Sitting of 7 March 1878

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —Resolutions [March4] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Sending — Mutiny*.
Committee —County Government [93], debate adjourned.
Committee —Report —Factories and Workshops [3–126].
Third Reading— Exchequer Bonds (£1,000,000)* [121]; Public Baths and Washhouses * [37], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. COTESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill during this Session to amend the Law relating to Police Superannuation, founded upon the Report of the Select Committee presented to the House last year?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he could not promise to introduce the measure this Session; but it was one which would not be lost sight of, and if an opportunity offered before the close of the Session he might introduce it.

  POST OFFICE—MAILS TO THE WEST OF ENGLAND.—QUESTION.
  DR. LUSHasked the Postmaster General, If any steps have yet been taken for the transmission of letters to the West of England by mail train from Basingstoke to Exeter, instead of by the present system of mail carts; or if he can hold out any hope of an early compliance in this respect with the general wish of the inhabitants of the large district interested in the adoption of the proposed change?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, the establishment of a night mail train from Basingstoke to Exeter would be of little, if any, advantage to the mail service, and the present mail carts could not be discontinued except at a complete sacrifice of cross post communication involving most serious inconvenience to the public. The present arrangements afforded a much better service for the correspondence generally than could be provided by a mail train as suggested.

  METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK.

    QUESTION.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,asked the First Commissioner of Works, in reference to a statement made by him last year as to the erection of a house in Hyde Park, If he will further explain what is the purpose to which a

    873
    second house now being built in the same portion of the Park will be applied?
    MR. GERARD NOEL: Sir, the second house to which the Question of my hon. Friend refers makes no fresh encroachment on the Park. He will, no doubt, remember that last year I asked the House to vote the sum of £500 to pull down and re-build the old storehouses in Hyde Park, which were in a very dilapidated condition, and quite unfit to protect the tools and implements used for the arrangement and cultivation of the Parks. The object for which this new building is being erected is to replace the old storehouses, and it is built almost on the identical site and within the storeyard.

  TURKEY—GREEK REFUGEES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he will send some of Her Majesty's ships to the coasts of Epirus and Thessaly, with instructions to take to a place of safety any Greek women and children who may wish to escape from the Turkish irregular forces?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am glad to be able to say that Her Majesty's ships are already on the coast, and that the Rapid on Sunday last removed 180 women and children from Santa Quaranta in Epirus to Corfu. Her Majesty's Consuls in Epirus and Thessaly have full authority to call for the presence and assistance of Her Majesty's ships whenever necessary for the protection of life.

  SCOTCH UNIVERSITY COMMISSION.

    QUESTION.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Report of the Scotch University Commissioners will be laid upon the Table, and be distributed to Members?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, the Report of the Commissioners is out of my hands now, and the matter rests entirely with the officers of the House; but I will speak to them to see if it can be hastened.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—DEATH-RATE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN.—QUESTION.
  MR. MELDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a Memorial, which was forwarded on the 4th of January last to the Lord Lieutenant, by the Executive Committee of the Dublin Sanitary Association, and assented to by the Public Health Committee of the Corporation of Dublin, praying the Lord Lieutenant to direct a public inquiry into the cause of the long-continued excessive death rate of the city of Dublin; whether, as President of the Local Government Board of Ireland, he will take any steps to have such an inquiry held; and, whether he will lay the Memorial upon the Table of the House?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, my attention has been called to the Memorial to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, and which is now under consideration. I understand, however, that the assertion that the Memorial was assented to by the Public Health Committee of the Corporation of Dublin is not strictly correct. I believe that the terms of the Resolution passed by the Public Health Committee on the subject are to the effect that the Committee is not prepared to apply for such an inquiry as that suggested by the Dublin Sanitary Association. I am bound to say that, so far as I am at present advised, there does not appear to be sufficient ground for holding an inquiry. There is no objection to a Copy of the Memorial being laid upon the Table of the House if the hon. and learned Gentleman desires to move for it.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.

    QUESTION.
    MR. O'CLERYasked the honourable Baronet the Member for Walsall, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that Petitions, purporting to be signed by over 90,000"working men and other inhabitants of the city of Dublin," have been presented during the present Session against the Irish Sunday Closing Bill; whether he is aware that there are few, if any, women's signatures attached to these Petitions, and that, according to the Census Returns for 1871, there were

    875
    only a little over 70,000 male adults above 15 years of age in the city of Dublin; and, if the Committee on Public Petitions intend to take any action in the matter?
    SIR CHARLES FORSTER: Sir, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to say, with regard to the first part, it is perfectly correct. With regard to the second part, the Committee had not present in their minds the Census Return of 1871. The Committee is not accustomed to take action on mere inferences, but require substantial and positive proof; and, therefore, as at present advised, they do not intend to take any action in the matter; but if the hon. Member desires to examine these Petitions, every facility will be afforded him for so doing.

  THE KINGDOM OF GREECE—PROTOCOL, &c—QUESTION.
  MR. FORSYTHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will lay upon the Table of the House, in a consecutive form, Copies of the following Papers relating to the establishment of the kingdom of Greece, viz.—1. The Protocol of the 4th day of April 1826, signed at Saint Petersburg; 2. The Treaty between Great Britain, France, and Russia, dated the 12th day of December 1827; 3. Protocol of Conference held at Poros the 12th day of December 1828; 4. Protocol signed at London the 22nd day of March 1829; 5. Protocol of the 3rd day of February 1830?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, there will be no objection to lay the Papers on the Table if the hon. and learned Member will move for them. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will confer with me or with my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the form in which the Papers should be presented.

  THE WATERMEN AND LIGHTERMEN OF THE THAMES.—PETITION.

    QUESTION.
    CAPTAIN PIMasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the Petition of the Watermen and Lightermen of the River Thames; and, whether the Government is prepared to take any steps in furtherance of the prayer of that Petition?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the attention of the Government has been called to this Petition; but it is one of a very extensive character, and it raises a large political question, and it will be impossible for me to give an Answer to the second part of the Question under these circumstances.

  CRIMINAL LAW—BURGLARIES AND ROBBERIES (METROPOLIS).

    QUESTION.
    MR. GREGORYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the number of burglaries and robberies from the person committed in the metropolitan district; and if he has considered whether any new arrangements of the police force should be made with a view of preventing such outrages and dealing with the large criminal population?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, my attention has, of course, been directed to this matter. I am happy to say that the members of one of the gangs of thieves who, no doubt, committed many of the burglaries are now undergoing various terms of penal servitude, and I hope that in the future a far less number of crimes will be committed. Some time ago I placed the Detective Force under the temporary command of a legal gentleman connected with the office; but now that the Commission has made its Report, I have felt justified in appointing a person of high qualifications to the head of the Detective Force in the metropolis. Under his direction, no doubt, very great improvements will be effected in the action of that Force. I may add that measures have been taken, which, I hope, will conduce towards bringing about a closer connection, as far as concerns the detection of crime, between the Metropolitan Police Force and the different Police Forces in the counties and boroughs throughout the Kingdom?

  THE EASTERN QUESTION — RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE TERMS OF PEACE.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whe-

  877
  ther the terms of Peace agreed upon between Russia and Turkey include the extension of the Bulgarian Principality to the Ægean Sea at Kavala, across territories inhabited by the Greek race?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, we have not yet received any authentic or other communication of the terms of peace. Therefore, I am not able at the present moment to give any Answer to the Question.

  THE VOTE OF CREDIT AND THE NAVY ESTIMATES.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, before the introduction of the Navy Estimates, additional printed information will be laid upon the Table stating the manner in which any part of the Vote of Credit might have been spent; and, also, when the Navy Estimates will be brought forward?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, I am afraid it will be impossible to lay on the Table any specific information as to the appropriation of the Vote of Credit before the Navy Estimates are taken. I hope to take the Estimates on Monday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  (Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.

