; and we avoided availing ourselves of any part of the terra firma, because we would not hurt the feelings or excite the suspicions of France. France knows that for the last two or three years we have listened to no appeal which involved anything like an aquisition of territory, because the territory which might have come to us would have been territory which France would see in our hands with suspicion and dislike. But I must make this observation to your Lordships. We have a substantial interest in the East; it is a commanding interest, and its behest must be obeyed. But the interest of France in Egypt, and her interest in Syria, are, as she acknowledges, sentimental and traditionary interests; and, although I respect them, and although I wish to see in the Lebanon and in Egypt the influence of France fairly and justly maintained, and although her officers and ours in that part of the world—and especially in Egypt—are acting together with confidence and trust, we must remember that our connection with the East is not merely an affair of sentiment and tradition, but that we have urgent and substantial and enormous interests which we must guard and keep. Therefore, when we find that the progress of Russia is a progress which, whatever may be the intentions of Russia, necessarily in that part of the world produces such a state of disorganization and want of confidence in the
1772
Porte, it comes to this—that if we do not interfere in vindication of our own interests, that part of Asia must become the victim of anarchy, and ultimately become part of the possessions of Russia.
Now, my Lords, I have ventured to review the chief points connected with the subject on which I wished to address you—namely, what was the policy pursued by us, both at the Congress of Berlin and in the Convention of Constantinople? I am told, indeed, that we have incurred an awful responsibility by the Convention into which we have entered. My Lords, a prudent Minister certainly would not recklessly enter into any responsibility; but a Minister who is afraid to enter into responsibility is, in my mind, not a prudent Minister. We do not, my Lords, wish to enter into any unnecessary responsibility; but there is one responsibility from which we certainly shrink; we shrink from the responsibility of handing to our successors a diminished or a weakened Empire. Our opinion is that the course we have taken will arrest the great evils which are destroying Asia Minor and the equally rich countries beyond. We see in the present state of affairs the Porte losing its influence over its subjects; we see a certainty, in our opinion, of increasing anarchy, of the dissolution of all those ties which, though feeble, yet still exist, and which have kept society together in those countries. We see the inevitable result of such a state of things, and we cannot blame Russia availing herself of it. But, yielding to Russia what she has obtained, we say to her—"Thus far, and no farther." Asia is large enough for both of us. There is no reason for these constant wars, or fears of wars, between Russia and England. Before the circumstances which led to the recent disastrous war, when none of those events which we have seen agitating the world had occurred, and when we were speaking in "another place" of the conduct of Russia in Central Asia, I vindicated that conduct, which I thought was unjustly attacked, and I said then, what I repeat now—there is room enough for Russia and England in Asia. But the room that we require we must secure. We have, therefore, entered into an alliance—a defensive alliance—with Turkey, to guard her against any further attack from Russia. We believe that the result of this Conven-

1773
tion will be order and tranquillity. And then it will be for Europe—for we ask no exclusive privileges or commercial advantages—it will then be for Europe to assist England in availing ourselves of the wealth which has been so long neglected and undeveloped in regions once so fertile and so favoured. We are told, as I have said before, that we are undertaking great responsibilities. From those responsibilities we do not shrink. We think that, with prudence and discretion, we shall bring about a state of affairs as advantageous for Europe as for ourselves; and in that conviction we cannot bring ourselves to believe that the act which we have recommended is one that leads to trouble and to warfare. No, my Lords. I am sure there will be no jealousy between England and France upon this subject. In taking Cyprus the movement is not Mediterranean; it is Indian. We have taken a step there which we think necessary for the maintenance of our Empire and for its preservation in peace. If that be our first consideration, our next is the development of the country. And upon that subject I am told that it was expected to-night that I should in detail lay before the House the minute system by which all those results, which years may bring about, are instantly to be acquired. I, my Lords, am prepared to do nothing of the kind. We must act with considerable caution. We are acting with a Power, let me remind the House, which is an independent Power—the Sultan—and we can decide nothing but with his consent and sanction. We have been in communication with that Prince—who, I may be allowed to remind the House, has other things to think about, even than Asia Minor; for no man was ever tried, from, his accession to the Throne till this moment, so severely as the Sultan has been; but he has invariably during his reign expressed his desire to act with England and to act with Europe, and especially in the better administration and management of his affairs. The time will come—and I hope it is not distant—when my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs may be able to communicate to the House details of these matters, which will be most interesting. But we must protest against being forced into statements on matters of importance which are necessarily still immature.
1774
And we must remember that, formally speaking, even the Treaty of Berlin has not been ratified, and there are many things which cannot even be commenced until the ratification of that Treaty has occurred.
My Lords, I have now laid before you the general outline of the policy that we have pursued, both in the Congress of Berlin and at Constantinople. They are intimately connected with each other, and they must be considered together. I only hope that the House will not misunderstand—and I think the country will not misunderstand—our motives in occupying Cyprus, and in encouraging those intimate relations between ourselves and the Government and the population of Turkey. They are not movements of war; they are operations of peace and of civilization. We have no reason to fear war. Her Majesty has Fleets and Armies which are second to none. England must have seen with pride the Mediterranean covered with her ships; she must have seen with pride the discipline and devotion which have been shown to her and her Government by all her troops, drawn from every part of her Empire. I leave it to the illustrious Duke, in whose presence I speak, to bear witness to the spirit of Imperial patriotism which has been exhibited by the troops from India which ho recently reviewed at Malta. But it is not on our Fleets and Armies, however necessary they may be for the maintenance of our Imperial strength, that I alone or mainly depend in that enterprise on which this country is about to enter. It is on what I most highly value—the consciousness that in the Eastern nations there is confidence in this country, and that, while they know we can enforce our policy, at the same time they know that our Empire is an Empire of liberty, of truth, and of justice.
The noble Earl then presented (by Command) Correspondence relating to the Congress at Berlin, with the Protocols of the Congress.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, although I still adhere to the opinion I previously expressed, that it was not expedient that both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary should leave England to negotiate a Treaty abroad, I beg now to convey to the noble Earl my conviction that as regards himself,

1775
personally, he executed what he felt to be his duty, and showed, at the same time, a disregard of what might affect his personal comfort, and even what might have affected his health. And I believe I shall express the feelings of your Lordships if I congratulate him on the very length of the speech he has just made, taking that as a sign that he has returned to this country with unimpaired strength. I think your Lordships will not expect me now to go into very great detail with regard to the Treaty of Berlin or the Convention of Constantinople, of which the Protocol has only this minute been laid on the Table; because your Lordships will observe that in the very elaborate account which the noble Earl gave of that Treaty, his arguments were exclusively addressed to many of his own followers who have certainly not been illiberal in criticism during his absence from this country. I wish merely to look at the general character of that Treaty, and to see how far it accords with the view which I myself entertain. The view I have entertained ever since it was clear that the misgovernment of the Christian subjects of the Porte touched not only our feelings of humanity, but was a source of danger to Europe, has been that an effort should be made—I should have preferred that it had been made by concerted Europe—to relieve them from that misgovernment and from the oppression from which those subjects suffered. Now, I must say when once you were agreed on the partition of Turkey—I use that word not with standing what has fallen from the noble Earl, because he ingeniously argued against partition and for partition, and, so far as I could make out any conclusion to which he came, it was that Turkey was in a very flourishing condition—on the principle, I suppose, that the spendthrift, who having got rid of the greater portion of his paternal acres, at last is able to boast that he has placed his property within a ring fence—when you agreed to give those large portions of Turkish territory to some of the Powers I do regret, what I think, showed a want of policy on your part—the manner in which the Greek Christians, decidedly the most intelligent race of Christians in the East, have been treated. The Greeks complain that the Government of this country has betrayed them. I trust there is not the
1776
slightest foundation for such complaint; but I must say that when they read in the reports of the speech of the noble Earl that his advice to them is to be patient, I think they will say—"That is exactly the advice you gave us during the war; and it is from following that advice that we are now placed in a position less favourable than we should otherwise have been in." With respect to Turkey, although I think some of the measures which have been taken out of jealousy of Russia will rather defeat themselves and assist her in increasing and propagating her influence in the future, still the mere fact of something like 10,000,000 of Slavs—who are Christians—being withdrawn from the domination of the Porte is a great advantage, and one in which I rejoice. I feel that considering the consistent advocacy, not lately but for many years, of the noble Marquess the Foreign Secretary, who has based the policy of this country on a Christian and not a Turkish element of the Turkish Empire, it must have been a satisfaction to him to sign a Treaty the general character of which is certainly that for which he laboured. I own, however, I was a little surprised to hear the satisfaction which the noble Earl the Prime Minister expressed at the share he had in the transaction; for up to the last moment, as I have understood it, his principle has been the status quo and the independence of the Turkish Empire. I can hardly conceive that anything but a stern sense of duty could have brought him to agree to the secret Memorandum of the noble Marquess and Count Schouvaloff, which appears to have been with such good faith carried out by both parties; and I cannot help thinking that it was with pain and grief to him—although he may not like to acknowledge it—that he had to sign the Treaty of Berlin, although the pen he signed it with was tipped with silver and taken from the Eagle's wing. There are some points in the noble Earl's statement which I will not quarrel with him for; but I do not put the enormous value the noble Earl does upon the fact that the Turks are to be allowed to garrison the Balkans. Their defence does not depend merely on their position but on the men, and I suspect it is a doubtful compliment to pay to bankrupt Turkey to allow her to garrison mountains which must require a great number

1777
of men, and must place her, should difficulties arise, in a position of great inconvenience between two populations sympathizing with one another and hostile to the Porte. The noble Earl appears to think this hostility has been entirely swept away by the simple expedient of calling one of these populations Eastern Roumelians instead of Southern Bulgarians; But I own I have not quite the same confidence as the noble Earl seems to have in the efficacy of this plan. There is one question which the noble Earl has entirely omitted—and I am rather surprised at it, because it is one which has excited as much criticism as any other—the retrocession of Bessarabia to Russia. When, in 1871, we obtained, by the help of all Europe, that Declaration of Russia with regard to Treaties on which so much stress has been laid—and properly laid—by the Government, we refused to come to any understanding with Russia until she made that declaration. The present Government have taken a different course, and I do not blame them for it. I think they did right, so that they could do it with perfect fairness to other countries, to enter into confidential relations with the Russian Government in a manner that enabled them to meet in Congress, and to give a peaceable result to that meeting. There is one thing, however, which I do regret, because I think it is inconsistent with the traditions that have generally guided our diplomacy, which was the arrangement under that secret Memorandum with regard to Bessarabia. There is something like a chapter of comedy in it. "What about Bessarabia?'' the noble Marquess might have asked. "We want Bessarabia," said Count Schouvaloff. "We cannot give it you," said the noble Marquess. "But we must have it," rejoined the Count. "Well, if you must have it, you must; but for the sake of our honour and our reputation, we must make the strongest objection to it in Congress, when the proposal is made." I presume Count Schouvaloff would say to that—"I have not the slightest objection to your making any objection or declaration you please, in case it is perfectly understood between us that these declarations are to be of a perfectly platonic character, and are to have no effect whatever." I own that I was surprised, when speaking of another part of the question
1778
—of Batoum—the noble Earl appealed to us to know what England could do in the Congress. When the Congress had settled not to take Batoum away from Russia, he asks how could England oppose such a decision as that? But the Congress agreed to Russia retaining Batoum because England had previously agreed with Russia on the subject, and because it was known that you would not really resist with anything but your empty words. I really cannot understand how this Treaty of Berlin can be considered in any other light than giving to Russia all that she really wished or ever expected to have. It is still more difficult for me to understand how the noble Earl claims as one of its results the independence of Turkey. The noble Earl boasted that he retained 6,000,000 of inhabitants in European Turkey; but he had just told us that a very large portion of them, I should think the largest portion—the people of the future—were the Greek subjects of Turkey; who are more dissatisfied at this moment than they have previously been with the Turkish rule. The noble Earl has given us in great detail the advantages which this Treaty has secured. The noble Marquess has written a despatch to the First Secretary of State describing its advantages. But not only that. The Foreign Office has been good enough to print, or rather to colour, a map to explain to us the advantages which we have secured to Turkey. Now, I remember—and similar recollections may occur to some of your Lordships—that a relation of mine who was very anxious to improve his country house showed to me two drawings submitted to him by his professional adviser. One showed the house as it was; the other showed the house as it was to be. By a very singular accident, the drawing representing the existing state of the house appeared to have been taken in the middle of November. The house was encircled with a dead fog; not a bird was to be seen in the air. No human or animal life was in the garden. There was no colour, no light, no sign of movement about the place. But by a very happy chance, the other drawing was taken as representing the brightest October day, with every possible effect of light and shade, with pigeons soaring over the house, beautiful ladies in the garden, and swans and fancy boats

1779
careering over the illuminated lake. Now, my Lords, I do think the Government have treated us a little on this architectural principle with regard to this map. In the brightest tints they have depicted these portions of Turkey which they have saved to Turkey; and the noble Marquess has pointed out in his despatch with great pride that two-thirds of the territory lost to Turkey by the Treaty of San Stefano has been restored by the Treaty of Berlin. I rather doubt whether the proportion is exactly as he has said. With regard to Eastern Roumelia, the noble Marquess in his despatch says it is under the direct military and political administration of the Porte. The noble Marquess has entirely omitted the next sentence, as to the admission of comparative autonomy.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Earl will read the despatch he will see what is stated.
EARL GRANVILLE: I think the despatch does not agree with what the noble Marquess said. It shows in detail how very much the principle of naval and military administration is affected by the conditions which were wisely introduced into the Treaty. When I look into the map and see the large Province of Bosnia and the smaller Province of Herzegovina, I do not see any trace of what has been taken from Turkey, either by Austria or any other Power. The map also excludes what we thought fit to take to ourselves as our part of the spoil. I do not wish to detain your Lordships on the subject of Batoum. I think it very likely indeed that it is an insignificant port, as it was described by the noble Earl, though it certainly was more prominent in former negotiations. Now, my Lords, there is one point on which the noble Marquess has taken great credit—that is, with regard to the indemnity. Looking at the despatch, he shows that there is no danger from, this source. I do not say that there is any danger in the indemnity; but the objection is that it might be used as a lever on the part of Russia against Turkey. It is quite true that Russia agrees not to interfere with the loans that have security on certain conditions; but I cannot see that that prevents her by her declarations, if she is so inclined—which is not likely—from pressing in a general way to be paid, and saying—"I do not wish to interfere with your other cre-
1780
ditors, or to prevent your paying them; but I do wish you to pay me." Now, the next question that I wish to go to is one which was entirely passed over by the noble Earl, and which appears to me one that could be most properly discussed. Already, some days ago, there has been laid on the Table the Convention between Turkey and England, and it has been announced by the Government that that Convention has not only been signed, but ratified. I am certainly surprised at the perfect silence the noble Earl has observed as to the advantage he proposes to gain by the occupation of the country under that Treaty. That Treaty was alluded to in the Secret Memorandum. The object of it appears to be that, for one thing, we have got Cyprus, and also obtain from, the Sultan a promise to introduce reforms to be agreed upon between the two Governments, and the protection of the Christian and other subjects in Asiatic Turkey; but we also gave a pledge to help Turkey to defend herself from an advance by Russia in the country beyond that agreed to by the Treaty of Berlin. Now, I wish to say a few words with regard to that question. We have already had a discussion in both Houses with regard to the Constitutional points involved in bringing the troops from India without the previous sanction of Parliament. I am not going to open that subject again; but I will go so far as to say that the legal arguments in support of the measure certainly would reduce to a minimum the Parliamentary control over the number of the troops that can be employed by the Crown. The noble Earl urged another reason for keeping that matter secret. He said there were reasons of the greatest urgency that made it impossible to tell the House even at the time he was speaking. I wonder whether it is possible for the noble Marquess to tell us that great secret now. I do not think it was possible that these troops were brought over in order to seize part of the Dominions of the Porte. If it was only to take peaceable possession of Cyprus, what reason was there for not taking Parliament into the same confidence as you did in regard to the Reserves and other military preparations? I shall be exceedingly glad if the noble Marquess could find it consistent with his duty to tell us what the