    [BILL 3.] COMMITTEE.
    [Progress 1st March.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Schedule 1.
    MR. PARNELLmoved, in section 1, line 9, after "lead" to insert "or scutching flax." He explained that the object of the Amendment was to exclude children and young persons from being employed in scutching flax mills. When they were discussing the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Down-patrick (Mr. Mulholland), and since added to the Bill, the Committee decided that they would except children and young persons from the operation of the clause,
    878
    and apply the restrictions imposed by the clause to women only. He (Mr. Parnell) proposed, as an Amendment, that the hours of labour in a scutching mill should not exceed 12; but the Home Secretary practically admitted that it was not intended to have any inspection of these scutching mills, because it would require an army of Inspectors to carry the law into effect. Seeing that the mills in question were scattered throughout all parts of the country, and that many of them were in the rural districts, which were not visited by the Factory Inspectors, he thought there ought to be a limit to the period during which children and young persons should be employed. If the Government were unable to provide that the mills should be properly inspected, it would almost follow as a logical sequence that children and young persons should be excluded from employment in them altogether. He, therefore, moved this Amendment in the interests of the children and young persons affected; but he only did so upon the supposition that it was not proposed to provide an efficient inspection.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the Committee would not assent to the Amendment. Some time ago the Committee came to a resolution that they would not allow the Secretary of State to prohibit, of his own motion, children from working in any specific trade, on the ground that there ought to be a very strict inquiry before any attempt was made to limit labour of any sort or description. It was felt that if it was necessary to prevent children from working in particular mills, it ought only to be after full inquiry into the circumstances of the trade affected. So far as the question raised by the hon. Member was affected, it was investigated, although, perhaps, not thoroughly, and no recommendation was made by the Commissioners in the matter. Therefore, he did not think that the prohibition of the working of children and young persons should be objected to in this particular trade without every per-son connected with the trade being fully heard. The hon. Member had made a mistake in one matter. The clause inserted in the Bill the other day only affected those scutching mills where no children or young persons were employed; but, as far as regarded those in

    879
    which children were employed, he would take care that the duty of inspection was properly performed.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to state that the Royal Commission, in reporting upon the question, remarked that the tendency of the evidence was to show that scutching mills should be included in the operation of the Bill. He understood that the Home Secretary had only included them in deference to the evidence given before the Royal Commission. He included them in one part of the Bill; but subsequently, the right hon. Gentleman accepted the clause moved by the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland), which practically excluded them. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that he would provide an efficient inspection for all the scutching mills, he (Mr. Parnell) would be perfectly satisfied. It was only in consequence of the doubt which the Home Secretary threw upon the possibility of providing adequate inspection that he (Mr. Parnell) had been induced to propose the Amendment, and, with anything in the shape of an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw it.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would take care that scutching mills were inspected wherever children were employed.
    MR. PARNELLremarked that a child might be employed upon one day and withdrawn the next.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that where the owner of a mill did not employ children, he was bound to give notice to that effect.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLmoved, in section 2, line 12, to leave out the word "female." The Home Secretary had already excluded children and young persons in mills where the heat was excessive, and the object of the Amendment was to exclude females entirely. Excessive heat was just as bad for a child and young person, whether boys or girls.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. This part of the question was considered by the Commission, and the Bill had been drawn in conformity with their recommendations.
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR. CHARLES FORSTERsaid, he had now to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, in page 53, sub-section 3, to add—"(c) The making and finishing of chains and nails." The object of this Amendment was to place these trades in the same category with regard to the employment of female labour as the brick, tile, and salt trades, in which no girl under the age of 16 years was permitted to be employed. It would not be necessary for him to detain the Committee at any length; because he thought he might almost let the case rest upon what was stated in the Report of the Royal Commission. Let the Committee listen to the following description of Cradley Heath, in the black country, under the influence of this kind of labour, compiled from a local newspaper, and given on page 82 of Mr. Brewer's Report. The correspondent says—
    "'I was a stranger come out of curiosity to see the chain-making country.' 'And a bad place you've come to,' said an old woman. 'It's the worst country God ever made. The women do all the work, and the men nearly nothing.' 'But they work sometimes,' I ventured to remark. 'Yes, they do, sometimes,' was the reply, 'but they always spend all they earn, and more too.'"
    The Report went on to describe a row of some four or five chain-makers' shops in close proximity to some very offensive cess-pools. The fires of these workshops were all going, and none but the women were at work. It must not be supposed, however, that the men were absent—not a bit of it. The lords of the creation were there in full force, but they were not working. They were amusing themselves with skylarking, and courting the girls who were hammering away at the chains. At the bottom of Cradley was a pool close to the high road, where he saw men bathing and running about naked. Chain shops were close at hand, and a small brickyard, with young girls at work there. He would ask what must be the moral condition of a district where such scenes took place? Then as to the sanitary aspect of the question, he thought it was impossible to read the Reports on the subject without coming to the conclusion that the health of young females must be seriously jeopardized by this kind of labour. They heard a good deal, in the evidence taken before the Royal Commission, of an instrument called an "Oliver," used in welding the

    881
    links of the chain, whose weight was in proportion to the size of the links, some being heavier and more laborious to work than others. The evidence described the "oliver" as shaking the lower parts of the body, and, therefore, dangerous to women in child-bearing, and also apt, from excessive vibration, to produce cancer in the heart; and yet instances were given of these instruments being used by women within a week of their confinement. Was it, then, too much to ask that in trades requiring such an instrument, the labour of young females should be restricted in the manner which he proposed? But here the Committee must not lose sight of a most important consideration— namely, the deteriorating effect of this system upon the future population, for when these young females became mothers the danger was that they would give birth to an enfeebled and dwarfed progeny. But if, on moral and sanitary grounds, this labour was objectionable, it was not less so from an educational standpoint. The Committee would at once understand that so long as young girls were permitted to do the work of men at so early an age, the value of their work was a perpetual temptation to parents to keep their children from school by every kind of misrepresentation; and to this cause was to be attributed the great extension of the half-time system, which had so seriously interfered with the successful operation of the Elementary Education Act. Not to weary the Committee with too many extracts from the Reports on the subject, let him allude briefly to some two or three, which bore out strongly this argument. Mr. Brewer said—
    "There are hundreds of children who evade the law, some by waiting for his coming, others by false representations as to age, while others prefer the risk of being found out."
    Mr. Abel, master of the Catshill school said—
    "Trade being very good, many children are taken away, almost from nursing, and put to the nail block. By far the greater part of these children have never attended a day school."
    Mr. Hutchinson, the schoolmaster at Dudley Woods, a great seat of the nail trade, went still further, and said—
    "I find the children attending, under the Act, very much below the average in proficiency; dull in intellect, and slow in comprehension,
    882
    which I attribute to the neglect of parents, who have placed every obstacle in the way of carrying out the Act."
    Commenting on this evidence, Mr. Brewer said—
    "The remarks of Mr. Hutchinson are only too true. Most employers and parents send their children to school in the afternoon. They work them all the morning till dinner time. That meal over, then follows school from 2 till 4, and then the poor little wretches are set to work again till 8."
    What reply could be made to facts like these? He sincerely hoped that the Committee would be of opinion that he had made out a case for placing a moderate restriction upon female labour in the chain and nail trades. Before he sat down, he would remind his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had the honour of accompanying a deputation which waited upon him from the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades' Congress. They felt very much indebted to his right hon. Friend for the courtesy and attention with which he received them, and also for having met many points which they then urged upon him. But they had seen with very great regret that up to the present time no satisfactory solution of the question of female labour in these trades had been proposed. He trusted that the forbearance which they had hitherto shown might not be allowed to militate against the cause with which they were identified, and that his right hon. Friend would accept this Amendment, which he (Sir Charles Forster) believed was called for in the interest of the social and moral progress of these people.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that this was a question which apparently received a great deal of consideration at the hands of the Royal Commission. They went very fully into the matter and made a Report upon it. The hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster) seemed to think that the reasons for keeping in salt, bricks, and tiles, would equally apply to the present case. That was not quite so. If the hon. Baronet would refer to the Report of the Commissioners, he would find that they did not want girls to be employed on these matters; but, so far as this case was concerned, he had better read the paragraph with which the longish Re-

    883
    port of the Commissioners on this subject ended; and, having done so, the Committee would see at once that upon that Report he could not possibly put into the Schedule the words now proposed by the hon. Baronet. The Commissioner said—
    "The real question to be decided is whether the work in which some few women are engaged in this district is so injurious to their health, or degrading to their moral condition, as to justify Parliament in prohibiting them from working. Mr. Brewer stated in evidence that he could not say from his own experience that women employed in this trade were more unhealthy than women in the same class of life employed in other trades; and a member of the deputation of working men told us that he would sooner his daughter worked in the chain shop than 50 brickyards, as there was not a 'decenter' trade on record for females than that of small chain making."
    Then the hon. Member spoke of the weight of the chains; but he would see that that question was before the Commission also. They said—
    "We are of opinion that the labour incident to the making of heavy nails and chains is too hard for women to undertake. But all the witnesses coincided in this opinion, though they did not agree as to the desirability of prohibiting the labour of adult women."
    And then they went on to say—
    "After most careful consideration, we are unable to suggest a line defining the class of work which women shall be permitted to undertake, and we would sooner trust to their own good sense not to seek to do work too laborious for them, and to the feeling in the district against their being so employed, than to a prohibitory Act which may work a hardship."
    He thought that, undoubtedly, that would be the case. He believed that the Royal Commission came to a wise conclusion, and, therefore, he had left out these matters.
    MR. PARNELLpointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet had reference to the employment of girls under the age of 16 years; whereas he thought that the extract from the Report of the Royal Commission which the right hon. Gentleman had read referred to women.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that if the Committee prohibited the employment of girls under the age of 16, they would do very much, indeed, to discourage female labour.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. MUNDELLAmoved, in page 53, section 4, sub-section (a), line 21, before "metal" to insert "dry." The clause, as it stood, would prohibit all children from being employed in metal grinding, while the intention of the Royal Commission was to exclude dry grinding, by which the health of children was affected. There was no objection at all to children being employed in wet grinding. The Amendment which he proposed would necessitate a slight alteration in the next clause, so as to bring the children employed in wet grinding under the restriction as to age.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment, provided words were inserted in the next clause, to the effect that children should not be employed under 11 years of age.
    MR. HERMONpointed out that it was not at all clear what was exactly meant by dry grinding.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSapprehended that in cases where the wheel was kept so wet that the air was quite free from dust children might be employed.
    MR. MUNTZtrusted that the Home Secretary would not give way in this matter. This was one of the most deadly trades in which children could be employed.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsuggested to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) that he should withdraw his Amendment for the present, and see before the Report whether it could not be put in such a form as to make it quite clear that where there was no dust a child might be employed, and that probably would satisfy the House.
    MR. MUNDELLAurged that the intention of the Bill was that in dry grinding children should be excluded, but wet grinding was altogether a different work.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked that the objection raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hermon) was that it was not quite clear what dry grinding was; and if the hon. Member for Sheffield would put the matter off till the Report, he (Mr. Cross) would, in the meanwhile, consult with him.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that it was well known that dry grinding was where no water or oil was used. He was, however, quite willing to put the matter off.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that after the decision that had been arrived at, he could not hope that the Committee would accept his proposal to limit the hours of labour of young persons employed in this particular class of mill labour. He should, therefore, withdraw the further Amendment to the Schedule standing in his name.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLpointed out that section 5 of the Schedule limited the operation of fustian cutting to children under 11 years of age. This was exceedingly heavy work, and he had searched the Report of the Commissioners in vain for any indication of their views on the subject. He did not know how the age had been fixed upon; but he, for one, wished the children to have the full benefit of the legislation, and he should, therefore, have liked, if it had been possible, to see the section extended.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that in order to bring the question before the Committee, he would move the omission of the words "under the age of 11."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, this particular trade had already occupied the attention of the Committee, and two special Acts of Parliament had been passed dealing with it. The age of 11 was fixed upon after considerable discussion, and after lengthened special inquiries had been made concerning it. The age of 11 was fixed on several grounds, one of which was that a considerable amount of "knack" was necessary for it, and it was advisable that children and young persons should acquire that knack as early in life as possible.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Schedule 2.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEmoved, in page 54, after sub-section 4, to insert subsections 5 and 6, as follows:—
    "(5.) In the case of bricks and tiles (not being ornamental bricks or tiles) to any part where the like materials are used, as are employed in the processes of dipping and scouring, or to any place where blue bricks, tiles, or other earthenware in which swarf, breeze, ironstone, or other minerals are used in the process of sifting or manufacture.
    886
    "(6.) In the case of sheds, kilns, or other workplaces whore the temperature exceeds 85 degrees (Fahrenheit)."
    The children engaged in brickmaking— one of the most arduous occupations to which children could be put—were very liable, unless some restrictive system was adopted, to be overworked. There could be no doubt that consumption and almost every other disease of the respiratory organs was aggravated, if not actually caused, by the materials now used in making and glazing bricks; and that children engaged in the manufacture were, in many cases, seriously injured by being compelled to wheel and carry heavy weights of clay and bricks in open, unsheltered brickfields. No one could desire more strongly than he did to see the Bill pass through the House; but, at the same time, he fully saw the necessity of doing more than the Bill actually proposed for the protection of children and young persons employed in this and kindred occupations.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he quite sympathized with the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved the Amendment; but he could not quite agree to accept the mode by means of which he proposed to attain his object. In the first place, the clauses and Schedules were intended mainly to consolidate and embody the existing law, and great care was necessary, therefore, before any attempt was made in a Consolidating Bill to materially alter the law which it was intended to consolidate. He would remind the Committee that under Clause 39 of the Bill the Secretary of State had power to extend the provisions of the Schedule under discussion to similar circumstances occurring in other trades; and it would, therefore, only be necessary for the Secretary of State to be asked to exercise the power with which he was armed, in case it could be proved to him that such exercise was necessary or advisable. The question of blue bricks came before the Commissioners, but it was not found possible to draw a distinction which should depend merely upon the colour of the bricks made.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEpointed out that the phrase "blue bricks," as he used it, had no necessary connection with the colour of the bricks made, and referred only to the nature of the deleterious materials used in that par-

    887
    ticular branch of the industry, distinguished by the name of "blue-brick making."
    MR. HEYGATEcould see no reason why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, should refuse to accept the Amendment.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he only wished the protection to which his Amendment pointed to be afforded, and he was not particular as to how the work was done. If it could be accomplished by means of Orders issued by the Secretary of State, under the 39th clause, he was content.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that knowing, as he did, something about the manufacture of bricks, he thought the matter was one which might with safety be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Schedule 3.
    SIR HENRY JACKSONmoved, in page 58, line 27, after Part Six, to insert the following Part—
    (Part Seven.)
    "Continuous employment of children, young persons, and women for five hours in certain textile factories during the winter months, when the work does not begin until 8 a.m. and ends at 7 p.m.
    "The exception respecting the continuous employment in certain textile factories during the winter months of children, young persons, and women, without an interval of at least half-an-hour for a meal, for the same period as in a non-textile factory, applies to textile factories solely used for—

    "(a.) The making of elastic web; or

    "(b.) The making of ribbon; or

    "(c.) The making of trimming."