1781
secret was. The promise that Cyprus is to go back to Turkey if Russia gives back what she has got is of a perfectly illusory character. Looking at it as men of business, we must see that the cession of Cyprus is a virtual cession of a portion of the Porte's Dominions. It is not necessary, according to the Treaty of Paris, for the Porte, in making a willing cession of any portion of its Dominions, to obtain the consent of the Powers of Europe. I rather dissent from the argument so much used that it was absolutely inconsistent with the Treaty of Paris that on the conclusion of peace, any portion of the Ottoman territory should be transferred to another Power. There may be a reason—perhaps the noble Marquess will give it—I do not know whether it was raised by other Powers or not, and it is one that I do not wish to raise on the part of other Powers, because I think there is nothing so undesirable as that we should slip away from engagements which we impose on other Great Powers of Europe. I have said a few words about Cyprus. No one rejoices more than I do at the extent of our great English-speaking community. No one rejoices more than I do in our naval stations in different parts of the world. Take Malta, where we are able to place a large number of troops, and to store provisions and coals, and from where we can at any moment send military forces wherever they are required. I am not quite so certain on another point—namely, that we always do increase our strength by extending our territories; that we add to our power by increasing our vulnerable points; or that we add to our military strength by disseminating our small army on more points than are absolutely necessary. The noble Earl declined to say; but I hope the noble Marquess will favour us with some of the information which it is quite possible may not have been in possession of Her Majesty's Government before Cyprus was taken by us. The information I have received on good authority is exceedingly scarce. I am told that there are no harbours—not even a harbour such as at Batoum, spoken of by the noble Earl. I am told that there are nothing but open roadsteads from which the access to the shore is sometimes difficult. With regard to the sanitary state of Cyprus, the information given by Her
1782
Majesty's Government is not perfectly satisfactory. The noble Duke the Lord President told us the other day that the death-rate of Cyprus was much less than, that of Europe. Now, I have some difficulty in ascertaining what the population of Cyprus is. Accurate statistical information is almost of modern invention even in this country. I have consulted the best geographical authorities. In one I find the population stated to be 60,000; in another, 110,000; and in another, 180,000. I very much doubt whether anybody in the world knew how many people died in Cyprus last year. How, on such evidence, can anyone tell the exact proportion of the death-rate? I only hope the information of the Government has been calculated on more accurate principles. Now, I should like to know whether it is your intention to make harbours and great public works? The noble Earl takes great interest in that country. I am quite ready to admit that I take a great interest in this island on which we live. I am not quite sure that we have nothing wanting in regard to sanitary measures, and I am quite certain that if the present Government had, from motives of economy, given up arrangements which were estimated by the highest naval and military authorities to be of the greatest importance to this country, I only claim some consideration for our public works at home. I want to know when this harbour and these public works have been made, at considerable expense, in what way do you mean to use them? Do you mean to use them for the purpose that was indicated in the despatch of the noble Marquess, who says that it places us in a position to defend Asiatic Turkey should Russia attempt to pass the boundaries? I believe that Cyprus is farther from the Dardanelles than Malta. I believe if we fight Russia for Turkey, Turkey will not be slow in putting every facility in our way at Constantinople. Therefore, if you put Cyprus in a proper state, it will be perfectly useless to send troops there. I am told it is for the defence of Asia. I am told you can send across and land troops in Asia in one day. But then they would have to cross a pestilential marsh, and to cross over mountains 1,000 feet high, where there is only one track. [A Noble LORD: No, no!] I am glad if I have been misled as to the pestilential character of the

1783
harbour. I do not know whether the noble Marquess will be able to tell us something with respect to another matter—I mean, what is the course Her Majesty's Government is prepared to take in regard to the Euphrates Valley Railway? Do they entertain any idea, either by guarantee or by making the work themselves, of making a railway some 900 miles in length for a country such as that which it has to traverse? Another use for Cyprus has been mentioned to me. A certain friend of mine has told me that if I were to read between the lines, I should find the real use of Cyprus is to defend the Suez Canal. I agree with Her Majesty's Government that the object of defending the Suez Canal is one of the greatest importance. I should like to know who are the persons likely to attack the Suez Canal? I would like to know whether, if they do attack it, whether by the addition of a naval station, which all sailors tell me is unfit for the purpose, you think your means of defending the Suez Canal are in the least augmented by the acquisition of Cyprus? You may have satisfied the Government of France, but you have wounded the amour propre of those Mediterranean Powers, who will be in future much less disposed to sympathize with your endeavours in the Mediterranean. I now come to a very much more important question than the taking of Cyprus at the present moment. It is the promise that has been obtained from the Sultan with regard to the reforms that are to be made. It is perfectly impossible that the noble Marquess the Foreign Secretary should persist in the refusal given by the Prime Minister to give us the slightest indication of your policy, and what you mean by the Treaty that you have laid before Parliament, and which is perfectly unintelligible without some such explanation. The Treaty begins in the Preamble by reciting that Her Majesty the "Queen of Great Britain, Empress of India," has agreed to a Convention with "His Imperial Majesty the Sultan;" but when you come to the clauses all this is changed. His Majesty the Sultan agrees to a certain thing and "the Queen" accepts. It is not even "Great Britain," but only "England;" and it is "England" and "His Imperial Majesty the Sultan" that make all these arrangements. With regard to these arrange-
1784
ments, I must say that nothing can possibly be more vague. They do not specify the reforms, and they do not specify what is to be done if we do not agree upon these reforms. I really hope we shall know if we are merely to give advice. Are we to place any confidence in abundant promises such as were given in 1839 and 1856? I think that the House will agree—and nobody more than the noble Marquess—that such a thing would be a mere sham. The noble Marquess points out that the principal thing to be looked at is the character of the administration. I think he informed us after his return from the Conference at Constantinople that the difficulty in Turkey was to be able to find any officials who were able efficiently to do their duty. The noble Marquess seems to suggest that English officers should be employed. In what capacity? Are they all to be Consuls? If they are to be Consuls, are we to imagine that Turkey will give up the habit of playing off one European Power against another, and that she will not invite the Consuls of Russia, France, and Italy, and other Powers, to come in? Do you think these Consuls will be always working with you instead of intriguing against you? Or are the English officials to act as do the Anglo-Indian Residents? If so, then, in my opinion, nothing can be worse. I think that no greater farce could exist than to proceed upon the precedent of Anglo-Indian Residents in the case of Asiatic Turkey. I believe there is no greater fallacy than to argue on the analogy that exists between our government in India and this government in Asiatic Turkey. In India, government was founded by an able and energetic set of merchants—not very scrupulous men—who did things that it would be impossible for a great country like this, in the present day, in the face of the world, to attempt. The Empire of India has been built up bit by bit; and when we first sent Residents, I believe those Residents were supported by the Rulers of those territories who were now willing to send troops to Cyprus, or anywhere else, for the suppression of outbreaks. It appears to me that you are taking upon yourselves a responsibility, and I do not see how you propose to carry it out. You have undertaken to defend, Asiatic Turkey. How

1785
is that to be done? It cannot be done simply by your ships doing as they have been doing during the war. If Russia desired increase of territory, you say that in case of need you might land troops. I may take an old simile—more true than a great many similes are—that a contest in that case between Russia and England would be like a fight between a dog and a fish. Now, I am not sure whether that fish ought not to be shut up in an aquarium at Bedlam who would throw itself on land in view of the foe dog's kennel at any time the dog might choose to eat it up. It appears to me rash to pledge ourselves to go to fight Russia in her stronghold at any moment. That moment does not rest with us in the slightest degree. I trust that God may grant that this country may rest in peace and prosperity; but I cannot say that we shall never have war—or, what is almost as bad—alarms of war. Is it not possible that our relations may become involved with Germany, France, or the United States? There might be some financial or other difficulty in this country, or there might be insurrection in India. Suppose Russia should contemplate further aggression, you may depend upon it her resolution will be kept silent as long as our prosperity continues. But if any one of the unfortunate occurrences I have mentioned were to arise, you will have no responsibility on yourselves, because it is not likely to happen within the next few years—but a responsibility which you have no right to place on those who succeed you. I was talking the other day with a friend who was most intimately acquainted with the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, and we agreed that nothing would have induced either of those two great men, or Lord Palmerston, or Lord Clarendon to have signed a single guarantee of this sort. In the conversation it was suggested that there was one very able man who might have been willing to sign it—the late Lord Ellenborough—a man of patriotic spirit and great ability, and who was certainly disposed to theatrical display. As soon as I had the opportunity I referred to one of his speeches. The first passage I found showed the great injustice of this posthumous attack on Lord Ellenborough. It says—
1786
"Noble Lords talked somewhat too lightly of a war with Russia. Undoubtedly, he thought it would be better to make war for the preservation, of the integrity of the Turkish Empire than after that integrity was gone to make war, which would ultimately be forced on this country. In the first place, the country would fight with Allies, and especially with France, on its side. In the second case, he was unwilling to say under what circumstances the country would be compelled to carry on the war. The war must be an offensive and not a defensive war."
I know of no precedent of this kind, except that which exists between this country and Portugal. I refer to our old Guarantee with regard to Portugal. That country is very small, compared with Turkey. It is only the eighteenth part the size of Asiatic Turkey. It is, comparatively, at our doors, is perfectly easy of access, and it possesses means of defence which our own glorious history shows to be impregnable. Is this in any way a precedent for the Guarantee which we have given to defend Asiatic Turkey, some 2,000 miles from our shores, and contiguous to the enormous hosts of the Czar? The noble Marquess, in a despatch which he has written, states that it was evidently impossible that Turkey could defend her Asiatic dominions. With regard to the Armenians, I am glad to see that the Treaty provides for the concerted action of Europe with the view to secure good government for them. If Turkey is no longer able to govern her Mahomedan Asiatic subjects, it is perfectly idle to imagine that you can, by patching her up, make her that independent Power as stated by the noble Earl. Mr. Canning, two years before he died, boasted that he had called into existence a new world to redress the balance of the old; but he did not seek any material benefit for England. He did not seek to promote English interests by annexing Spanish soil; he did not undertake to teach Spain to govern her territory. He incurred no responsibility of this kind whatever. A noble Friend of mine, now sitting at the Table—the father of a Cabinet Minister—made the other day an eloquent and touching appeal to this House to support Her Majesty's Plenipotentiaries in the task before them at Berlin. He hoped that the peace would be a 30 years' peace, and that it might have the advantage of decreasing the augmenting armies raised for war. Considering the disappointment and indig-

1787
nation of the Greeks, the unsettled state of Eastern Roumelia, the strong irritation of the Western Maritime Powers, and, above all, the entangling engagements into which we have entered, he must be a sanguine man who can expect 30 years, or 20 years, aye, or even 10 years of peace from this arrangement. As to diminishing the armaments of Europe, we have set a bad example by increasing our military stations, and, I presume, by increasing those armaments which, when in Opposition, the noble Earl designated "bloated armaments." I remember—but I dare say the noble Earl has forgotten it—that some 20 years ago he—then Mr. Disraeli—made a violent and, as I believe, unfounded attack on the Government of the day—that of Lord Palmerston. He stated that Lord Palmerston, having no domestic policy of his own, endeavoured, by his foreign policy, to divert the attention of the people of this country from affairs at home, and that he contrived, by his restless foreign policy, to divert attention from the domestic measures which he ought to introduce. He said that the policy of Lord Palmerston was turbulent abroad in order that he might be left quiet and unassailed at home; and this, he said, was accomplished by a system which meant increased expenditure, large taxation, and the neglect of internal administrative reforms. I do not wish to retort on the noble Earl by the use of these strong words; I do not want to say a word against the noble Earl himself. It has never been my habit to attribute motives to my political opponents; but it is very difficult to resist the impression that the Government, having agreed wisely and sensibly to a Treaty, which I believe is not unreasonable or unfair in itself, but which was decidedly unpopular with a portion of their followers—endeavoured to regain the popularity which they had lost, and have imposed upon the people of this country, without their knowledge and sanction, a heavy and impracticable engagement—have entered into an engagement which, if executed at all, may prove both embarrassing and entangling in its operations.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I think I need not apologize for offering a few remarks on the subject of the Treaty which has been laid on the Table. I do not often or willingly address
1788
your Lordships; but, considering the connection which I have had with these negotiations at an early stage in their progress, I believe I shall be expected to say a few words on the present occasion. Looking at the enormous importance of the results of the Treaty upon the future of our country, I should be ashamed of myself if I did not endeavour to view these results impartially and fairly, without being unduly biassed, on the one hand, by the connections of political life, and assuredly without being influenced, on the other hand by the recollection of recent political differences. There is one point upon which I can heartily and sincerely congratulate the Cabinet and the House. Whatever may be the merits or defects of these arrangements, there is one thing in which almost everyone will agree, and that is, that at least they are better than the alternative of war. That supreme evil has been averted for the time, and I congratulate the Government all the more cordially on that, because I am compelled to adhere to the opinion which I formed, and which I expressed in this House some three months ago, that if the decision which was taken by the Government at the time when I left Office had been persevered in, we should be involved in results of a different nature. As far as the European part of this Treaty is concerned, I am bound to say that, looking at it as a whole, and looking at all the difficulties of the situation, I do not think that any reasonable fault can be found with it. Great complaints have been expressed that we should have allowed what is called the retrocession of Bessarabia to take place; but I hold that upon that point, the British negotiators have a perfectly good defence. If all the rest of Europe chose to acquiesce in an act which, though an act of injustice, was not one which touched any English interest or involved any special English responsibility, I do not think that it was our business to stand out against that proposal and resist it single-handed. The Russian Government have acted ungratefully, and by their conduct have turned a devoted and submissive Ally into an enemy; and, in so doing, they have given proof of what I have often observed—that Russian diplomacy is not so preternaturally astute as some people constantly suppose, but