    The hon. and learned Member said, this was for the purpose of giving effect to a new clause which was read the second time at the last sitting of the Committee. The exemption would only refer to certain light trades, which required a more careful manipulation of the fabrics than was consistent with the manipulators commencing work before breakfast on the cold mornings in winter.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had made inquiries in the districts that would be affected by the proposed Amendments, and he found that the proposal was viewed with favour alike by employers and employed.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had considered the matter carefully, and had determined to accede to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry; but he could not grant the same condition to the heavier textile factories.
    MR. MUNDELLAwas sorry that the relaxation had not been allowed to go further. He could see no harm in extending it to other textile trades in which the number of "half-timers" employed was small.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. STANTONmoved, in page 58, Part Seven, after sub-section (c), to add—
    "or other textile factories, where the hours named in this Clause shall be adopted during the winter months."
    He might say that great dissatisfaction was felt in many parts of the country, in consequence of the determination of the Government to relax the restriction in favour of one branch only of textile manufacturers.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSScould not accept the Amendment in the form in which it was proposed; but there was one way out of the difficulty—if difficulty it was—and that was that, although he could not accept the Amendment in its present shape, yet he freely admitted there might be special circumstances in particular parts of the country where the change proposed would be desirable; and if it was the wish of the Committee that power should rest in the Secretary of State to interfere where the health of women and children required it, he should be happy to consider the propriety of inserting a provision for that purpose, not in the Schedule, but in an ordinary clause.
    MR. MARLINGwas certain if the right hon. Gentleman could see the comfort which was derived by a family, where they were permitted to stay at home and take breakfast together, instead of turning out at 6 o'clock in the morning, he would be convinced of the utility of this proposal.
    MR. STANTON: After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment. I only wish to thank him for the way in which he has met my proposal.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ISAACsaid, that, in moving the next Amendment, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to introduce it into the Schedule of this Bill. The argument previously used would also apply to this Amendment. It was that the workpeople engaged in making hosiery should have the opportunity of taking a five hours' spell; and after the reasons which had been urged by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, having admitted previous Amendments, would not exclude this one. It was in the interests of the working people themselves, and it was on their application that he pressed it. He was bound to believe that on consideration the right hon. Gentleman would allow his words to be added after the words of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson). The words he proposed to add wore, in page 58, Part Seven, after "trimming," insert"(d.) The making of hosiery."
    MR. MUNDELLA,having been engaged in this industry as an employer, he might say for more than 30 years, was glad to observe that it had always been his practice during the winter months to write to the Chief Inspector of Factories for permission for his people to work between 8 o'clock in the morning and 7 in the evening. It was so much more comfortable to the women and children that they should go to their work after breakfast, and return home at 7 o'clock in the evening. They always looked forward to it as a great relief to them. Everyone must see what an advantage it was to have long hours of daylight. Some of the people lived two or three miles out, and before this change was made they had to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning to get to work at 6. When the breakfast hour came, they were too far away from home to go to their breakfast, and they had to take cold things. Therefore, it was in the interests of humanity to accept the Amendment; but he should be quite content to leave it to the Home Secretary to act when cases were brought under his notice.
    MR. A. M'ARTHURwished to add to what had been already said, an appeal from Leicester. It was said that on cold wet days it was extremely dis-
    890
    agreeable to the workpeople to go to their labour at an early hour in the morning.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I suppose the hon. Member will be quite satisfied to leave this matter to the Secretary of State under the general power. I have agreed to put in a provision on this matter, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that it shall receive early attention.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedule 4.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the 3rd paragraph on page 59 had, through a pure mistake of the draftsman, got into the first part of the Schedule instead of the second, and he (Mr. Cross) had been requested to got it altered.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that as he did not the see hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) in his place, he would move the Amendment which stood in the hon. Member's name— namely, in page 61, line 1, leave out sub-section (24)"Public laundries." He did not think it was necessary to say much in favour of this proposal; and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cross) was quite ready to omit the words. The general feeling of the Committee, he believed, was that whenever it was possible to leave an interest out of the Bill they ought to do so; and, therefore, he thought it un-advisable that public laundries should be brought under this Act.
    Loan FREDERICK CAVENDISHdid not rise for the purpose of opposing the Amendment, but he wished to state the reasons why the Royal Commission recommended that laundries should be included in the Bill. There were two reasons. One was that laundries connected with factories or workshops were subject to the Factory Acts. Secondly, he might say, that in London especially, the laundry trade was becoming more and more like a factory year by year, and in no occupation were longer hours kept.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSquite agreed that these reasons were very weighty, and therefore he had put laundries into the Bill; but full inquiry had convinced him that there were

    891
    difficulties in the matter, which he did not see his way to get over. Those difficulties were not placed before the Commission, and he thought it better to leave the laundries alone.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedule 5 agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved the following new Schedule:—
    Fifth Schedule.
    Special Exemptions.
    (Light handicraft exempted when carried on in private house or room.)
    Straw plaiting.
    Pillow-lace making.
    Glove making.
    MR. MUNDELLA,before this Schedule was added to the Bill, wished to ask the Home Secretary whether he was not making a great hole in his Bill when he excluded glove-making? Glove-making was carried on in the North as well as in the West of England, and it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman was making a great break in his Bill by this exclusion.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report this Bill, as amended, to the House."
    SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE,before this Motion was agreed to, wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to the fact that, under the Local Government Board, female Inspectors had been appointed, as in the case of Mrs. Nassau Senior; and he would ask him whether it was possible under this Bill to appoint female Inspectors where it was absolutely necessary? There were many cases where the intelligence and tact of a woman might be of great service to employers and to those employed in factories; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able, at all events, to determine whether he could or could not appoint women Inspectors instead of men in cases where there could be no doubt their services would be of considerable value.
    MR. GRAYasked permission to call the attention of the right hon. Gentle-
    892
    man to another matter congenial to the subject mentioned by the hon. Member who had just sat down. The majority of the people in some parts of Ireland were Catholic, and yet there was not, as he was informed, in all Ireland one single Catholic Inspector appointed under this Act. Nearly all the Inspectors were English, and nearly every one Protestant. Greater confidence would be given to the people if some Inspectors were appointed of their own religious persuasion.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was not in the least aware of the fact. He had never inquired into what the religion of any Inspector was; he had always chosen those whom he thought were the best men. He would make inquiry; but he thought the matter of religion should be kept out, and they should endeavour to get the best man.
    MR. MUNDELLAremarked that there was a Catholic Inspector in Sheffield; no doubt he was appointed without any regard to his religion, so that Inspectors had been appointed quite irrespective of creed, and of all questions in the world he believed this was the one with which religion had the least to do.
    MR. PARNELLrose, and was proceeding to address the Committee, when—
    THE CHAIRMANsaid: I may point out that this discussion is somewhat irregular. The hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary; but it will not be in Order to renew the debate. The Question is, "That I report this Bill, as amended, to the House."
    SIR ANDREW BUSK: I think the right hon. Gentleman should answer the Question, whether he can hold out any hope for the appointment of female Inspectors?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I understood the hon. Baronet to say that although he wished to put the Question to me, he distinctly stated that he did not want an answer. The matter really never flashed across my mind for one moment. Now that the hon. Baronet has brought it to my mind, it will receive the consideration due to all matters brought there. I was not aware that female Inspectors were appointed under the Poor Law.
    SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEreminded the right hon. Gentleman of the case of Mrs. Nassau Senior.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the matter was really rather different from what it appeared to those who said that it was of no consequence whether an Inspector was a Catholic or not. If hon. Gentlemen were more familiar with the circumstances that obtained in Ireland, they would see that it was desirable to inquire into the matter.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that if the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) would look into the Report of the Commission on Primary Schools in Ireland, he would see there was some reason for this Question.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

  COUNTY GOVERNMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Assheton Cross, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  COUNTY GOVERNMENT BILL.

    [BILL 93.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
    MR. RYLANDS,in moving that this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee, said: In moving the rejection of the Bill in its present stage, I am quite alive to the disadvantage in which I am placed in consequence of the second reading having been carried by a large majority. But I think it should be borne in mind that that large majority was accompanied by many expressions of disapproval of the main features of the Bill on both sides of the House. It almost seemed as though the Bill had no real friends, and even the parental affection displayed towards it by the author of its being was somewhat doubtful. There was also a large amount of objection urged against the Bill by the organs of public opinion. Prom every point of the political compass it was assailed with blasts of opposition, in the form of cold criticism from the Conservative Press, which dislikes all departures from the "time-honoured institutions" of the country, and, on the part of the Liberal Press, by warm denunciations of the ob-
    894
    jectionable and delusive character of the provisions of the Bill. It must also be borne in mind that the large majority in favour of the second reading of the Bill was secured under singular circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) proposed an Amendment on the second reading which attacked the vital parts of the Bill, and supported it in a speech which was delivered with his usual ability. In that speech he denounced the Bill in all its essential characteristics. Having presented to the House an Amendment which was decidedly hostile to the Bill, and having, in support of it, pointed out serious objections to the measure—notwithstanding that, at the last moment my right hon. Friend withdrew his Amendment, and the Opposition on the front bench went into the Lobby in favour of the second reading of the Bill. It strikes me that was a singular mode of proceeding on the part of the Leaders of the Opposition. I regretted their not having voted against the Bill. I think it was undesirable and unfortunate that this course should have been adopted; because, outside the House the large majority in favour of the Bill rather confused public opinion, and a great many people out-of-doors would consider, no doubt, that the Bill was a much better Bill than it really was, and, in consequence, they would be misled. I think there was also another misfortune. My right hon. Friend, judging from his speech, imagined that, by voting for the second reading, he had secured, on the part of the President of the Local Government Board, a favourable consideration of the Amendments he proposed, which affected the entire character of the Bill. If it proves that the large majority in favour of the second reading induced the Government to give way in its main provisions, it would be an unusual result, and contrary to my anticipation. The right hon. Members on the front Opposition bench, who supported the second reading, by giving additional support to the Bill, rendered it less likely, rather than more likely, that the Government would yield any material point in the structure of the Bill. So far as I am concerned, I cannot allow myself to be committed by the course taken by my right hon. Friend on that occasion. I feel, even if I stand alone, that I must act in opposition to

    895
    this Bill, very much in the same way and on the same grounds that I did last year in opposing the Prisons Bill. I am most anxious in every way to extend and uphold the rights of local administration, and I am also most anxious to see some means of checking centralization, which is increasing to so great an extent in this country. We hear constantly in this House complaints about centralization, and these complaints are not confined to the Members who sit on this side of the House. Were it practicable to put a Resolution on the Paper to the effect that, in the opinion of this House, "centralization had increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished," I think such a Resolution would be supported by a considerable number of Members upon both sides of the House. I want to know what this House is doing to check what we all feel to be an evil and a great danger arising out of the increase of centralization. I venture to say we are doing nothing; and, so far from that, we are increasing the central power, because every year the ratepayers come to this House clamouring for some Government subsidy, and hon. Gentlemen who represent these ratepayers are ready to barter their rights and privileges of local administration in return for grants from the public purse in aid of local rates, which are only a temporary and an illusory mode of relief. Where are we to look for some barrier against the tendency of the central bureaucracy to usurp more and more of the local authority? We certainly cannot look to the county magistrates to check this power. Last Session the county magistrates sold for a mere "mess of pottage" some of their official rights. As to the Boards of Guardians, one cannot suppose them to form a barrier against the acts of centralization; for, owing to our legislation, we have reduced Boards of Guardians to a pitiable state of subserviency under the Local Government Board. I recollect that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), in the speech he delivered last Session on county administration, gave an amusing instance of the Board of Guardians to which he belongs, having proposed an expenditure of about 20s. for an object of undoubted utility; but they had to go to the Local Government Board for authority to expend the
    896
    money, and after three weeks' delay in the "circumlocution office," the authority requested was refused. I say, then, that Boards of Guardians, as at present constituted, form no barrier against this centralization. I go further, and say that if you establish county boards on the basis proposed, you will have no authority of weight or influence, and it will not be a barrier against centralization. The more I go into the subject, the more I regret that Her Majesty's Government have not taken a bold and comprehensive course in dealing with this important question. Her Majesty's Government are perfectly consistent, and I do not complain of this Bill as a charge against the Government—they have entirely acted up to their promise of last year in response to the Motion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk. They have, as I say, been consistent; and no one can be surprised that they, having grudgingly accepted the Resolution of last year, and having been driven, so to speak, to come forward with a measure of county administration, should have made it as limited in its operation as possible, as weak in its detail, and—as the President of the Local Government Board had called it—as"quarter-sessional"in its character as possible. [Mr. SCLATER - BOOTH said, he had never stated anything of the kind.] The right hon. Gentleman had said it might be considered of a "quarter sessional" character, and he was quite correct when he said so. We are told that we ought to look at this matter free from Party or political considerations; but I cannot see how we can discuss a question of this kind without its having a political bearing. The great Liberal Party to which I belong have always been in favour of popular enfranchisement; and it is entirely inconsistent in right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition bench to support a measure so completely deficient in the principle of popular representation. One of the arguments urged to justify this Bill is, that it is a step in the right direction. I venture to say that that is entirely a mistake, and from our point of view it is a step in the wrong direction—it is a step backward; and, in point of fact, if any dissatisfaction were expressed hereafter as to the absence of popular representation in county boards, we should be at once

    897
    met with this new board, which would stand in the way of county reform. I think we ought to consider what we want to do by establishing county boards. If the present system was so bad, so objectionable, so full of abuse, that it was intolerable—then we might say, let us have a change, and that any change would be for the better; but the present system is not so full of abuse, and no one complains of it that it is bad, either economically or otherwise. I have no hesitation in bearing testimony to the full conviction that the county magistrates have fulfilled their duties in a manner highly creditable to themselves and with advantage to the country. There may be differences in the various counties, but as a rule they do their work well. In the county to which I belong the magistrates are distinguished for their ability, and exercise their duties with a great amount of zeal and efficiency. As a magistrate myself, I can say that county business has been conducted with great economy and ability. If this is the case, why wish to change it? Well, Sir, in the debate my hon. and learned Friend— who is now sitting in his proper seat on the Conservative side of the House— the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) said that the demand for county government is a sentimental grievance; but I venture to tell the hon. and learned Baronet that sentimental feelings are really very powerful, and lie at the root of many popular movements which no wise statesman can disregard. It will, in fact, be found that important principles generally lie at the base of popular sentiments. In this case, the public sentiment is closely connected with those principles upon which rest the greatness of this country and the institutions of which we are all most proud. The people of England desire to govern themselves, or through their chosen Representatives. Their maxim is that taxation and representation should go together. They cannot justify government without representation. It is no answer to say the business of the county is well administered and economically conducted. The same argument might justify a despotism and sap the springs of our civil liberties and political life. The county board, in accordance with the genius of the English character, should fairly represent the county rate-
    898
    payers. The magistrates in no sense represent the county ratepayers. They are nominally appointed by the Queen; but, in a great many instances, they owe their appointment to political subserviency. I know counties in which the political partizanship of the Lord Lieutenant has become a public scandal; and I say that if that continues—if Lords Lieutenant are allowed to keep out fit and suitable men with a view to gratify political partizanship—then the time has come when this House, in the public interest, and in the public right, should deal with the question, and say whether the power of Lords Lieutenant ought not to be altered or their power taken away. The appointment of these magistrates being tainted at its very source, in consequence of political influence, it is not surprising that dissatisfaction should be expressed, that important county business should be entrusted to men over whose appointment the ratepayers have no control whatever. Such an administrative body is a political anachronism. I received a letter a short time ago from a very active county magistrate, in which that gentleman said that he considered the Bill included every possible fault. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax did not go tot hat extent; but he pointed out that it contained in all its vital provisions very serious errors. With regard to the petty sessional unit, I think it is quite unnecessary to follow the right hon. Gentleman in a matter of that kind; but it seems to me his arguments were perfectly conclusive, and that the position taken by the Government was open to the most serious objection. Upon that matter I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board wants more time to built his superstructure on a better foundation, and this is an essential condition before a great many evils can be removed. Then there is the question of the proportion of the justices. The arrangements of the Bill are that practically you include in the county board a large body of magistrates simply under another name. You not only have the magistrates elected by petty sessions, but also many of them would be elected by the Board of Guardians. I believe somebody suggested that the magistrates should be excluded from election by the Board