1789
that it is often governed by personal impulse and caprice. Whatever the claims of Roumania may have been against Russia, I do not think she had much claim on the sympathy of Europe. Roumania had no grievance or complaint against Turkey. She went into the war as a matter of speculation, hoping to make a good thing out of it; and if the result is that she loses instead of gains, she has only her own Government to thank for that result. Nor do I think that any charge can be justly brought against the Cabinet with regard to the disappointed expectations of the Greeks. I have no doubt that the Greeks expected more than they got; but, so far as I am aware, they have no ground for charging us with breach of faith, or with having held out hopes which we were not able to gratify. I think that when the re-modelling of the Turkish Empire on so considerable a scale was once taken in hand, it would have been better if the opportunity had been taken for settling the Cretan question, which will be settled only in one way—and that is by allowing the people of Crete to obtain annexation to Greece. The island costs in garrisons infinitely more than the revenue which it produces, and whatever plans of local autonomy may be introduced, I do not think you will put an end to agitation or disturbance there until annexation to Greece is carried out. But while I speak of this as a matter of regret, I do not treat it as a matter of censure. Other Governments besides our own were concerned, and the question is, not what we may have wished to do, but what we were able to do. My Lords, again, with regard to the cession of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria. I think the defence which my noble Friend at the head of the Government has made on that proceeding is quite conclusive. The Porte could not regain those provinces; the Porte could not re-conquer them; they were not in a position, considering the anarchy which prevails and the variety of races and of religions, to exercise the right of self-government; and if the Porte could not govern them, the only alternative was that Austria should take possession of them. But, my Lords, I do not quite follow the reasoning of my noble Friend when, in speaking of the separation of these provinces, he says, Congress resisted the policy of partition. I contend that when we give something
1790
to Servia and Montenegro, when we give two provinces to Austria, and when we take an island for ourselves; when we give some portion of Armenia to Russia, not to mention the Roumanian and Bessarabian arrangement; and when all these provinces are thus separated from the Empire and portioned out, that is a process I have never heard described by any other name than partition. But this, after all, is a matter of verbal criticism. I do not believe that the cession of these provinces could, either wholly or in part, have been prevented. I will only notice as a curious fact that, although, as I understand, the cession was proposed by the British Representatives, yet we well know that the transfer of the two provinces to Austria was part of the original engagement between the three Emperors entered into five years ago. Well, my Lords, I will now come to a larger question. The settlement of the Bulgarian boundary was received in this country, when first announced, as a great victory of English over Russian diplomacy. I should be very glad to treat it so, for one always wishes English diplomacy to be successful; but, although I cannot find fault with it, I cannot look at it exactly in that way. No doubt we have obtained, nominally, on the map the boundary of the Balkans as the boundary of Turkey; but the question is whether you do not retain that boundary upon such terms as to make it, for defensive purposes, practically useless. What have we done? We have given to the Bulgarians what in point of fact, is virtually absolute independence. But that country, with a population almost exclusively composed of Slavs, is too small to stand on its own legs, and must lean on some stronger neighbour. South of the Balkans you have given what I may call semi-independence—local autonomy, local self-government—to a population exactly similar—a population of the same race, speaking the same language, and professing the same religion. My noble Friend (the Earl of Beaconsfield) was quite aware of the danger which might be incurred; because, in speaking of the name which was assigned to this new province, he said—
"We do not choose to call it Southern Bulgaria, as North and South Bulgaria are one province, and form part of one Government."

1791
Well, I have not the faith in nomenclature which my noble Friend appears to have. I do not believe that the difference of one name or another will affect the result. Looking at precedents—at what has passed in other communities similarly circumstanced—can you doubt but that a population of this kind, already semi-independent, will take every opportunity and advantage of the freedom they enjoy to make it more complete. You may keep a man quiet, if you tie both his hands; but if you allow one hand to be free, he will, you may be quite sure, use it to liberate the other; and, whether you call this self-governed province South Bulgaria or Eastern Roumelia, there must, there will be, perpetual intercommunication between the people on each side of the mountains, and they will very soon come to an understanding with one another. Remember what happened in the case of Wallachia and Moldavia. I very much doubt whether European diplomacy or Turkish Forces will keep them apart, when they do come to an understanding with one another, not with-standing that the Turkish Army holds defences between the two. I do not dispute the gallantry of the Turks—no one does; but the question is, whether, considering the limited military force which Turkey can now command—whether, with open war on the North, and with an insurrection to the Southward, the Turkish Army occupying the line of the Balkans would not find itself in a trap. A great point has been made of the fact that this New Bulgaria is excluded from the sea-board. For my own part, I say distinctly that I think, on the whole, the balance of advantages undoubtedly preponderates in favour of the arrangement sanctioned in the Congress over that of the Russian Treaty. But the advantage is not all on one side. A large Bulgaria, reaching to the sea, would be necessarily much more independent of Russian influence. It would contain a mixed population—a population not exclusively Slavs; and by the mere fact of its contact with the sea, it would be more open to English influence, for wherever a ship floats, there confessedly ours is the strongest power. Although, as I have said, I do not deny that, on the whole, the advantages of the limited Bulgaria preponderate; yet it is open to this disadvantage—that
1792
that small State north of the Balkans is absolutely inaccessible to you, and that the influence exercised over it will be exclusively Russian. There will be no port open through which you might put pressure on the people, and no commerce which, with a similar object, you can intercept in case of need. That is a set off against the undoubted advantage of the present arrangement. When, however, I come to read the despatch of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, it seems to me a rather bold assertion on his part to claim that two-thirds of the Sultan's territory has been restored to his direct political and military rule. In what sense has it been restored? These Provinces, alleged to be restored, are self-governing, or partially so; and if only partially so, they will soon be wholly so. But to pass from detail, and looking at this re-distribution—this European arrangement—as a whole, I do not think there is any fault to be found with it, if it goes for what it is—namely, a temporary and provisional arrangement. A final and permanent arrangement it is not, and it seems to me idle to speak of it as if the Congress had interposed an effectual barrier to the extension of Russian aggression or Russian influence. But such as it is, it gives us rest and breathing time; the difficulties are for the moment, in one form or another, postponed, and that is not an inconsiderable advantage. My Lords, so far as England is concerned, the European part of the arrangement appears to me comparatively unimportant. The great matter for us to consider in regard to this settlement is the arrangement made in Asia. There are two branches of it. One is the annexation of the Island of Cyprus, and the other is the consideration given for that island, the Anglo-Turkish agreement or guarantee. So far as England is concerned, we have this to ask—Do we come fairly by it, and what is its worth? Now, my Lords, as to the first part, I readily admit that there is the widest possible difference between the plan which was finally adopted and that which was originally agreed upon. Three months ago, when I quitted the Cabinet in the last days of March, it was on account of the decision then taken—namely, that it was necessary to secure a naval station at the eastern part of the Mediterranean, and

1793
that, for that purpose, it was necessary to seize upon and occupy the Island of Cyprus, together with a point on the Syrian coast. This was to have been done by a secret naval expedition sent out from England, with or without the consent of the Sultan; although, undoubtedly, a part of the arrangement was that full compensation should be made to the Sultan for any loss of revenue which he might sustain. Now, my Lords, I will not argue in detail against this scheme, and as regards its more objectionable features, I can only now say that I could not reconcile it to my conscience, either as a matter of justice or of policy, to be a party, in time of peace, to the seizure of a part of the territory of a friendly Power, without the consent of the rightful owner. Nothing to my mind, except the necessities of self-defence, would have justified such a step, and no such necessity for this event ever was alleged or could have been proved. My Lords, if that step had been taken, it would, I believe, have startled all Europe. It would undoubtedly have thrown Turkey into the arms of Russia, and it would have brought about precisely the complications which for many months before we had been doing our utmost to avert, and for averting which my noble Friend has taken credit; since, undoubtedly, that move would have been followed by the counter-move of a Russian Army entering Constantinople. My Lords, it is more than three months ago since I expressed a fear which, judging from subsequent events, may seem to have been unfounded, that the Government were not merely drifting, but rushing into war. My Lords, I endeavoured to induce the Cabinet to re-consider this determination, and from whatever cause the change took place, I am heartily glad that that unfortunate resolution was modified. My Lords, I need hardly say that my lips were closed on this subject so long as negotiations were going on. I have heard the most extravagant and improbable reasons assigned out-of-doors for my retirement; but now that the matter is settled, and that no harm can be done by stating what is really an historical fact, I thought it due to myself and your Lordships to avail myself of the discretion given to me—as it is always given to an outgoing Minister—to state what really happened. My Lords, as the occupation has now been effected with the consent of the Sultan,
1794
no doubt the great objection which I entertained to the original plan is done away with. But even as matters stand, I do not think the proceeding one free from objection. In the first place, I doubt whether a new naval station is really required. We have Malta within two days' steaming, and I know it is the opinion of competent naval authorities that half the money expended at Malta, which would be required for Cyprus, would be of much more practical use; because, if we keep up two great naval stations in the Mediterranean, we must either do so at enormous cost, or else, which is the more probable result, we shall starve them, both. But that is a matter upon which I should be prepared to defer to authority. Further, I doubt the fitness and convenience of the place. It seems to be admitted that there are no harbours at Cyprus; there are roadsteads out of which a sort of harbour may be made; but that there is no harbour appears now to be an admitted fact. There are various opinions as to the climate, but this much is universally admitted—that at some times of the year it is very unhealthy. Now, my Lords, I come to consider what I am given to understand is the principal object in selecting Cyprus—namely, because it is a station which commands the line of the Euphrates Valley Railway. Now, opinions have differed very much as to the Euphrates Valley Railway. I have looked into the question, and, certainly, I have satisfied my mind that a more hopelessly unremunerative undertaking never was set on foot, even by British speculators at the expense of British capitalists. I believe that without a guarantee from the English or Indian Government, or both, it would be impossible to make that line pay; and if such guarantee were given, I believe it would be a dead loss to one Exchequer or the other of £1,000,000 a-year. Cyprus is said not only to be an important means of defence for the Euphrates Valley Railway, but for the Suez Canal and for Constantinople. As regards Constantinople, the distance is too great to admit of its having any practical value; as regards the Suez Canal, no doubt it is more convenient, and I fully admit the protection of the Suez Canal is a matter of primary importance to England; but I do not know who is threatening the Suez Canal. It is not likely to be threatened by sea, so long as we are there; and the mere fact

1795
that the Russians have got as far as Batoum does not convince me that they are in any threatening proximity to Egypt or the Canal. As to the value of the island, one thing certain is that it will involve us for many years to come in very considerable expense. It is not practicable for English settlers. The heat of the climate, I apprehend, makes it impossible that it can ever attain any importance as a settlement for English emigrants. It will, no doubt, under an orderly administration, become a populous and prosperous community; but it will be a Greek community, not an English one. It is not difficult to anticipate what will happen at the end of a generation, if our protection should continue so long; for we have already had experience in the case of the Ionian Islands, of a population for whose benefit we had spent large sums, whose material prosperity we fostered in every way, and who had nothing, so far as administration was concerned, to complain of; but who, not-with standing, one and all, rich and poor, old and young, asked nothing from us except that we should take ourselves away. My Lords, it may be argued that the land we have acquired is valuable. Well, that may or may not be so; but so long as nine-tenths, I might almost say ninety-nine hundredths of the soil of the British Colonies is still undeveloped, I do not see how we are going to be materially enriched by the acquisition of an island 2,000 miles away from home, where English labourers cannot work, and which is about the size of Yorkshire. I never heard we were richer when we had the Ionian Islands, or poorer when we gave them up. The question of Cyprus is really a small one compared with that which is involved in the price which we have to pay for it; and when I speak of the price we pay, I do not mean merely the penny in the income tax, which it will probably cost for some years—probably an indefinite number—but I mean the price paid for it in the nature of a guarantee. Now, my Lords, it would not have been reasonable to expect that my noble Friend at the head of the Government, whose statement we have listened to with so much interest, could to-night have gone into details as to the precise nature of the arrangement which has been made between ourselves and the Porte with respect to Asiatic Turkey. Probably, in many respects, those details are not yet in a condition in which, they
1796
could be laid before us; but one thing appears certain—that we have given a guarantee—an absolute and single-handed guarantee—to protect the Asiatic Provinces of Turkey. Now, my Lords, I have always held that guarantees are about the most dangerous instruments that you can have to deal with. They are very seductive, because, while they seem to give some immediate advantage, they involve no present expense, and they do not even involve the absolute certainty of expense and trouble in the future. A guarantee, such as we have given in this case, is in the nature of a speculation in which we receive a small payment down, and in consideration for that payment we pledge ourselves to an amount which it is impossible to fix in circumstances which may or may not occur. Again, guarantees are indefinite in point of time. There is no release from them on the ground of lapse of years. Circumstances may change, the advantages which you promised yourselves may not have come, and the pledge you may have given may be claimed at a time when it would be most inconvenient to redeem it. You are exposed, therefore, not merely to the risk which you incur in fulfilling your contract, but to another of a different and, to my mind, more disagreeable character—namely, the risk of not being in a position to fulfil it. Now, I need not go further back than the history of the last two years to illustrate what I say. As a matter of fact, we were not bound by the Treaties of 1856 to fight for Turkey; but I may venture to say that the bulk of the people of this country—nine-tenths of those who wrote or spoke on the subject—believed that we were so bound. The belief was universally diffused that if Turkey were attacked, it would be our duty—according to the terms of the engagement entered into by us—to come to the defence of Turkey. Now, suppose the wording of the Treaty of 1856 had been a little more stringent than it actually was, what would have been the consequence? Why, we know that an armed intervention in favour of the Turkish Empire would have been impossible. What has happened may happen again. Under the guarantee which has now been given, you must either hold yourself in readiness to go into a war utterly repugnant to the feelings and opinions of this country; or you must contemplate the possibility, in certain circumstances,

1797
of being obliged to say you cannot fulfil your bargain. I hardly know which of these alternatives is the least agreeable. Look at the matter from another point of view. It may, no doubt, be argued that it will always be our interest to defend Asiatic Turkey; and, therefore, that we have bound ourselves to nothing but what we should, in any case, have been compelled to do. But in that case I say, why tie our hands? Either the Porte will not place confidence in our promises of protection—and there are many reasons why it should not do so—or it will; and the obvious result of that will be that a country already bankrupt and with its people starving, will not fight on its own behalf, will not spend, except where it cannot help it, what little money it has on military preparations; and that its rulers will still go on wasting its means, neglecting its Forces as they have hitherto done, and with all the more readiness because they will believe we are pledged to make good their short-comings. The Turks have not shown much forethought at any time; but I cannot conceive anything which is likely to be more destructive of any capacity which they may have for that virtue, than this new arrangement which takes the responsibility of defence off their hands. This question of the effect of a guarantee of Asiatic Turkey seems to me to go very much deeper than a mere question of military protection and administration. What is to be the position of England as regards the civil administration of the country? We make ourselves directly responsible for that when we undertake to defend it. Suppose that disturbances occur which, fomented, as they have always been, by foreign intrigue, give rise to a local insurrection in Armenia or some other Province, similar to that which occurred in Bulgaria two years ago—I do not suppose it is intended that English troops should be employed to put down that insurrection, or, what would be nearly the same thing, that Turkish troops commanded by English officers should be employed? But if not, if your defensive alliance goes no further than a guarantee against invasion, there is nothing to prevent the disorganization of the country being effected by the old well-known means. You will have arms sent into the country; foreign agents, well supplied with money, will steal
1798
across the frontiers and through the mountain passes—risings will occur, orders will be sent from Constantinople to suppress them, fresh atrocities will be committed, and a state of things will arise which, sooner or later, will compel foreign interference. Your alliance for protection must become, in fact, a virtual annexation of the country—an annexation not settled by any Treaty, and not recognized by any foreign Power. We do not know that the Sultan is willing to submit to this. He may accept protection—no doubt he will very willingly—but, assuredly, he does not intend to part with the whole internal administration of his Empire. You will then have a perpetual undercurrent of resistance. You will have constant appeals to the natural and inevitable jealousy of other Powers. I know there are persons who look upon this as only an extension of the precedent already set in the case of the Indian protected States; but nobody knows better than my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office that our relations with the Indian protected States have not always been of the smoothest character. But, not to speak of the difference in size—though that is not unimportant—there is this very material difference between the two cases—that in the case of the Indian protected States, the influence and interference of every other Power is shut out. No European Power can have recognized agents at any Native Court in the peninsula of Hindoostan. If any such agent were to settle, say, at Hyderabad, it would not be long before he would receive a hint to go. But you cannot deal in that way with Turkey. The Great Powers will each have their Ambassador at Constantinople, and their Consular Staff scattered over all the Provinces; and those Consuls will claim, as they have always claimed during the last 50 years, to interfere to a very considerable degree in the details of local administration; and as our exceptional position in this agreement will necessarily create exceptional jealousy—as there will be in the minds of every adviser of the Sultan a constant expectation that, sooner or later, we are going to take the country—I am afraid that any advice given in opposition to ours will be more readily listened to than before, and, if possible, it will be taken. I see no escape from this alternative. If you protect Turkey from external aggression, and if you do nothing as regards

1799
the internal administration, beyond giving advice which will not be taken, then you make yourself responsible for the maintenance of a Government which will probably be abominably bad; but if, on the other hand, you undertake to reform the internal administration, you cannot do it effectually with divided power, and without recognized authority. You are therefore, if I may use the phrase, on an inclined plane, down which you will at last slide to virtual annexation. Now, is it likely that other Powers will agree to such an arrangement? I say nothing now about Germany and Austria: they would probably agree; but would France, with which it has been the desire of English statesmen during the last generation to be on the most intimate and cordial terms,—would Italy, with which we have always professed, and I believe felt, much sympathy, look upon this increased power on our part in that quarter with equanimity? I believe the French Government have too much self-respect to make useless protests against what is an accomplished fact; but there will be in the mind of every French statesman a feeling that we have stolen a march upon them. There is one other aspect in which this protection of Turkey may be viewed. How will it affect the foreign policy of the Turkish Government? Your guarantee is one of a very peculiar kind. It is a protective guarantee against one Power. Turkey is dependent upon England alone as regards its Asiatic dominions, but upon Europe as regards its European portion. It is free as regards its foreign policy with all Powers except Russia; but where Russia is concerned, as we are responsible for what happens in the event of a rupture, we are bound to have a voice in the settlement of the dispute. There are many of us here accustomed to consider such matters, and I appeal to your experience and judgment whether such an arrangement is not so difficult as to be in practice utterly impracticable? I hardly like to argue as to what might happen in the event of this agreement ending in the manner to which circumstances seem to point; but if all the difficulties were overcome; if Russia does not intrigue, or does not intrigue successfully; if France gets over her jealousy; and if the Porte, contrary to all expectations, places itself unreservedly in our hands, we shall become
1800
de facto masters of the country. Admit that we do; will that be a gain to us or a loss? Will it be a source of strength to us, or a source of weakness? We must remember the enormous area of the territories we are taking in hand. They are larger, I believe, than Italy, France, and Spain put together. Our difficulty and our weakness in the event of our being involved in a war is the extent over which our resources are scattered. It has always been held as an axiom that India takes 60,000 European troops to garrison it, and to that extent weakens us as a military Power. Is it good policy to create a second India? Our Indian Empire has been acquired, for the most part, within the last 70 years. It has been held by us, as regards the greater part of the country, for a much shorter period: in a time of general peace and of tolerably steady prosperity we have gone on increasing our indebtedness year after year, so far as the Indian Exchequer is concerned, and I believe those most conversant with the subject are of opinion that were it not for one accidental and very precarious source of revenue—I mean the traffic in opium—the Indian Exchequer would even now be in a condition not far removed from insolvency. We have got India, and we must continue to hold it. We are bound to do that; but when we, with a population of 35,000,000, are already responsible for the protection and good government of a population of 250,000,000 on the other side of the world—is that, I would ask, a state of things in which it is desirable to draw upon our available resources still further, and to involve ourselves in a new liability, indefinite in point of time, and absolutely without limit in regard to the risk and expense which it may involve? There is, no doubt, an answer to that question which has weight with many persons. We may be told that all these great results, be they good or bad, which you foresee, will not come to pass—that Russia, after her late successes, will keep quiet for the next 20 years, and that we shall practically interfere very little with the internal administration of Turkey in Asia. When, therefore, any question arises, of acting on this Treaty, it may be said, its interests will be purely historical; it will be worth just as much as a good many other guarantees into which we have entered in times past, Well,

1801
things may go on in that way; and I am myself not altogether disinclined to think that that may be the real issue. But surely whatever responsibility we may avoid by not maintaining the engagements which we have entered into—that is not a very creditable way out of the difficulty. You cannot, it seems to me, escape from this dilemma. If we act up to the spirit of that which we have promised, we shall be involving ourselves in enormous risk and expense; if we get tired of the expense, as we probably shall before many years are over, we shall then find ourselves in the not very honourable position of a great nation trying to wriggle out of its engagements. There is another consideration—we may be called upon to redeem our pledge at a time when it may be practically impossible for us to do so. If we should be unfortunate enough to be engaged in war with any European country, or if some disturbance like that which occurred in India some 20 years ago should break out, it is perfectly certain that we should have no Forces available for the fulfilment of our obligations. It may, no doubt, be said that in that case, fulfilment being impossible, the plea of impossibility would be sufficient to save us from any imputation of a breach of good faith. That is very true; but is it, I would ask, wise—is it fair to those with whom we are dealing to enter into a permanent engagement of this sort with the knowledge that, under possible and not improbable circumstances, we may be utterly unable to carry it into effect? I have said nothing of any opposition which is likely to be offered by Russia to this arrangement. I have abstained from doing so for the reason, among others, that I think the Russian Government would be the very last which would be disposed to complain of or object to that which we have done. If the two countries remain at peace, as we hope they will, Russia will lose nothing; but should they go to war, it appears to me, speaking humbly, as a civilian, that we have gone out of our way to give our enemy an advantage which he never before possessed. Hitherto, in all discussions as to the possibility of war with Russia, it has been invariably contended that we had one advantage. We could choose our point of attack; we could invade while we could not be invaded. Now, it is evident that if We burden ourselves with the defence of
1802
Turkey in Asia those conditions will be altogether changed. For the first time, we shall have virtually a frontier open to invasion; for the first time, the enormous numerical superiority of Russia in military strength will become available as against us. Not being able to send an iron-clad into the Black Sea—and if we were able to do so, there being no good port there for our Fleet, now that Batoum is occupied by Russia—we should be thrown entirely on our land resources for the defence of Armenia; and it would certainly seem as if, in going half-way to meet Russia, we were doing our utmost to increase her advantages, while diminishing our own. But my noble Friend at the head of the Government says that the object for which we have undertaken the defence of Asia Minor is to protect India. If that is so, you cannot stop there. The Russian road to India does not lie through Asia Minor; it lies through Persia. If you hold Turkish Asia on the one hand, and India on the other, and your object is to connect them in one system of defence, all you may have done will be labour lost, unless in some way or another you obtain military control over the intervening territory of Persia; and, therefore, as an accidental and almost unforeseen result of that to which we have bound ourselves, we may find ourselves engaged in the defence of one of the feeblest States that exists, of one the Government of which is more hopelessly corrupt and oppressive than even that of Turkey itself. I do not wish to look at the subject—I never have done so—as if our relations with Russia must necessarily be those of permanent hostility. But, if I did regard them in that light, I should not find it easy to explain, or to understand, the exultation which this Treaty of Berlin has caused in the minds of many persons who profess to be animated by a feeling of great hostility towards that country. What is the net result of the Treaty so far as Russia is concerned? In Europe, she has given up for a time a considerable part of what she had gained. I say for a time—because I will not argue with anyone who supposes that the Bulgarian arrangement is final. She keeps Bessarabia; she touches through Bulgaria the line of the Balkans; she has the same power she had before to stir up disturbances and agitation in Roumelia;

1803
the autonomous, or semi-autonomous, State will, of course, sympathize with her, and however nominally you may have secured the Balkans as the boundary of European Turkey, I think it will be found that her line of defence does not practically extend beyond the country which lies immediately round Constantinople. In Asia, Russia keeps Kars and Batoum. She, no doubt, has yielded a strip of territory which, in all probability, she only took in order that when, the time for making the bargain arrived, she might have something to give back; but all that she really wanted has been retained. And by way of an effective defence against further encroachment in that quarter, we have substituted a single-handed guarantee for an European guarantee—that is to say, we have told the other European Powers that the affairs of Asia Minor are no business of theirs, and that we intend to charge ourselves with them altogether. There was a school of economists some 50 years ago—I believe they are pretty well extinct now—who used to argue that a National Debt was a national blessing, and that the more a country owed the richer it grew. I do not want to accuse my noble Friends who are Members of the Cabinet of having taken a leaf out of the book of those remarkable reasoners; but their argument appears to me to be very much of the same character. My noble Friends say that we increase our power, our influence, and our prestige, just in proportion as we augment the number of our liabilities to foreign countries, and as we extend the area over which our available resources are spread. For my own part, I cannot see the matter in that light, and I very much doubt whether it will be viewed in that light by the country. Now, my Lords, I end as I began. I hold this Treaty to be so far good, that it is infinitely bettor than war. If we had to deal only with the European, part of the globe, I do not know that I should call it a brilliant success; but I think the most unfriendly critic might say of it as Sir Philip Francis said of the Peace of Amiens—"Although nobody is proud of it, still everybody is glad of it." As to the Asiatic guarantee, it seems to me to be the most dangerous engagement, having regard to its ultimate consequences, that has been entered into by any Minister in our time. If I have at-
1804
tempted to argue against it now, it is not for the sake of making what I know to be an unavailing protest against an accomplished fact; but because I believe that the time is not far distant when all these arrangements will have to be reconsidered. Two years ago, it will be in the recollection of your Lordships, any man would have been thought insane who would have proposed that which has been now done; and when the bill comes in for payment, and the English people understand what they have bound themselves to, I am not at all sure that two years hence we may not find that public opinion on these questions is pretty much what it would have been two years ago.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, when the Eastern Question first appeared as one with which Europe, and England especially, would have to deal, this particular difficulty and embarrassment surrounded the counsels of Her Majesty's Government, that the very elements of the problem with which they had to deal were necessarily to a great extent unknown. Was the Turkish Empire, as some thought and said, a flourishing and powerful State able to defend itself; or, as some others thought, absolutely, and in all classes of society from the bottom to the top, so worn out and effete that at the first touch of military strength it must crumble into dust; or was there any intermediate truth between these two, as to the vitality it still possessed and the resistance it still could offer? If it had the power to defend itself, that was—speaking not as to any individual predilections, but purely from the point of view of an English statesman, and from the point of view of the interest and advantage of this country—perhaps, the most to be desired, because it would oppose a barrier to Russia without imposing on this country any kind of responsibility as to the nature of the institutions by which that barrier was set up. If, on the other hand, the darker anticipation was correct, and Turkey was destined to crumble into dust at the first blow of the aggressor, then problems of the most difficult and dangerous character would have to be approached—problems which probably could hardly be solved without the terrible ordeal of an European war. These considerations account for the attitude which Her Majesty's Government assumed. We

1805
felt it was not our duty to take a definite line with respect to the maintenance of the Sovereignty of Turkey, until we know, by the sure test of facts, of what the Sovereignty of Turkey was made. But when the war was over, the problem was, to a great extent, solved. We knew that the Government was wretched, and that a large body of the governing class was corrupt; but we also knew that beneath all that there was a vast stratum of population sober, loyal, devoted, and gallant, reaching up to the highest model of such qualities which history affords; and upon this know-lodge we based a policy of which we now lay upon the Table the successful issue. What we desired was to do all in our power to purify, to strengthen, and to improve the Turkish Dominion, using it for the purpose of resisting Russian encroachment and giving it a respite—a further period of strength and repose. This was the thought that inspired the policy which Her Majesty's Government have pursued. We have not, and never had, any sympathy with the misgovernment of Turkey. We have, and had, the most earnest intention to do all that in us lay to correct the abuses by which that misgovernment had been caused; but it was clear to us that the time of partition—if that can be legitimately spoken of as a solution that could hereafter be adopted—had not arrived; and that, at all events, for the present occasion, Turkey was to be treated as an integral member of the European system, and as able, with fair assistance, to hold the important strategical position in which she is placed. The next question was how was that object to be attained? How were we, on the one hand, to strengthen Turkey without continuing the abuses which existed within her borders; or, on the other, to refrain from so doing without making it appear that we were in favour of the policy of partition to which I have referred? It was clear that Turkey had been weakened by the war, and that, if she was left to meet Russia unaided, she must succumb in the struggle. Our object, therefore, was to provide her with a defensible frontier, to give her an Empire which her resources were strong enough to maintain, and to give her Allies who should support her in the hour of danger. It has been sufficiently described to your Lordships how these objects were to be attained; but I think,
1806
from the speech of my noble Friend who has just sat down (the Earl of Derby), that he does not sufficiently appreciate the importance of the part which the Austrian arrangement plays in this transaction. Up to the time to which I am referring, Russia knew that if she could only succeed in shaking the fabric of Turkey to pieces, she was the only possible heir to its remains. Poets and enthusiasts have foreshadowed a Greek succession to the possessions of the Turk; but their prophecies have not been verified. They may be true in a somewhat distant future, but no sober-minded statesman would now be found to maintain that Greece now has, or is likely soon to possess, strength to enable her to accept the responsibility, if the Turkish Empire went to pieces, of guarding the territories over which the Sultan now rules. This is as well known to Russia as to us, and she, while paying all due homage to the sentimental considerations by which so many persons are guided, know that Greece would never be a serious competitor with her for the possession of Constantinople. The fact, therefore, remained true up to within the last month—that if Russia could only shake the Turkish Empire to pieces she was the inevitable heir to its remains. But the arrival of the Austrians at Novi Bazar has changed the whole position of affairs. There is now a strong Power—strong in itself, still stronger with its necessary alliances—of which I fear not to say, that under its present and its recent Government, it is one of the best administered States in Europe—a Power which has solved, to a great and singular extent, the difficult problem of reconciling conflicting races and creeds to live under a common government, which is now on the high road to Constantinople; and, though no one who knows the tenour of Austrian policy would suspect her statesmen of the slightest desire to precipitate such a disastrous result, yet her presence has announced to the world in general, and to intending aggressors in particular, that if either intrigue or violence should shake the Turkish Empire to pieces, it will not be Russia that will rule upon the Bosphorus. I do not know that there is any ground for believing that Austria has entered into any agreement with regard to Turkey in Europe analogous to that into which we have entered as far as Asiatic Turkey is concerned;