    899
    of Guardians. I think that would be most objectionable, as there can be no reason why justices of the peace as such should be excluded; and if my desires were carried out, and we had a popular system of representation of the county, I think a large number of magistrates would find their way to the county board. In addition to its faulty constitution, the board is restricted in its operation, and one of the most important parts of county administration is excluded—namely, the management of the police. Why is that excluded? By leaving out the police you leave out the main item of county expenditure, and reduce the expenditure over which the board will have control to a fraction. It appears to me there is no reason at all why you should restrict their operations. I venture to submit that the two great principles we should aim at in the reform of the county management are these. We ought to give the widest possible interest among the ratepayers in the selection of the members of the county board, and, having got a wide basis of popular representation, I think we ought to give to that county board the greatest possible responsibility in the administration, as far as practicable, of the affairs of the county. We ought to give that board the whole of the county business to do, and place it as far as possible in relation to the county in the same position as a municipal council occupies in relation to the borough. I think by having county boards resting on this wide basis, we might fairly hope to check the system of centralization spreading amongst us, and also from time to time be able to decentralize and impose upon the county board additional duties and additional responsibilities. I have only a few more words to say which have reference to the objections urged against a system of direct representation of county ratepayers. The first objection is that there would be a considerable cost in the election of members of the board. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that at the present time in the election of Boards of Guardians there were very few contests, and seemed to think that was evidence of a satisfactory arrangement in the constitution of an administrative body. I am not prepared to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and do not think the mere fact of there being no contests is at all evidence that
    900
    the system works satisfactorily. The carelessness about the public interest involved in the election may sometimes be the reason why no interest is shown in the Board of Guardians, in addition to which they feel they are hampered by the central body. The other objection is the fear of political action. Now, I must say I cannot sympathize with hon. Gentlemen who are afraid of political action. What we want is to stir the dull level uniformity of the rural districts, where there is not the same amount of intellectual life as in towns; and if we can get the people to take an interest in their own affairs, we are giving them political education and training them for political action on a larger scale. It is, I think, a great mistake to seek to withdraw from the people of this country the means of active interest in public life. In fact, to the interest that the people take in their local administration is due, in a great measure, the progress of the country. The true Conservative policy is to throw open, by means of popularly-elected county boards, a new opportunity for the exercise of public rights and the fulfilment of public duties by the inhabitants of our rural parishes; and, by so doing, we shall make the people more fitted to take part in the working of our institutions, and make them value more highly the institutions under which we live. The hon. Member concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL,in seconding the Motion, said, he opposed the Bill on grounds entirely different from those just advanced, believing that it ought not to have been brought forward at all. It was with extreme regret that he opposed the Government on the most important Bill of the Session, and nothing but the deepest conviction would impel him to take that course. He did not speak on the second reading, because he was anxious to hear the views of more experienced Members on that side of the House, and to ascertain whether there remained any Members of the Tory Party who had objections to raise to the essential principle of the Bill. Apparently, there were none—at least, none who spoke, for those who spoke discussed the Bill on its merits and on its details. The question did not attract the attention it would have done in calmer times, owing, probably, to the

    901
    absorbing character of the Eastern Question; and, if that did not settle itself soon, he feared domestic legislation was likely to be rather more mischievous than usual. He was anxious to draw the attention of the Tory Party, before it was too late, to the real principles and character of the Bill. He was justified in prolonging the discussion by the remarkable manœuvres of the Government last Session on the Motion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk. He and others viewed those manœuvres with regret; but he had never thought that a pledge so lightly given would be so hastily acted upon. The Bill proposed a complete revolution in government. It proceeded on the essentially democratic principle that taxation and representation should everywhere exactly coincide, and that a man who paid 1s. of taxation had as much right to share in its administration as the man who paid £2,000 or £3,000. This principle had never yet been carried to such a length by the Tory Party. He could not forbear glancing at the principles which had guided the legislation of the Government during the last four years. He had gained the confidence of his constituency in 1874 on the cry of "Defence of our old institutions"—by which the masses enfranchised in 1867 meant beer and the Bible, but others more profound understood the Church, the House of Lords, the rights of property, the sanctity of the wills of pious founders, the law of entail, &c.; and certainly in that programme he should have expected to find county government by quarter sessions. In the first Session of this Parliament a serious blow was given to the Church. As for the House of Lords, the arguments in support of its abolition would be very analogous to those advanced in favour of this Bill for abolishing quarter sessions. Both institutions were of great antiquity, both were anomalous in their constitution, neither were in the technical meaning of the word Representative, both imposed burdens on the people, both contained Members who were not altogether fitted for their duties; yet both, on the whole, worked well, and had gained a strong hold of the confidence of the people. He threw this out as a suggestion, in order that if the Government, for want of something better to do, felt inclined in a Session or two to bring in a Bill to abolish the
    902
    House of Lords, it might know exactly what arguments to bring forward in its support. As for the rights of property, they had already received a severe blow when the Agricultural Holdings Act declared that the tenant had a right in the soil, which right had to be bought out before he could be disturbed in his possession of the soil. In the Universities Bill of last Session, they sent the pious founder to the right-about in such a way that nobody would ever be insane enough to hold him up for veneration again. Now they had this Bill, which proposed to effect a complete revolution in county government. It abolished one of their most ancient institutions, it attacked the rights of property, it undermined the independence of local self-government, and could only be regarded as a step along the road to the appointment of stipendiary magistrates all over the country. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) last year had said very little was known about county government before William IV.; but the most elementary student of Constitutional History could trace quarter sessions to the time of Edward III. Ever since the time of Elizabeth down to the present day their authority had been extended; and it was reserved for the present Government—a Tory Government—to diminish their power by the Prisons Act of last year, and to extinguish them altogether this Session. Nobody denied that quarter sessions worked extremely well, and there was not a shadow of a shade of a demand for a change. It was brought in in obedience to two Members of the House—the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) and the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell)—who, it was generally supposed, represented the tenant-farmers of the country; but it was an assertion which, if brought to their notice, they would be the first to disclaim-—the fact being that they represented nothing but their own constituents and two or three chattering Chambers of Agriculture. He had said that the Bill attacked the rights of property and would prove it. The magistrates in the commission of the peace comprised the great majority of the landowners of this country, who, as they paid by far the greater proportion of county rates, had the greatest possible interest in managing county affairs with every economy. This Bill

    903
    took the management of county affairs completely out of their hands. The landowners, in fact, were placed by this Bill in a much worse position than if the elections to the new county board had been made directly by the ratepayers. Then their position, experience, and influence would have secured their return; but now, the Boards of Guardians would return tenant-farmers and tradesmen; the magistrates, of course, magistrates—with the result that there would be on each board two opposing camps, each suspecting the other, which would lead to great divisions, unsound compromises, and, he feared, great extravagance. The hon. Member for South Norfolk on this latter point had admitted that they would have no more economy than at present, and that he never knew an elected body that did not spend money freely. This, he further said, was the reason why the Bill was not popular with the ratepayers. The other day he happened to read in a newspaper a little paragraph giving an account of a meeting held to consider this Bill the newspaper said, "Mr. Rodwell was present at the meeting of the Cambridgeshire Chamber of Agriculture when the County Boards Bill was discussed and condemned on all hands. Mr. Rodwell defended the principle of the Bill." It was quite true, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk said, that this Bill was not popular with the ratepayers. It would either lead to the retirement of the county gentlemen altogether from county affairs, or it would lead to further agitation. If the county gentlemen were continually out-voted, of course they would give up the struggle; and if, on the other hand, the ratepayers were out-voted, it would lead to further discontent and agitation and renewed legislative efforts. He would like to give an illustration of the manner in which this Bill would attack the rights of property. Let the House suppose another outbreak of cattle plague, and just imagine the compensation the delegates of the Boards of Guardians would endeavour to award each other; for it should be remembered that compensation claims fell almost entirely on the landowners. He was unable to find words in which properly to characterize this measure. He had ransacked his whole arsenal of contemptuous and denunciatory epithets,
    904
    and could find nothing by which he could adequately express his estimation or his want of estimation of it. He could only say that it appeared to him to be just the sort of little dodge and contrivance that would be proposed by a President of the Local Government Board who found himself called upon to legislate on a great question. The reason for bringing in this Bill was said to be that county expenditure had now become so heavy and complicated that it must for the future be administered by a representative elective board.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: No. I said precisely the reverse, that county expenditure had diminished in the hands of the magistrates.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Well, the right hon. Gentleman would presently have an opportunity of extinguishing him, as he had already extinguished quarter sessions. If the magistrates as magistrates had no right to manage county affairs, how could they have a right as members of the county board, quâ magistrates? Again, to let Guardians elected to manage the affairs of a Union elect members to manage the affairs of a county, was like letting a town council elect Members of Parliament. Even the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), who had the greatest respect for the town council of Birmingham—and brought them into every debate in that House—would not carry his adoration of town councils so far as that. The right hon. Gentleman could not escape from this dilemma. Either the magistrates had the right or they had not the right to manage county affairs. But it was impossible for them to have half a right. But the Bill in its principles abolished the right; yet the Bill put a quantity of magistrates on the new board. It was alleged that the present system of county government was anomalous. Granted that it was so, it had at any rate a prescription of five centuries; but it was now proposed to establish something far more anomalous, which would not have a prescription of five centuries. It was easy in the present day to destroy anomalies; but he defied the Tory Party, with all their majority, to set up anomalies in the place of those which they destroyed, which should have more than an ephemeral existence. The institutions which they set up, if they were to be perma-