1807
but the force of circumstances will compel her to the same line of policy, and I believe that the Government of the Sultan in yielding to her certain Provinces, which they were themselves unable to defend, has performed the highest act of statesmanship which any Government could have performed. This, then, is the state of things as we believe we have left them. We have, in Congress, given to the Sultan the support of Austria, and we have also given him a frontier which, we believe, he will be able to defend with his ordinary resources.
I wish now to offer a few criticisms upon the language held by my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), who has taken the course which I should not have expected of him, and which I would not willingly have taken myself—of leaving the House, after making such a speech, without waiting for a reply.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I rise to Order. I am sure the noble Marquess would be the last person to do the noble Earl an injustice. My noble Friend has certainly left the House, but not for more than 10 minutes.
THE MARQUESS OP SALISBURY: Then I must proceed to criticize the language of my noble Friend, who has left the House for only 10 minutes. He objected to the statement that we had recovered, from the operation of the San Stefano Treaty, a tract of country extending from the Ægean Sea to the Balkans, and said that we had given a sort of semi-independent autonomy to the Province of Eastern Roumelia, which would not be under the government of the Sultan, but would provide no effective defence for the Turkish Power. I cannot conceive that my noble Friend has read the Treaty, because it is stated there that the political and military supremacy over that Province will remain with the Sultan. The frontiers will be held by his armies; the interior of the Province will be held by gendarmerie and by militia, officered entirely by himself; and if, under these conditions, the interior peace of the Province is menaced, then the Turkish troops may be called upon to act. I cannot see that military supremacy could have been stated more distinctly. My noble Friend has dwelt upon the word "administrative" autonomy. I admit that the word is an awkward one—but who invented it?
1808
Why, it was invented by my noble Friend. He used the word when proposing the Conference of Constantinople. He proposed a state of "administrative autonomy." Austria said she could not assent to it, and my noble Friend hastened to explain that administrative autonomy meant guarantees against misgovernment. Well, guarantees against misgovernment we have given. Guarantees against misgovernment exist in England; but I never heard that such guarantees prevented the Queen from adequately defending the possessions over which she rules. The people of Roumelia will, I hope, possess adequate guarantees against misgovernment. I believe that they can be obtained without, in the slightest degree, infringing on the military and political supremacy of the Sultan. That military and political supremacy was the thing which seemed to Her Majesty's Government absolutely necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of Constantinople under the altered state of affairs. It was the point for which we contested most earnestly at Berlin, and which, I believe, we have obtained completely.
That being the case, I think I may now pass, as so many speakers have done, speedily from Europe to Asia. Nobody has contested that we have provided a security in Europe for the Sultan, and though my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) has said that he should decline to argue with anyone who contended that the arrangement of Bulgaria will be permanent, I venture to say it will be far more permanent than any which has been proposed to supersede it. But that anything in the South-east of Europe will be permanent, even in the limited sense in which we apply that adjective to human affairs, it may be rash to assert; but it will be allowed, I think, that, on the whole, the chances of this arrangement being permanent are as great as the chances are as to any other arrangement that at present exists on the Continent of Europe.
I come now, my Lords, to the question of Cyprus. With respect to that question, we have had the advantage, which we have frequently enjoyed in recent times, of revelations from the dark interior of the Cabinet. In fact, whenever my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) speaks, he has an instalment of revelations to make. This is the third speech

1809
which my noble Friend has made since he left the Cabinet, and every one of them has contained an instalment of the fatal tale. The same objection was made to Dr. Oates, when he brought forward successive fragments of his disclosure. When taunted with the fact, his answer was that he did not know how much the public would endure. But, my Lords, I would venture to point out that there is a great inconvenience in these revelations from the interior of the Cabinet. Of course, my noble Friend must treat his own obligations in the spirit which pleases himself; but I do not know that I should like to announce, as broadly and palpably as my noble Friend has to the world, that any person who hereafter serves with him in the Cabinet must be prepared to have anything that passes, or is supposed to pass there, produced ultimately, in spite of the rule which Privy Councillors have heretofore observed. But, in the present case, the statement which my noble Friend has made, to the effect that a resolution had been come to in the Cabinet to take the Island of Cyprus and a position on the Coast of Syria by a secret expedition, with or without the consent of the Sultan, and that that was the ground upon which he left the Cabinet, is a statement which, as far as my memory goes, is not true—["Order!"]—well, is not correct.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I must ask my noble Friend, whether he intends to impute that I made an untrue statement?
EARL GRANVILLE: I hope that whatever statement the noble Marquess makes, he will act according to the usual practice of the House, and not use un-Parliamentary language.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: A statement of an unprecedented nature has been made which I am bound to answer, and the language I have used does not necessarily impugn the veracity of the speaker.
LORD SELBORNE: What! to say it was "not true!"
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have substituted the words "not correct." What I wish to say is, that I was not relying on my own memory. If I had been, I should have some hesitation in putting it forward, because my noble Friend's memory is one of considerable power; but on behalf of my noble Friend the Prime Minister behind me; on behalf of my noble and learned
1810
Friend the Lord Chancellor; on behalf of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India; of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, who happened to be in this House at the time the statement was made; and on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, who were not in the House at the time, and whose testimony must depend on the account they received of the speech, I beg to state that the statement made by the noble Earl the late Foreign Secretary is not correct. My Lords, I have before dwelt on the extreme inconvenience of these revelations from the Cabinet for this reason. I have just been called to Order by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), who thinks I used un-Parliamentary language in contradicting an erroneous statement; but it is obvious that these revelations as to conversations that have passed, and of which no record is made, must, in the nature of things, be exposed to error—especially in an Assembly which very seldom takes a definite and clear decision until the time for action arrives. All kinds of contingencies are spoken of, all possible policies are discussed, and it is quite possible that my noble Friend may have heard some project discussed by this Member of the Cabinet or that. For my part, I cannot charge my memory with what my noble Friend alludes to; but certain it is that no such resolution as that which he has spoken of was, in their recollection, taken by the Cabinet. At the same time, the noble Earl opposite has placed himself on the side of my noble Friend, and thinks that these revelations——
EARL GRANVILLE: I beg pardon; a certain statement was made in the House. I did not rise to distinguish between what the noble Marquess and noble Earl stated as to what happened in the Cabinet. It was perfectly impossible I should have an opinion on the subject. I merely rose to Order, and I think I am justified in calling the noble Marquess to Order, for saying that what had been stated in his place by a noble Lord, one of his late Colleagues, was not true.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was going to found on my protest against my noble Friend an appeal to the noble Earl, in the interests of Parliamentary

1811
government, and of the regularity of the proceedings of our Government, not to give the sanction of his authority to this plan of discussing what has passed in the Cabinet.
EARL GRANVILLE: I really must rise to Order again. I said not one single word with regard to revelations made as to what passed in the Cabinet; but I have a right as an individual Member of your Lordships' House, when un-Parliamentary language is used, to rise and protest against it. I have not the slightest doubt it is un-Parliamentary for one Peer to state of another—whether a late Colleague or not—that what he said was not true, and I adhere to my remonstrance; but I protest against any further inference being drawn from what I said.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will only repeat my assertion that I did not intend to make, and I do not think I did make, any imputation on the veracity of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), though, undoubtedly, I make the strongest protest against the correctness of the statement which he has made. That being the case, I will now come to the question of policy. The noble Earl has discussed with considerable severity the policy of annexing the Island of Cyprus, and has suggested all kinds of difficulties and dangers. The noble Earl has shown that fertility which I think his mind is apt to display in finding reasons for doing nothing in the matter. He has dwelt upon a great variety of objections which it is always easy to put together; but, as the noble Earl was going through them, it occurred to me to think what would be the nature of a speech we could suppose him to have made upon some project for the extension of territory in India, had he lived 100 years ago. The noble Earl has told us that, as the soil was not being developed, it was absurd to take an island in which English labourers could not live. Well, suppose the question of making one of these acquisitions in India was brought on 100 years ago, how ingenious would have been the difficulties which my noble Friend would have raised; how he would have magnified the adversaries England would possibly have to contend with; and how he would have put together an ingenious conjunction of imaginary dangers. How he would have gloated over the possible opposition of France. It is singularly
1812
easy for any mind which has the faculty of destructive criticism to such an extent as my noble Friend possesses, to conjure up reasons for doing nothing; but if these reasons had prevailed with our ancestors, not only the Empire of India but the Empire of England would not have existed. My noble Friend has sufficiently shown, by the language which he has used, and the gloomy vaticinations as to the fate of India in which he has indulged, that his sympathies are not very strong with those who built up that Empire. My noble Friend would have confined the enterprize and power of England to this single island. Perhaps he might, by a great effort, have consented to our acquiring the Isle of Man! But all these splendid, bold, and even hazardous enterprizes by which the power of this country has been built up, and on which the fame of England reposes, would have fallen beneath the touch of his chilly and negative criticism. We have been asked by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) what we are going to do with Cyprus. We have been asked what are its qualities of soil and climate, and I am sorry I have not brought down some authorities which would have satisfied the noble Earl on these points. If, however, the noble Earl will consult the Encyclopœdia Britannica when he goes home, he will get all the information which he desires. But the answer to all he has said about the island being unhealthy, poor, and that there are no seeds of prosperity in it, is the simple statement that in times past it sustained 1,000,000 of population. I do not suppose that anybody will deny, in the first place, that the possession of the island by England is likely to exercise a great civilizing influence; and, secondly, that the presence of the English flag, the presence of English troops, and the accumulation of English material of war, will be a powerful aid if it should ever be our duty to assist any of the populations of Asia Minor in maintaining their independence. The real question is, whether we ought to have come to an arrangement by which we have engaged to defend the Turkish Empire in Asia in case of attack by Russia. The noble Earl (Earl Granville), when detailing all his objections to that undertaking, appeared to forget a certain Tripartite Treaty to which he was one of the con-

1813
senting parties. That was a Treaty which bound England not only to defend one single frontier of the Turkish Empire against one single enemy, but to defend that whole Empire, and gave either of the other Powers an absolute right to call on England for its defence. The real question to ask is, not whether we have taken a great responsibility, but whether the problem we had to solve, and the objects we had to accomplish, were worthy of that responsibility? The whole existence of this country as a great Power is a continual incurring of responsibility. No guarantee, no Treaty by which we could bind ourselves to enter on a desperate contest, is half so binding as an obligation to defend every inch of territory belonging to the Queen if attacked. Wherever we have a great frontier, extending and liable to be attacked by any military or naval Power, there we have incurred this terrible responsibility; and this responsibility may, at any moment, be called into real existence by any act of imprudence or aggression on the part of those States to whose attacks our frontier may be exposed. If we have made up our minds that we are to evade responsibility altogether, we have made up our minds that we ought to renounce Empire. But the question we have to ask ourselves is, whether the responsibility which we have incurred is greater than the responsibility which we would have incurred if we had left the thing alone? We must decide for ourselves whether we are prepared to leave the countries of Mesopotamia and Asia Minor to the fate which inevitably awaits them. It is impossible, unless the Sultan's power in Asia is sustained, that the people of that country should believe in his strength as they have hitherto believed in it. We should have had them speculating on its probable and early fall, and looking to his successor. In Europe good government and other qualities may secure the sympathy of a population. In the East the first quality that secures the sympathy of a population is the possession of strength, and the moment they were convinced that strength had gone from Turkey, the power of Turkey to maintain her Empire was gone. Are your Lordships prepared to see the allegiance of the people of Asia given up to the advancing Power? If so, I ask whether there would be any chance of
1814
maintaining the loyalty of the people of India, when once they knew that the Russian power was dominant down to the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, and that the English power was nothing compared with it? That was the real danger which we had to fear; and what we had to ask ourselves was, supposing Russia attacked these countries, would we defend them? The answer which we ventured to give on behalf of England was that undoubtedly we should. Well, if we had come to this resolution, was it not the wisest and most prudent thing to declare it? I have often heard it said, and I believe it to be true, that the Crimean War would have been averted if the Emperor Nicholas had known for certain that war would have followed. It was because the British Government of that day shilly-shallied and temporized, because they would not declare themselves clearly, that the Emperor Nicholas was induced to speculate on their supposed hesitation, and commit his nation to a point at which retreat became impossible. We desire, and I believe we have succeeded in our desire, to avoid any such danger. We have a strong conviction that there is a statesmanlike Party in Russia which does not desire this indefinite policy of extension and annexation; but which desires to cultivate and extend he resources of the country and avoid the perpetual recurrence of these exhausting and desolating wars. By pointing out to that nation the danger that will inevitably arise if this policy of annexation is pursued in Asia Minor, by announcing it in terms which leave no room for mistake as to the meaning of the policy which this country is likely to pursue, we believe that we have given, an assistance to the more statesmanlike, more prudent, and more sagacious of the advisers of the Government of Russia which will be invaluable to them, and that we have taken the strongest security for insuring in the future that peace which it has been our happiness to bring back to England.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I desire to ask the indulgence of your Lordships while I say a few words in regard to a purely personal matter. My noble Friend, who has just sat down, has made a statement that is very serious in its bearing upon me. I will only say in passing, that though I readily accept my noble Friend's correction of his words,

1815
when he said he did not intend to charge me with anything more than a want of accurate recollection, I still think that the words which fell from him carried a meaning much beyond that. But I take no notice of anything which may have fallen from my noble Friend which on deliberate reflection he would not maintain. What I have to speak to is a question of accuracy, and I feel bound to tell you that I distinctly and positively repeat the statement which I made just now as conveying to the best of my recollection that which actually passed. Everyone knows that business of the kind which we had been discussing is not put upon paper, and, therefore, there may be room for considerable confusion and ambiguity. The decision which I spoke of may have been modified in various ways. It is perfectly possible that some of the Members of the Cabinet did not intend to give it an absolute sanction; but I have stated to the best of my recollection what occurred. That I am sure your Lordships will not doubt. With regard to the question of memory, I have only two remarks to make. In the first place, when a man has to consider whether a particular decision will or will not allow him to remain in the Cabinet, he is not likely to be careless or forgetful in regard of what is passing. In the second place, foreseeing the possibility of some explanation being necessary at a future date, I made within two hours of the time a memorandum of what I understood to have passed. My noble Friend attacks me with some unnecessary bitterness for what he calls revelations of what passed in the Cabinet. When a Minister unfortunately feels himself obliged to separate from his Colleagues, I do not think it can reasonably be contended that he is not free to state the grounds on which the difference of opinion arose. It has been an invariable rule that he should do so; and it is quite clear that if that were not the rule, no man's reputation when he retired from a Cabinet would be capable of vindication from attacks made upon it. It is perfectly right that he should suffer considerable risk of misconstruction and misinterpretation until a time when no public injury would arise from that difference of opinion being known; but when that time has arrived, he has a duty towards his own character and towards the public. I have stated my
1816
reasons now, and I do not think I am likely to have been careless or inaccurate in my account of what took place.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As the noble Earl has repeated remarks which show him to be under the impression that I have impugned his veracity, I am bound to withdraw any statement which may have seemed to have borne that interpretation; but I have still to state distinctly my belief that his view is not correct. In that belief I am confirmed by the opinion of my Colleagues. But whether he draws from my simile or from my words any impugnment of his veracity, I intended no such imputation, and I withdraw them so far as they seemed to convey one.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, it seems to me that no public advantage would be obtained by a continuation of the discussion on the painful subject which has just been referred to. It is not my intention to trouble your Lordships with any general observations upon the Treaty of Berlin; and, indeed, in my opinion, Her Majesty's Government may fairly be congratulated upon many of the provisions contained in that Treaty. I shall address myself exclusively to two subjects which particularly concern the Queen's Dominions in Asia—the despatch of Indian troops to Malta, and the Convention with the Porte of the 4th of June last. When, some weeks ago, a discussion took place in this House upon the despatch of the Indian contingent to Malta, there was an understanding that it should be strictly confined to the Constitutional question; because, in the then state of affairs, it was considered that to discuss the policy of the measure might embarrass Her Majesty's Government. This reason for reticence no longer exists, and I desire to take the first opportunity of expressing my approval of the course taken by the Government. I will not examine whether the despatch of the British Fleet to Constantinople was necessary or right; but it is obvious that when once the Fleet was despatched, peace or war hung upon a thread; and, such being the case, it appears to me that Her Majesty's Government pursued a wise course in showing that they were determined to support that step by the whole strength of this country—by calling out the Reserves at home, and by the despatch of a portion of Her Ma-