    905
    nent, must be fair and square and logical, and must stand the test of reason and understanding. He did not want to say anything disagreeable about the Bill, but it certainly was not what it pretended to be. The fact of the matter was that it was another of those futile attempts to which they were getting so accustomed—to make that impossible mixture of Radical principles and Conservative precautions. The Government excited hopes in the minds of the ratepayers that they were going to have an elective representative county board, and then proceeded to carry out that promise by manufacturing a board which would not represent the ratepayers more than they were now represented. It was one of those attempts to conciliate the masses by the concession of principles which were in favour with the masses, and which concessions were immediately nullified or minimized by the details of legislation. The Government thought the populace would be deceived, when really they themselves were the only dupes.
    "O infortunati nimium sua si mala nôrint."
    Oh, if they could only know what a mess they would be in in a few years, and how their legislation would be improved upon before long by hon. Gentlemen opposite! The proposals of this Bill were so remarkable that he could not think they could have been considered by the Cabinet, whom he entirely absolved from responsibility for them. In the present state of Eastern affairs, the House knew that the Cabinet had had all their time taken up by considering how they could possibly get the Fleet into the Dardanelles; and now their whole time was taken up in considering how they could get the Fleet out of the Dardanelles; and, under these agitating circumstances, it would be highly unfair to hold them responsible for the legislative freaks of a minor Colleague. He had no objection to the President of the Local Government Board dealing with amendments to the Poor Law, or with sanitary questions, or with the regulation of the number and the salaries of inspectors of nuisances; but he entertained the strongest objection to the President of the Local Government Board coming down to the House with all the appearance of a great law-giver—to reform according to his ideas, and to improve,
    906
    in his little way, the leading features of the British Constitution. He appealed to the Tory Party, in and out of the House, whether they were prepared to sacrifice an ancient institution, the origin of which was lost in time, which had grown with the nation's growth, which had survived the vicissitudes of revolution and reform, which possessed at the present day, in the highest degree, every element of vitality, and which still retained the diminished confidence of the people—were they prepared, on the invitation of the President of the Local Government Board, to barter away such an institution for such Brummagem trash as this Bill? But on Boards of Guardians and the like, elected principally, as they were, from the middle classes, the Imperial Government could and would exercise a great pressure. They would be awed by an expression of opinion from the Home Secretary or the President of the Local Government Board, especially if the latter, like the right hon. Gentleman, had two surnames. That, at the bottom of the most ordinary document, would terrify them out of their senses; and would suggest horrid visions of Government investigations, mandamuses, the Court of Queen's Bench, the Lord Chief Justice, and contempt of Court. He was sure that the more the standard of the composition of the county board was lowered, the more effectual and consistent would be Government interference. If hon. Members imagined the court of quarter sessions, in its judicial capacity, would continue to exist if this Bill passed they deceived themselves. It would be quite impossible that a body, so mutilated and degraded as it would be, should retain sufficiently the respect and authority which it now enjoyed. It was certain that the Bill was a step along the road to the establishment of a stipendiary magistracy, and he had no doubt that the Government were indulging in blissful dreams of a rich harvest of patronage all over the country. With regard to Lords Lieutenant, whom the hon. Member for Burnley had attacked, he believed they had performed their difficult duties with discretion and magnanimity. Such, then, was this Bill— this precious offspring of the President of the Local Government Board. It had been brought in in obedience to no outcry; it relied on no case of mis-

    907
    management or shortcoming. It passed his ability to say why this Bill had been brought in. It had been evolved out of the inner self-consciousness of the right hon. Gentleman; or perhaps he attributed to the hon. Member for South Norfolk and the hon. Member for South Leicestershire vast powers which they did not possess; or perhaps the Government, in a fit of good nature, had allowed the right hon. Gentleman to try his hand at legislation on a question which two right hon. Gentlemen opposite had utterly failed to legislate on. It was based, like the rest of recent Tory legislation, upon principles which were purely democratic, and was surrounded by a quantity of ridiculous checks and safeguards, which would be swept away like so many cobwebs by the new Radical broom when hon. Gentlemen opposite came into office, as he supposed they would some day or other. When that Millennium arrived, he could see in his mind's-eye the Orders of the Day running as follows: —"County Government Act Amendment Bill, Government Order; Agricultural Holdings Act Amendment Bill, also a Government Order; Universities (Oxford and Cambridge) Act Amendment Bill, also a Government Order;" and so on. He asked how those who, in the time of their power, had sacrificed their principles, could defend them with any hope of success when they were in Opposition? He had done for the present. He had no doubt that right hon. Gentlemen would answer these arguments with their usual ingenuity, and would persuade themselves and their Party that this was a Bill most Conservative in its instincts and its effects; no amount of ingenuity, however, even though it had all the authority of the Government, would persuade him that black was white. He had relieved himself; he had raised the last wail of the. expiring Tory Party. They had undergone a good deal. They had swallowed an immense amount of nastiness. They had been terribly highly educated. Their banner had been dragged along many a muddy path; it had been slopped in many a filthy puddle, until it was so altered that no politician of the days of Peel or Canning could possibly recognize it. He should cry "No" when this Motion for going into Committee was put from the Chair; and if he could only get any appreciable support—he
    908
    cared not whence it came, or from what motive it was given—-he should be prepared to offer a sustained opposition to this most Radical and democratic measure—this crowning desertion of Tory principles, this supreme violation of political honesty.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"— (Mr. Rylands,) —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I have an Amendment on the Paper which, I believe, it is not competent for me to take a division upon. It is—
    "In the opinion of this House, no reform of county government will be permanent or satisfactory which does not entrust the administration of the county business to a Board elected directly by household franchise."
    As I shall not be permitted to take a division, I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). There are, of course, many objections which have been taken to the Billbefore the House—most of them, such as the objections to the petty sessional area, and to the functions with which it is proposed to invest this new local authority, rather concern the administrative work of the board, than its practical constitution. But, with regard to this point, I do not propose to make any observation to-night; but I shall confine myself entirely to the points which would have been raised by my Amendment; and my object is to bring before the House, with reference to local affairs, precisely the same issues which a short time ago were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Border Boroughs (Mr. Trevelyan) with regard to Parliamentary representation. To hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House who were unable to support my hon. Friend, but who believed that the change which they think to be undesirable, or at least premature, is inevitable, I would urge that it would be wise to pave the way by training those who are likely to be the electors of the future in connection with local affairs for the very duties which they may