1817
jesty's Native Indian Forces to Malta. The greatest loyalty and enthusiasm was shown by those troops, and the manner in which the movement was arranged is highly creditable to the head-quarter Staff of the Army in India, as well as to Sir Richard Temple and the Departments at Bombay, who had to carry out the operation. The measure, moreover, has, I am satisfied, produced a good effect throughout India. During the war between Turkey and Russia there had been, as was natural, some excitement in India; rumours had been current in the Indian bazaars regarding the power of Russia and possible dangers to India. It had, therefore, an excellent effect that those who paid any attention to such rumours in India should see that when there was a probability of war between Russia and England, so far from any apprehensions being entertained of danger to India—so far from the British Force in India being strengthened in order to provide against such dangers—the first step taken was to send away from India a contingent of Native troops, who might, if necessary, take their part in the conflict. My Lords, I also think it is a good arrangement that some of the Indian troops should form part of the Force detailed for occupying Cyprus, if, as I have no doubt will be the case, every precaution be taken to provide for their health. This is not the time to enter into the question of the employment of Indian troops in our garrisons in the Mediterranean in ordinary times; such an arrangement is a very different thing from the employment of a Native Indian Force on such an emergency as has recently occurred, or under similar circumstances, and it involves questions of no little difficulty. I will only say that I trust no decision will be arrived at regarding the general employment of Indian troops in the Mediterranean, or elsewhere out of India, in time of peace, until the question has been most carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government, in communication with the Government of India, The next subject upon which I desire to address some observations to your Lordships is the Convention of the 4th of June, by which Her Majesty's Government have guaranteed the integrity of the Asiatic Dominions of the Porte against Russian attack. It appears, from the despatches of the Secretary of State, which have
1818
been laid before Parliament, that this Convention has no concern with the position of the Turkish Dominions in Europe, as settled by the Treaty of Berlin. We have just heard from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury)—and I was glad to hear it—that the arrangements of the Treaty of Berlin have, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, secured Constantinople against Russia. The Convention is designed entirely for the purpose of protecting British India against dangers which are apprehended in consequence of the acquisition by Russia of Batoum, Ardahan, and Kars. The Prime Minister has said to-night that the Convention is necessary for the maintenance of our Empire, and for its preservation in peace; but neither he nor the noble Marquess have explained to us in what the dangers consist which the Convention is to meet, nor how the Convention itself will add to the security of India. My Lords, as I believe Her Majesty's Government have, as many people are apt to do, very greatly exaggerated the power of Russia for offence, and have fallen in with the ideas of those who imagine that the least progress on the part of Russia is an immense danger to India; and as I think that the Government by this Convention, so far from having added to the strength of the Indian Empire, may have added seriously to its dangers, I wish, in the absence of any information from Her Majesty's Government, to examine a little in detail what the apprehended dangers to India can really be. We have often heard of the possibility of a Russian invasion of India; but is the invasion of India by Russia apprehended by Her Majesty's Government? I presume not. If there be any such feeling, I do not share in it. If there were any such feeling, I do not think that this Convention is a wise measure of precaution. Those who have studied the Russian Dominions and the Indian Possessions of the Crown, must be aware that there are two routes by which India cannot be seriously assailed. The first is from the North-east over the Himalayas, and the other is from Turkestan. The one from the North-east may be put aside as quite impracticable; and, to say nothing of the distances to be traversed, the resources of Turkestan can never sustain an invading force. We may take it for granted that the only

1819
route which presents even the elements of practicability for the invasion of India is by way of Persia. If Russia were to obtain a complete control over Persia, it may be said that she might collect an army at Teheran with the view of an advance upon India. I myself entertain no apprehensions on this score. The distance from Teheran to our Indian frontier is 1,500 miles, and there are many other reasons which lead me to put aside the danger as unworthy of serious consideration. But even if I should be wrong, this is a danger which can hardly be intended to be met by this Convention; for the Turkish territories in Asia which we have engaged to protect are not on the line between the Russian territories in the Caucasus and Persia, or between Persia and India, but lie far away to the rear of the line of operations. My Lords, it is possible that Her Majesty's Government may be afraid that the Russians may advance through Asia Minor, so as to threaten the Suez Canal or the Persian Gulf. As to the Suez Canal, I think the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) a year ago answered conclusively the apprehensions on that score. So long as England has command of the sea, the Suez Canal is safe. I should say, if any precautions were to be taken for the protection of the Suez Canal, they ought to be taken in another direction, and not by entering into this Convention. France and Italy are Mediterranean Powers, and it should be our policy to act in concert with them. What remains? The Persian Gulf. Is there any danger to the Indian Empire from the possible advance of Russia towards the Persian Gulf? I believe there is no risk of such an extension of Russian power in Asia Minor as can endanger our command over the Persian Gulf. But if it should be ever really threatened, we need feel no apprehension of being unable to take the necessary steps to maintain our interests; we should be close to our resources, our enemy far away from his. But it may be said that, although there may be no actual danger to India from the Russian acquisitions in Armenia, yet the prestige of Russia will be increased by them, the prestige of England will be diminished, and this will be disastrous unless some means be taken to counteract it. It is possible that the acquisition of Kars may be considered in India
1820
as having added to the power of Russia; but I am altogether opposed to the doctrine that the existence of such vague impressions is a sufficient reason for undertaking liabilities such as are involved in this Convention; nor do I see that the Convention in itself is likely to counteract the effect of such rumours. My Lords, rumours regarding the advance of the power of Russia are not new. They have often been considered by Indian statesmen; and, in the opinion of most Indian statesmen of late years—for instance, of Lord Canning, Lord Lawrence, and Lord Mayo—they should be met, not by such measures as are contained in this Convention, but by the good government of India, by the development of her resources, by the maintenance of friendly relations with our neighbours, and by satisfying them that we have no desire to extend our own territories, or to interfere unnecessarily with their internal affairs. I will read the words used in 1869 by my noble Friend (Lord Lawrence), then Viceroy of India, than whom no man was better able to form a judgment upon the military and political position of India—
"Should a foreign Power [he wrote expressing the deliberate opinion of the Government of India, of which he was the head] such as Russia, ever seriously think of invading India from without, or, what is more probable, of stirring up the elements of dissatisfaction or anarchy within it, our true policy, our strongest security, would then, we conceive, be found to lie in previous absence from entanglements at either Cabul, Candahar, or any similar outpost,"—
and entanglements at Cabul or Candahar would be trifles compared with those which may result from this Convention—
"in full reliance on a compact, highly-equipped, and disciplined Army stationed within our own territories—in the contentment, if not the attachment of the masses—in the sense of security of title and possession with which our whole policy is gradually imbuing the minds of the principal chiefs and the native aristocracy—in the construction of material works within British India which enhance the comfort of the people, while they add to our political and military strength—in husbanding our finances, and consolidating and multiplying our resources—in quiet preparation for all contingencies which no Indian statesman should disregard, and in a trust in the rectitude and honesty of our intentions, coupled with the avoidance of all sources of complaint which either invite foreign aggression or stir up restless spirits to domestic revolt,"

1821
I wish that Her Majesty's Government had listened rather to the wise opinions of my noble Friend than to the exaggerated views of the power of Russia which appear to have influenced them. But, my Lords, is it supposed that the Treaty of Berlin and this Convention will be acceptable to the Mahomedan subjects of the Queen in India? If I am not greatly mistaken, the Mahomedans in India would have been delighted if Her Majesty's Government had given an effective support to the Porte, and had undertaken the support of Turkey against Russia. But is it conceivable that Mahomedans who are sincere in their religious convictions can be gratified at a Treaty, which is, in effect, an Act for the partition of the Turkish Empire? Is it likely that they will be pleased to hear that the dominions of Turkey in Europe have been reduced so as to comprise only 6,000,000 of people, or that they will contemplate with satisfaction the probable assumption by the British Government of the administration of the Asiatic territories of the Sultan? My Lords, it is well to remember that no support which England can give to the Turkish Empire will conciliate the disloyal portion of the Indian Mahomedans to our rule. This is not mere theory. We know how little the expenditure of English blood and money in defence of Turkey influenced the disloyal Mahomedans a quarter of a century ago. It was not a year after the Crimean War when the Indian Mutiny broke out, and one of the main instigators of that Mutiny was a Mahomedan who had just been to Constantinople, and had himself seen the sacrifices we had made for the Turkish Empire. The disaffected Mahomedans were not influenced for a moment by the sacrifices we made for the defence of Turkey. My Lords, I have endeavoured to examine the dangers to India which may be supposed to result from the Russian acquisitions in Armenia, and I can come to no other conclusion than that the power of Russia to endanger India is a bugbear conjured up by Her Majesty's Government, and that no serious danger to India can result from those acquisitions. I now come to the consideration of the Convention itself. Its objects are partly military and partly civil. It provides for the protection of Asiatic Turkey by England from Russian
1822
attack, and for the reform of the administration of the Asiatic Dominions of the Porte. It is somewhat remarkable that there are no stipulations for the purpose of carrying out the military objects of the Convention. If the obligation we have incurred is not to be a mere paper obligation—if we are not to trust to the chapter of accidents, and be liable at any time to be drawn into war under the greatest possible disadvantages—I presume the first thing to be done is that Her Majesty's Government should arrange with the Porte for the construction and armament of some fortified position, either at Erzeroum or elsewhere, to afford a basis for the defence of the Turkish frontier against an attack from the Russian Force in the Caucasus. Her Majesty's Government must also, I presume, arrange for the organization of a respectable Turkish Force—say of 50,000 men—for the defence of the frontier. The Turks have proved themselves to be excellent troops; but they are badly officered, and their Army is almost entirely deficient in the medical and supply services, which are essential for operations in the field. My Lords, I find no stipulations of the kind in the Convention, and it seems that the only measure which Her Majesty's Government have taken to enable us to fulfil our obligations is the occupation of the Island of Cyprus. I should have liked to hear some explanation of the value of Cyprus for the defence of the Asiatic frontier of Turkey. It seems to me to be very doubtful whether Cyprus is well situated to form the base of any military operations we may have to undertake for this purpose. It would rather appear that in the event of any such operations, as in the Crimean War, the natural base would be Constantinople, and that the Force would be despatched to Trebizonde, or to some point nearer the scene of operations than Alexandretta. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) addressed some weighty observations to your Lordships on the subject of Cyprus; but the noble Marquess who spoke last (the Marquess of Salisbury), had no better answer to give to those observations than to say that as the noble Earl objected to the acquisition of Cyprus, it follows that if he had lived in the times of Clive or Warren Hastings, he would have objected equally to the acquisition

1823
of our Indian Empire. The noble Marquess apparently could give us no information whatever as to the advantages or disadvantages of Cyprus, otherwise than by referring your Lordships to The En-cyclopœdia Britannica. I wish the noble Marquess had been able to give us some assistance in this matter—that we might at least have had one half-pennyworth of bread to all this sack. My Lords, I am so confident in the power and resources of England, that I do not doubt that the undertaking given by Her Majesty's Government can be carried into effect. I do not say that this country has not troops enough, and money enough, to defend the Asiatic frontier of Turkey against Russia; but I contend that as regards the object which the Prime Minister has told us is contemplated by the Convention—namely, the maintenance of our Indian Empire—we have undertaken a liability which is unnecessary, which is certain to be inconvenient, and which may be dangerous. Your Lordships know well that England cannot maintain such armies as are at the disposal of the Continental Powers of Europe, without entirely altering our military system. Having undertaken this liability to protect the Asiatic frontier of Turkey, we may be called upon to fulfil it at a time when there may be some other demands upon our military resources, possibly really affecting the security of India; and it would be in the power of Russia, by a menace of the Asiatic frontier of Turkey, seriously to cripple our available military strength. As regards the civil part of the Convention, your Lordships have heard more than once to-night of the engagements into which Her Majesty's Government have entered. By the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin, there is an undertaking on the part of the Porte to carry out without further delay the ameliorations and reforms required by the Armenians. But the improvement of the internal administration of the Asiatic Dominions of the Porte has not been otherwise provided for by the Treaty of Berlin. It appears, however, that we have undertaken in the Convention to prevent misgovernment in Asiatic Turkey. I should like to have heard something from the noble Marquess or the Prime Minister, as to the manner in which this obligation is to be carried into effect. I believe the condition
1824
of the Turkish Dominions in Asia to be deplorable. As regards the cultivators of the soil, who, as your Lordships are aware, constitute the most important portion of the population in all Eastern countries, full information will be found in a Report made in 1869 by Mr. Palgrave, who was then British Consul at Erzeroum. That Report shows that by bad laws and bad administration, the cultivators of the soil have been reduced to the verge of ruin, the old landed gentry have been swept away, and so long as Turkish rule exists, Mr. Palgrave can see no hope of a remedy. The corruption which extends throughout the whole Administration—the want of means of communication—the neglect of education—the maladministration of justice—in short, the accumulation of every abuse and defect which is possible even in an Asiatic State, has produced a condition of things which I believe does not find a parallel in any country in the East, unless, perhaps, in Persia. My Lords, we have heard from the Prime Minister that the reforms are to be carried out in communication with the Sultan, and with his concurrence. Can any of your Lordships, knowing what the Government of Turkey is, and remembering the history of the last 20 years, really suppose that there is a probability of the Turkish Government voluntarily reforming the administration of the Asiatic Provinces in accordance with our advice? What reforms are necessary to put this country into a decent state? The first thing to be done is to revise the assessment of the land, and to try to set up some persons having an interest in the land between the occupiers and the Government. Then you must have a well-organized and well-paid police, honest officers, and Courts of Justice which can be relied upon. Is it possible to get all this in Turkey? Where is the necessary money to come from—where are the resources? Is it probable that these reforms will be made with the consent of the Turkish Government; and if not, in what position shall we be placed? In the same position as we have been placed with regard to some of the protected States of India. We shall keep up the Turkish Government, protecting it from external attack; and when we find the people badly governed, have we no remedy to apply? That is a state of things which neither Parlia-

1825
ment nor the country would tolerate. Notwithstanding what has been said to-night—that there is no partition of Turkey—it seems to me, if this Convention is carried out, that we run very great risk of being forced in the end to annex, or at least to administer, the whole of Asiatic Turkey. What will be the result of that? We shall be told that is rather a desirable thing; that what we have done in India can be done in Asiatic Turkey; that we have magnificent officers in India who will be able to administer the country, and that if we should be forced to annex it, it will add to the strength of the Empire. That is not my opinion. It is a very different thing to acquire gradually such an Empire as we have obtained in India, and to have thrown on our hands, all at once, a country as large as half of Europe, which we shall have to raise from the state which I have endeavoured to describe into a condition of prosperity. Moreover, Asiatic Turkey is essentially a Mahomedan country. Is it likely that 10,000,000 of Mahomedans will be long content to be governed by British officers and under British rule? Will our position be secure without the presence of a large Force of British troops? And will not the necessity of providing such a Force be a stain upon England and a weakness to India? The noble Marquess thinks that in consequence of the Russians possessing Ears, the Mahomedan population of Asia Minor will be content to gravitate towards Russian rule. I do not believe it. Mahomedanism is a religion which chafes under foreign rule, especially the rule of a nation whose religion is not Mahomedan. A really religious Mahomedan cannot be content with other than Mahomedan rule. I maintain that the administration of Asiatic Turkey, which under certain circumstances must result from this Convention, will be not a strength, but a weakness, to the Empire. The considerations which I have urged upon your Lordships respecting the civil administration of Turkey in Asia will show my opinion of the difficulties which we may, at some time or other, have to encounter if this Convention be carried into effect. At the same time, they may to some extent satisfy your Lordships that there is no probability that Russia will ever become a danger to us, if she should be really
1826
desirous of extending her dominions in Asiatic Turkey, for she would have to encounter precisely the same difficulties that I have endeavoured to describe. I entreat Her Majesty's Government, both with regard to the military arrangements to be made in consequence of this Convention, and with regard to the arrangements for the civil reforms to which they have pledged themselves, to act with great caution, and not to commit themselves to any further measures until they see how far the Turkish Government are willing to meet their views, and how far their policy can be carried into practical effect. My Lords, there is no one of your Lordships who has been so recently and so intimately connected with Her Majesty's Indian Empire as I have. No one can feel more anxiety for the welfare of that Empire, or a firmer determination to assist in protecting it from all dangers; but I am convinced that the policy of Her Majesty's Government on which the Convention with the Porte of the 4th of June has been entered upon, was prompted by exaggerated apprehensions of the danger to India from the acquisition of a portion of Turkish Armenia by Russia; and, further, I think that the Convention itself, so far from being likely to have the effect, contemplated by the Prime Minister, of maintaining our Indian Empire and preserving its peace, is certain to bring us into considerable difficulties, and may become a serious danger to the interests of that Empire which it is the desire of Her Majesty's Government to protect.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: The speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down seems to me to call for a few remarks on my part. The noble Earl has been somewhat inconsistent in the course he has taken. He seems to think that, as a necessity of the case, we must suppose that Russia is about to invade India, or that there is a probability of it. Now, an absolute invasion of India by Russia is a danger which no one who is acquainted with the great distances between the two countries has in immediate contemplation; and the danger which has been supposed to exist has been rather the effect which the approach of Russia would have on the Indian population. The statement of the noble Earl, that he approved all that was done with respect to Europe, and that he also ap-

1827
proved the despatch of the Indian troops to the Mediterranean, was wholly inconsistent with the rest of his argument, that the effect on the people of India would be nothing. The fact of bringing over the Indian troops showed that England was bound to India both in government and people. The noble Earl could not but admit that it would have a material effect on India; and, therefore, in commending the use of the Indian troops, he was relying on the very effect which he affected to depreciate. Then the noble Earl said he did not think Russia would ever think of invading the territory of Asia Minor; but, if so, all the difficulties and dangers which he apprehended fall to the ground; and those wars and rumours of wars to which my noble Friend below the Gangway and the noble Earl opposite alluded are gone, and we are left in peace to bring things in Turkey to a better condition. The argument of the noble Earl, who has governed 40,000,000 of Mahomedans himself with success, that we shall be unable to bring into a better condition the Mahomedans of Asiatic Turkey, seems to be contrary to all sound reasoning. The noble Earl supposes we have made a Convention by which we are to wave a wand and immediately produce contentment, happiness, and peace in regions which for years have been left desolate and in confusion. We pretend to do no such thing. As my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has stated in the letter accompanying the Treaty, Turkey has another opportunity of adopting measures of good government, and this, of course, must be done by degrees. Does the noble Earl mean to say that because Asia Minor and Asiatic Turkey generally is in this miserable condition, the populations were so degraded and debased that England is to abstain from holding up a finger in their behalf? Why, two years ago, the Government were being continually reproached because they had not used force in order to compel Turkey to govern her populations better. Yet, now, because we have entered into a Convention dependent on the good conduct of Turkey, a hobgoblin is conjured up, and we are told that we are embarking on those great dangers and difficulties which we were invited to court two years ago. But
1828
suppose that, contrary to all these dismal vaticinations, we introduce peace and prosperity into these countries? Is not that an object for which a nation may properly incur some little trouble and responsibility? When the noble Earl says that no means exist for bringing about such prosperity, I would ask him whether he has lost all confidence in his countrymen? Does he not know that the moment peace, order, and tranquillity are introduced into a country so rich in itself, English and European capital will flow towards that country? The policy of this country for generations past has been one which the noble Earl seems to think is entirely wrong. He appears to think that if Russia were to advance on Asia Minor and to go to the Euphrates and the Persian Gulf, we ought to stand aloof.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: No, no.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: Well, if that is not the policy which the noble Earl recommends, what is it? The noble Earl is, in fact, speaking in a different tone from that which has been adopted by every statesman in this country for generations past. Why should the Indian troops have been brought to take part in the proceedings which were apprehended some time ago? It has always been held that the possession by Russia of Constantinople, the control of the Straits and the Black Sea, and also, probably, of the Mediterranean, would have a most prejudicial effect on our Indian Possessions. We are asked by the noble Earl to give an account as to how we are to assist the Turks in their civil and military government. I was astonished at his proposal that we should tell him the military preparations we are going to make for the defence of Asiatic Turkey. We have not undertaken to defend the frontiers of Asiatic Turkey by military operations on that particular point. We merely say that if those frontiers are menaced we will defend Turkey against the aggressor; but the mode of doing so is a military question to be solved at the time. With regard to the civil administration, the noble Earl himself gave such a description of what is required that one might hope that he may be sent to administer the country; because, if he is, there will be great hopes of his bringing about every reform that is necessary. The Treaty

1829
which has been concluded with Turkey does not provide the means by which reforms are to be effected. On the contrary, it provides that all these matters are to be settled afterwards. There are stringent conditions; and, in my opinion, we should have committed a great wrong if we had undertaken to assist Turkey in the way we have without binding her to good government. Reference has been made to the difficulties which the Sultan had experienced in the beginning of his reign. Never, probably, was a man so unfortunate. There was never a day in which he could consider himself out of personal danger. The Sultan has been in a position such as no Monarch on earth probably ever was in before. And yet people expect him to bring about, instantly, enormous changes in Asiatic Turkey. I believe the Sultan is a man of good will and good purpose; but, unfortunately, he has been surrounded, as other Sultans have been, at Constantinople by men who have been parties to the old and corrupt system of government. Let us hope that we shall, to a certain extent, relieve him, and that the necessity of his position, with Europe looking on at the work which is being accomplished, and with the warnings of those many years which have passed over without any interference on the part of the Government of which the noble Earl opposite was a Member, in order to effect a single reform in Turkey, will now lead to a better state of things. You pledged yourselves by the Treaty of 1856 to bring about good government in Turkey, but what did you do to enforce what you had promised? It is an old vulgar adage that ''too many cooks spoil the broth," and I am afraid that what was the business of all the Powers of Europe was treated very much as if it was nobody's. But now all that is changed. We have undertaken, as a matter of real business, a duty which casts upon us a great responsibility; and if we can bring about in Asiatic Turkey anything like peace and prosperity, even though a long period may pass over—and I say it must be a work of time, it is a thing which must be done carefully and gradually—if we can bring about a higher degree, I will not say of the civilization of modern Europe, but of civilization and order, so that the reign of violence will cease, and men will be able to attend to their legi-
1830
timate industries, we shall have done a work which will be a satisfaction for the responsibilities which we have undertaken, and we shall have fulfilled the highest duty of a civilized nation.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, before I allude to what has been said with regard to Asia Minor, may I be permitted to recall the attention of the House to some remarks made by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, which were not noticed, I believe, by my noble Friend who followed him (the Earl of Northbrook). Considering that the policy pursued in the East for the last two or three years may now be considered to have reached its natural termination, I do not think it is at all unreasonable that we should take a general view of its results. There are various ways in which that may be done. If we look at the general result from the point of view which was very popular not long ago with many Members of the Party opposite in connection with the foreign policy of the country, I do not think we can feel any deep satisfaction at what has recently taken place. Many Members of that Party were very anxious that the position of Turkey should be maintained, and that her independence should not be sacrificed; and the result is what the noble Earl at the head of the Government described, not as a "partition," because that is an offensive word, but as a "re-distribution" of the Dominions of the Porte. This reminds me of some well-known lines in Shakspeare—
"Convey, the wise it call: steal!
foh: a fico for the phrase."
We are told that what has been done is not a partition, but a re-distribution; but by whatever name it is called, it means exactly the same thing. There have been partitions of various kinds, and I am sure the noble Earl opposite would be the last person to forget that Poland has been effectually partitioned or redistributed by degrees. There was more than one bite at that cherry, and by the very large bite which has now been taken at Turkey, the way has been paved for its partition at no distant day. I was quite surprised to hear the noble Marquess opposite speak in the manner that he did of the policy which has been pursued recently. He said that the principle which the Government had

1831
laid down for itself was that of watching to see whether some opportunity might not present itself for re-instating and re-invigorating the Porte. My Lords, is this re-instating and re-invigorating the Porte? The Porte might well exclaim—"Heaven preserve us from such a process of re-instating and re-invigorating!" Why, Turkey in Europe has almost ceased to exist. This process of re-instating and re-invigorating has altered the whole position of Turkey. The Treaty of Paris may have been open to some objections; but it was, at all events, a Treaty which preserved the whole of Turkey complete, and not a mere fragment of it, as is the case under the arrangement explained by the noble Earl at the head of the Government. This is not, however, in my view, a cause for regret. I do not think, that as matters stand, the partition of Turkey effected by the Congress is a thing that ought to be regretted, and I agree very much with the late Foreign Secretary (the Earl of Derby) that, looking at all the circumstances, the Congress has probably made the best it could of the terrible mess it had to deal with. The noble Marquess has spoken of the position of Austria, as if he had made quite a new discovery, as if he were making a revelation to the House. He has told us that Austria is a Great Power, and one which could not but have to be reckoned with in any settlement of the Eastern Question. [The Marquess of SALISBURY interposed an explanation which was inaudible.] I perfectly well remember that the noble Marquess spoke of the position of Austria in regard to Novi Bazar, as if that had settled the Eastern Question. If anybody tells me that what occurred in that respect settled the Eastern Question, he must believe me to be a very credulous person. I venture to say that the position of Austria in relation to this question is no recent discovery. Anybody who remembers the Crimean War, and the position of European Turkey during the progress of that struggle, must feel that there is nothing new in the position of Austria. There is nothing new in the present position of Austria except that she has accepted, and taken part in, the partition of Turkey; and unless Austria was to be destroyed, she could not sit by and see Russia take position of European Turkey without interfering. The em-
1832
barrassments which Austria has suffered owing to the peculiarities of her position, and owing to the difficulties connected with the Maygar and Slav populations, are pefectly well known, and I do not see any reason to find fault with her for the course which she has recently pursued. That you yourselves have discovered that Austria took an interest in the Eastern Question, and, therefore, that the interests of the Porte are safe, is one of the greatest delusions that ever entered into the minds of public men. I wish now to say a word or two about Eastern Roumelia. I must, for my part, honestly and frankly say that I think the present arrangement is an improvement on the previous one. I think that what the noble Earl at the head of the Government said about the desirableness of not entering into details at present was quite right, but I agree with him that, as a whole, the present arrangement is better than the former one; and I think it is better because it avoids the risk of allowing the Slavs of Bulgaria to overrun the whole of the territory occupied by the Greek population in the Southern part of Turkey in Europe, or near the Ægean Sea. I repeat that I think this arrangement is better than the preceding one; but when it is spoken of as a great gain to the Porte, I think it cannot be out of place for me to refer to a despatch which I think Her Majesty's Government will not be disposed to treat with contempt. I allude to a despatch written by our Ambassador at Constantinople, who may be described as more of a Turcophile than the Turks themselves, in June, 1877. In writing respecting the arrangement which was then suggested by the Russian Government, he said, that the destruction of the Turkish fortresses on the Danube, and the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the Province beyond the Balkans, would be the giving up of the main line of defence for Turkey in Europe, and the placing of the rest of the Empire, and Constantinople itself, at the mercy of Russia. Therefore, the Ambassador argued that the very thing which Her Majesty's Government have now consented to in regard to Bulgaria North of the Balkans, must lead to the complete disintegration of the Turkish Empire; and I believe that this was a sound view of the matter. The noble Marquess opposite remarked that the Sultan may

1833
send troops into this autonomous Province of Eastern Roumelia. That may strike many persons as a very important consideration; but I think the noble Marquess rather exaggerates the effect of the arrangement. The Governor General may, under the Treaty, apply to the Porte for troops in the case either of external danger, or of internal disturbances. But what is likely to be the effect of this arrangement? The Governor General is to be a Christian; and does anyone really believe that he would act in the interest of the Porte and not in the interest of the Christian population over which he ruled? It is a very easy thing to say that the Porte might send troops into the Province; but he will only have a right to send troops on the application of the Governor General, and there is a very great distinction between the two things. My Lords, there is one other point in connection with European Turkey on which I wish to say a word or two. As regards Greece, the Congress might have decided that it would do nothing; but what I wish to point out is that by the course it pursued, it has laid a foundation for fresh disturbances. The noble Earl at the head of the Government said that Greece has a future before her. I also say that she has a future; but upon what does that future depend? Upon the extinction of the Ottoman Power in Europe; and in proportion as the hopes of the Greeks are realized, must the Ottoman Power in Europe disappear. When you talk of Turkey still having 6,000,000 of people in Europe, you forget that a considerable portion of that population consists of Greeks. You have prepared the way for an approximation to union. You have held out to Greece a complete bait for disturbance in that part of the Turkish Dominions. You say that she ought to have an addition made to her territory; but you have taken no effectual measures for securing to her an increase, and you may depend upon it that no long period will have elapsed before Greece will raise disturbances for the purpose of accomplishing an object which has been sanctioned by the Congress. Now, my Lords, I wish, in the next place, to say a few words upon another subject which has not yet been much discussed. I allude to the important Treaty which the Government have entered into for the defence of Asiatic Turkey. The
1834
noble Viscount who has just spoken (Viscount Cranbrook) has thrown more light on the policy of that arrangement than had been previously thrown upon it by any Member of Her Majesty's Government. Nothing could be more diplomatic than the manner in which that subject was dealt with by the noble Marquess; but I maintain that when so great an act has been done—and done, too, without the knowledge of Parliament—the least that we could expect from Ministers is that they should state frankly what is the meaning of their policy. There can be no doubt that the Secretary of State for India has just given us some notion of what that policy is. Now, let us just consider this matter, for it is really a very serious one, and even, at this hour of the night, is well worth considering. We have undertaken two things of high importance. Let us bear in mind that what has been done is a matter of extreme importance. This Treaty is, perhaps, the most important Treaty that has been entered into since 1815. It contains two undertakings; the first binding this country to defend Turkey against the attacks of any foreign Power; the second binding Turkey to effect a better administration of its affairs. It is strictly a Treaty containing two conditions, and the fulfilment of one condition is made dependent on that of the other. Now, there are two ways in which this Treaty may be executed, or rather two ways in which it may be dealt with. One is that of treating the Porte tenderly and with consideration, and taking a great deal of time to influence it. I should like to know what would probably be the result of pursuing such a course. The result would, I believe, be nothing. We know perfectly well what has been the result of the advice addressed to the Sultan and his Government during the last 20 years. We know what was the cause of the failure of the Treaty of 1856. The cause of the failure of that Treaty was this—that the policy of Lord Palmerston being founded on the hope of an amelioration of the Turkish system of administration, that hope was entirely disappointed. Upon that hope the whole policy of Lord Palmerston hinged. The policy of the Crimean War on the part of this country was, at all events, a consistent policy, the object being to relieve Turkey from foreign pressure

1835
and to guarantee her independence on the condition that she should carry out the necessary reforms. Well, how did Turkey use her new power? Why, to get deeper and deeper in the mire, to borrow money until she became bankrupt, to resist for 20 years all attempts to induce her to effect improvements, until the conclusion became inevitable that it was necessary for the safety of other Powers that her rule in Europe should cease. What reason have we to expect that the same course will not be run in Asia? For some years after the Crimean War, there was certainly no lack of pressure on the part of the Government of this country. The Porte has one great quality—that of passive resistance—a quality which it possesses in a greater degree than any other Government in the world. Few men have ever been able to bear up against that kind of resistance. Probably the only man who ever knew how to do in Turkey was Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. We have been told with respect to the Sultan that he is a man of very enlightened views, and will listen to any representations which may be made to him by the European Powers with regard to the necessity of introducing improvements into his system of administration. I know but little of the present Sultan, and I sincerely hope that some part of the description which has been given of him this evening may prove to be true. He was, however, the Sovereign of Turkey at the time when the Conference was sitting at Constantinople, and I never heard of any great readiness being shown by him or his Ministers to effect reforms. Certainly there was no lack of pressure on that subject; but, whenever pressure has been exercised, it has been met by opposing to it a simple non possumus. Do you suppose, then, that we can alter the whole administration of affairs in Asiatic Turkey? If we content ourselves with giving advice with regard to Asia Minor, nothing whatever will come of it. What will happen will be that some 10 or 15 years hence, when this country has recovered from the glamour which the noble Earl opposite has cast over men's minds, difficulties such as those which have occurred in the European Dominions of Turkey will arise, at a moment when we are engaged in a dispute with the United States, or with France, or with
1836
some other country, Russia will point out to us that some of the subjects of Turkey are suffering, and ask us what we intend to do; and when we reply that we have given excellent advice, Russia will reply that advice is of no use, and will send troops into Turkish territory. When Turkey calls upon us to fulfil our guarantee for her protection, she will be told that she has not fulfilled the condition into which she entered with regard to the improvement of the administration of her affairs, that she has not listened to the advice which has been given to her for several years past, and that, therefore, that part of the Treaty is not binding upon us. The guarantee will furnish us with a casus belli against Russia, of which, if we like, we may take advantage; but we should probably decline to interfere, and I must say that that would not be a very creditable termination of the matter. But there is another course which has been shadowed out by the Secretary of State for India—a course under which our control over the administration of Turkish territory in Asia would be made a reality. The noble Viscount pointed to some measures which might produce that effect. Now, I have heard this matter a good deal discussed. There are, I believe, a great many people who feel as I do, that the Government has incurred a grave responsibility, and that this country never ought to undertake the task of repairing the administration of other countries. I am not one of those who imagine that a country can become great by shirking its responsibilities; but nations, as well as individuals, have been ruined by undertaking responsibilities without weighing carefully beforehand their ability to fulfil them. The Government seems to me to have been seduced into its present position by the failure of a great Empire; it has been tricked, as it were, by the notion of acquiring influence over the whole of the East, into overlooking the very serious responsibility which must be thus incurred. If you are to fulfil this responsibility, you may do it in two ways. One has been already pointed out—it is to organize a Native Force. Nothing, perhaps, could be more easy than to create a body of Turkish Sepoys. But how are they to be paid? If they are not paid by England, they must be paid from the Turkish Treasury at Constan-

1837
stantinople, out of a balance that may be in it, which will probably not be much. But, besides the military question, there is the question of the civil government of the Turkish Provinces. We may attempt to control the administration of affairs by appointing Residents who shall have a right of control in such matters; but it does not follow that the Sultan or his Ministers will acquiesce in the advice which is given by the Resident. Let me suppose that the Governor of Erzeroum entirely declines to do that which we, or our Resident, may think ought to be done, how is he to be coerced into compliance with our wishes? It really comes to this—that having consented to the partitioning of Turkey in Europe, and provided against the future destruction of the Porte, you take the whole of the rest of the Dominions of the Sultan into your own hands. Now, my Lords, is that the end of our policy? And, if not, I shall be glad to be informed what is? Is it, in fact, an enlarged policy whereby we are to go and take the administration of Turkey entirely under our own control; because, unless we do so, and unless the policy is well maintained, the whole thing can only end in defeat. If, on the other hand, we are not to do that, I should like to know whether the country will go with the Government so far as it has gone, and upon what ground Her Majesty's Government have changed their minds with regard to the policy which they have hitherto been pursuing. My noble Friend behind me, who has criticized the policy of the Government with great force, has pointed out the danger that might ensue from carrying out that which has now been annunciated, and I own that I was not astonished at the time to hear the noble Marquess opposite state that, in his opinion, the idea of any danger to India in consequence of an advance of Russia through their being in possession of Kars or Erzeroum was a mere bugbear. The noble Marquess said that to go to war for any such idea would be a madness of which no one would be guilty, and that it was a mere nightmare to dream of any possibility of danger to India arising out of such a cause. My Lords, I believe it is a nightmare. I am not one of those who think that no precautions should be taken against Russian aggression; but my opinion is that whenever the Rus-
1838
sians march upon India they will do it not by way of Kars or Erzeroun, but their basis of attack will be through Persia. I am not prepared to say that there is no danger as far as the route through that Empire is concerned. Anyone who knows Persia knows that it is perfectly helpless and prostrate, that its Government is as bad as it can be, and that anything like reform there is utterly hopeless. We know, also, perfectly well that the Persian Government is at the disposal of the highest bidder, and we know very well that when an attempt was made to drive the Persians out of Herat, in order that that important town might fall into Russian possession, our Government always insisted that Herat should not fall into Russian hands, because, if it did, everybody must know that the advance into India from Herat would be easy. But, my Lords, how that danger is to be averted by means of a Treaty by which this country undertakes to protect the frontier of Asiatic Turkey passes my comprehension. It seems to me, as my noble Friend says, that this Treaty tends very much to weaken us. Indeed, to undertake to defend an extended frontier would always do that, because an extended frontier is always a great source of weakness to any country. Your Lordships are aware that, owing to the necessary restrictions of which I do not complain, you could not use your Forces until war actually broke out. The Black Sea will not be opened and cannot be opened until that event, and when war did break out we should be placed under very great disadvantages. To suppose that the possession of Cyprus will enable us to protect this country against any advance on the part of Russia towards India would be to suppose something utterly repugnant to common sense and to every principle of the geographical disposition of our Force with regard to the defence of India. Neither, my Lords, can I conceive that there is the least pressure placed upon us for the occupation of Cyprus for the protection of the Suez Canal; and if there was any danger to that Canal I cannot conceive how it could be averted by our undertaking the defence of the extended frontier of Asiatic Turkey. My Lords, I have troubled your Lordships much too long. I feel more deeply upon this subject than I have felt upon any which

1839
has engaged the public attention in the course of my political life, and I cannot help thinking that this country has been embarked upon a policy more rash, more dangerous, less well considered and more likely to lead to disaster than any I remember in our past history. I know that at the present time there is a general shaking of hands, and a kind of all-round congratulation with regard to the so-called triumph of the noble Earl. But, my Lords, I conscientiously believe that the time will come, and indeed is not far distant, when these events will be viewed in a very different light, and when it will be seen that our foreign policy during this period has been the least creditable of any that has been pursued for years; that the Treaty which has been concluded is the virtual destruction of Turkey in Europe, and that the English Government, in its endeavours to restore the balance of power, have brought us into entanglements the result of which we cannot contemplate without uneasiness, and which will ultimately lead us in difficulties and burdens which the nation is not prepared to bear.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, I have no desire whatever to enter into the general question of the bearing of the Treaty of Berlin and the Convention with Turkey upon Europe; but I do desire to offer a few remarks upon some of the matters which have fallen from the noble Earl who spoke last (the Earl of Kimberley), and from my noble Friend the late Governor General of India (Lord Lawrence), upon the restitution of Turkish territory in Asia which has been given back to that Power in return for a guarantee for the future good government of its provinces. In the first place, my Lords, I do not share the apprehensions which have been expressed that little or nothing will be done for the protection of the Christian subjects of the Porte in Asiatic Turkey, nor with respect to the amount of responsibility which this country has there by incurred. In my opinion, we have, in reality, undertaken no responsibility by this Treaty which it was not incumbent upon us to take before by the Treaty of 1856. It has been consistently contended that although the guarantee for the liberty and welfare of the Christian subjects of the Porte was not expressed with sufficient distinctness in the Treaty
1840
of 1856, yet that there was such a guarantee implied in the terms of that Treaty, and that our Government was bound by it to insist upon steps being taken to secure their welfare and protection. It was not only open to us, but it was positively incumbent upon us, to see that the obligations of the Porte were performed in that respect. I admit that when I argue that it is still possible to procure some effective protection in favour of the Christian subjects of the Porte, I am probably arguing against the conviction to which many have been led as the result of the experience of the last 20 years; yet I do contend that that experience is not altogether conclusive against my argument, and when the noble Earl who spoke last contends that no effectual efforts can be made in favour of the Christians in that part of the world, his statement is in direct contradiction to that which recently fell from the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), whose absence, and the cause of it, we all deplore. That noble Duke is a statesman who entertains the sincerest and most philanthropic views with respect to the welfare of the Christian subjects of the Porte, and no man in the world is more capable of expressing those sentiments with greater force than the noble Duke. My Lords, I heard the noble Duke myself state that the question of the protection of the Christian races of Turkey had been allowed to go to sleep for several years after the Crimean War. I do not think that this expression was altogether accurate. I think that he ought rather to have said that Her Majesty's Government had gone to sleep; I do not mean to say that they did so entirely; I do not mean to say that their Representatives at the Ottoman Court did not avail themselves as opportunity afforded to make some effective representation; and in reference to the Lebanon and some other places, those representations produced a good effect. I have myself had an opportunity of witnessing the good results attending the representations of Mr. Layard, and I do affirm that during the four years that I had an opportunity of becoming intimately acquainted with the conduct of our Representative at the Porte, a great deal was done for the Christian population of Turkey, especially under the administration of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, than whom no one was more

1841
earnest in his endeavours to promote the welfare of Christians in Turkey, and no doubt considerable ameliorations took place. But, unfortunately, with the single exception of our Ambassador (Lord Stratford de Redcliffe), whether supported by Lord Palmerston or the Earl of Aberdeen, there was no kind of concert among the other Diplomatic Agents on the subject, and no one was really actuated by the same earnestness and enthusiasm. I cannot doubt that if the representations which were being constantly made had been well backed up by other Powers, very great changes in the affairs of Turkey might have been effected. The indifference with which England and other countries regarded these questions cannot be better exemplified than by the fact that neither in the Treaty of 1856, nor in the amended Treaty of 1871, was there any allusion to Turkish misgovernment and the treatment of the Christian subjects of the Porte. Now, my Lords, with these facts before my eyes, I am bound to say that I do not despair that the representations of Her Majesty's Government will effect a great improvement in the conduct of Turkey. My Lords, I think that the mere fact that the English Government now stands aloof from the other Powers, and is not obliged to concert measures with them, is a feature indicative of future success. Now, with reference to the Guarantee which Her Majesty's Government has given as to the integrity of the Asiatic Provinces of Turkey, I am bound to state that I think that the dangers and difficulties attached to that Guarantee have been greatly exaggerated. I have some small experience of the policy of Russia, and there is nothing more clear than that when she understands what are the real intentions and the final and definite resolutions of England, when she knows that the English people are in earnest in giving effect to those decisions, she will conduct herself accordingly, and I think the mere existence of the English Guarantee will be a positive and complete defence of the Turkish territory in Asia, and I do not think that it is at all probable that the Guarantee will ever be called into effect. The noble Lords who have just addressed your Lordships have exercised their ingenuity in reckoning up the difficulties that will take place; but, in my opinion, those difficulties will
1842
never arise. For my own part, I will state to your Lordships the extreme satisfaction with which I have heard the general admissions made by the noble Earl with respect to the employment of the Indian troops, and I think that if any one thing more than another will tend to strengthen and consolidate the loyalty of the Indian people, it is the confidence which has been manifested in them upon the present occasion. The policy of the Government in this respect has been both wise and courageous. With respect to the employment of the Indian troops generally, and the formation of what may be termed the new Indian Army, it is a policy which was inaugurated by the late Lord Mayo, and has been successfully carried out. The only point upon which I think there is the least doubt is with regard to the question of Cyprus. I own that when I first heard the intention of the Government in that respect, I entertained considerable misgivings, especially with respect to the susceptibility of France and Italy; but, although that policy may be questioned in some quarters, I still think that there are at least three mitigating circumstances—the first of which is that it will certainly give a military importance to the possession of the place, because it seems to me to be a place where a military force might be prepared on a large scale, especially with reference to cavalry, and upon any eventuality arising, which would necessitate such a step that forces could be easily transported to Asia. In point of fact, the acquisition of the Island of Cyprus, in reference to the defence of Asia Minor, is a step which has long been advocated by high military authorities; and, therefore, there can be no doubt that considerable military importance attaches to it. At all events, the occupation of the island by this country is an indication that we intend to act; and although every one of the Powers seems to have repudiated the Treaty of 1856, I think the acquisition of Cyprus is a pledge that no such repudiation will take place in future. The third mitigating circumstance is that the island itself is a very rich and fertile one; and there is no doubt whatever that its population will be greatly benefited by the fact of its being occupied by this country. On those grounds, therefore, I derive consolation for any inconvenience

1843
that may arise in consequence of the acquisition of Cyprus; and, on the whole, I agree with the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and, with certain reservations, I offer my humble congratulations to the Ministry.
Correspondence and Protocol ordered to lie on the Table. [Turkey, No. 39 (1878).]
House adjourned at half past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.