    909
    hereafter be called upon to perform. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London used a phrase which came into vogue some time after the Reform Bill in 1867, which was to the effect "that we ought to educate our masters." I think it would be wiser to educate our masters before, rather than after, they have received power which they are destined to obtain; and it seems to me that it would be a matter of Conservative statesmanship to prepare the way for this inevitable change by counterfeiting the political intelligence of the people, by educating them in civil affairs in connection with local government and local affairs. Upon the hon. Members who found themselves able to support my hon. Friend the Member for the Border Boroughs I think I may make a stronger claim. They will surely support the claim I am. introducing to the House, unless they are prepared to say those persons to whom they are ready to confide the Imperial destiny of the Empire are unfit for the much less important work of local administration. They would have to show that in this matter, at all events, the greater does not include the less, and that men may be qualified for the higher duty of a citizen, and be called upon to perform that duty, and may yet be inapt and disqualified for the administration of local affairs or for taking a share in local government. I suppose that there can be no doubt as to the relative importance of Imperial and local affairs. It has been shown that the effect of the change in the Parliamentary system which has been advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for the Border Boroughs would be enormous, and that, at least, it was possible that the supreme influence in every constituency of the land might be placed in the hands of the poorest class of the constituents. For my own part, I have no fear of such a result, even if it should take place. I think that our experience of a wide franchise in the boroughs, and of every extension in the suffrage, has proved that we have no real cause for the alarm which some hon. Members, no doubt, honestly feel; and that there is no ground for the fear that some of them entertain of a vast combination of the poorer class of the community against the rich, by which the former would seek to provide for their
    910
    own selfish interests to the detriment of the whole community. But I am bound to admit that experiment would be a very great one; and if we are really taking what was once called "a leap in the dark," we ought to have very much greater confidence in the justice of our conclusions before we take a step in which a mistake might be fatal to the security and welfare of the Empire than in a case like the present, where any error would only lead to more or less economical administration. It seems to me difficult to conceive the position of any hon. Member who could swallow the camel which was presented by my hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan), and strain at the very modest gnat in the proposition which I am putting before the House. I have heard an attempt to make a distinction between local government and Imperial legislation. It is said that Imperial legislation has to do with life and personal freedom as well as with property, and that it is legislative as well as administrative, while local government is administrative only; but I do not think, on reflection, that either of these distinctions can be sustained. We have to bear in mind, in the present instance, that the new board which we are creating will, as was said by the President of the Local Government Board, be entrusted with much larger and more various functions than it is likely to enjoy under this Bill. It will probably be a chief sanitary authority for the county, and will probably have some control over education. I see an Amendment on the Paper to give it the management of the police, and I cannot see why a privilege given to every petty borough in the country should be denied to the great authority in the county. It already has the control of business, and it is proposed to give it the election of an important judicial officer. Every one of these things, and many others that might be named, touch personal liberty and freedom directly or indirectly; and it appears to me that an agricultural labourer who will be under this county government board will be much more interested in its interference with his domestic affairs than he can be affected by Imperial legislation by the chance of the House of Parliament passing, for instance, a conscription, or in some

    911
    other way interfering with his individual liberty. Then there is no local authority which is not invested with the power of making bye-laws which have the force of Acts of Parliament, and new powers are being continually given to authorities, and it is impossible to suppose that they will be denied to the county board. On the other hand, the Imperial Parliament has to deal with property to an extent that any local government which I can name bears no relation whatever. And this Imperial Parliament is administrative as well as legislative; because, acting through the Ministry, which is really only a Committee of the two Houses, it manages with considerable success the great Departments of State. I say, under these circumstances, it seems to me that the arguments which apply in favour of household suffrage in the counties with reference to Parliamentary representation equally apply to household suffrage for the election of county boards. I venture to appeal with some force to hon. Members on this side of the House who supported my hon. Friend the Member for the Border Boroughs (Mr. Trevelyan) to give me their assistance when I have the opportunity, at a subsequent stage, of taking a division on the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper. Now, I am desirous of urging my Amendment on the House, because it frankly accepts the principle of representation, which is, after all, the only serious ground upon which this Bill is based at all. It is quite true that the farmers, who seem to think that representation is a desirable thing in their own case, do not entertain a very high opinion of it when it is proposed to give it to their labourers; and if my hon. Friend the Member for the Border Boroughs wanted an additional argument for his proposition, I think he would find it in the fact that during the whole of the debate the interests of agricultural labourers have been persistently ignored. They have no Representative in the House. The interests of the farmers and the magistrates, and the rights of property, have always numerous and eloquent Representatives; but no one has had anything to say for the agricultural labourers, who have a direct interest, and ought to have a great share, in local government. But even the farmers, who are not prepared to extend
    912
    the representation to the labourers, are nevertheless dissatisfied with this Bill, and are claiming that at least two-thirds of these boards shall be elective and representative. I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite — to those especially who are interested in the influence of the magistracy—whether, if this concession is to be made, and the majority is given to the representative element, whether it would not be better to be generous at once, and more wise and more permanently satisfactory, to concede the whole point, and make the whole board representative? If hon. Members are not' prepared to go so far as that, I hope that they will not accept the constitution that is proposed in this Bill. We find that the board suggested is a mere thing of shreds and patches. I remember hearing of a great physician, who was prescribing for a patient, and he said, half in joke—"I have put down a little of everything, in the hope that something or other will do you good." I can almost imagine the right hon. Gentleman proceeding upon that principle in forming this Bill. The representative principle, which is almost conspicuous by its absence, is diluted by the ex-officio elements filtered through intermediate bodies; it is impeded by voting papers, it is nullified by property qualification, and it is minimized by the system of plural voting. There is only one thing wanting to complete these numerous ingredients—almost as many as those which composed the witches' cauldron in Macbeth—and that is one which I have no doubt the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett) will be happy to supply, and then the broth will be complete. The only ingredient wanting is cumulative voting, or three-cornered representation, or some one or other of the numerous devices for securing the misrepresentation of majorities. I do not dispute for a moment that, curious as is the constitution of this board, it has been devised with the best intentions, and I am ready to accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that his object was to secure the best possible governing body; but I beg respectfully to submit one or two reasons why I think he will fail in this object. Let me point out how curious a change has come over public opinion, or, at all events, opinion in this House, with reference to these matters during the last

    913
    generation. In 1832, when the Reform Bill was passed, the principle of representation was, at all events, frankly and fully accepted up to a certain limit. Since that time there never has been any further extension of the franchise which has not been accompanied by some complicated system of checks and balances by which the principle of representation has been more or less infringed while its acceptance has been simulated. There are a great number of persons inside and outside of this House who seem to be very willing in theory to accept the principle of representation; but, after all, they do not feel any confidence in the people, in their common sense, their intelligence, or their patriotism, and strive to stem the tide of democracy by all these ingenious devices which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock said would some day be swept away like a cobweb; but which, in the meantime, prevent us from obtaining the full advantage of representation, while they stimulate sectarianism and Party bigotry, and multiply the system of organism and caucus, and Party tickets, which Gentlemen opposite so honestly deprecate when it conduces to Liberal successes, but which I find Conservatives in the country are very ready to imitate when their own purposes can be served. I do not propose to defend now the system of organization which the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire (Mr. P. Plunkett) called rather unfairly the omnipotent caucus. Some day or another I may have an opportunity of saying something on that subject. But, assume it to be as bad as Gentlemen who are most opposed to it believe it to be, I want to point out that it is precisely this system that they are securing by these complicated checks. Look at double elections. The whole Party system in the United States is due to the existence of this system of double election in connection with the election of the President of the Senate and of many other officers. It is in consequence of that system that the strictest Party organization and discipline has to be maintained, in order to secure secondary electors pledged to Party ticket. This is not all. The same system leads to the prevalence of bribery and intimidation, because the more limited the constituency the more easy it is to bring pressure and intimidation
    914
    to bear upon it. I think it is rather a singular thing that the nearest approach to the constitution of the new authority which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to found is to be discovered in connection with the local institutions of the Empire of Russia. In Russia you have precisely this system of election—half by peasants and half by landlords—and also the system of double election. It would be interesting to know how far the corruption which prevails in local and public business in Russia may be traceable to these institutions, which I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not have been anxious to introduce into this country. The object of the Government is no doubt to obtain the best possible governing body. I will quote an article on the subject in The Times.
    "It is better for the people to be indifferently ruled by itself than to be governed with scientific precision by a despot, or an oligarchy, or a club of cultivated men."
    That is a truth very often forgotten by those on this side of the House as by Members of the Conservative Party. I quite agree with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) that the result of indirect election would be pregnant with disadvantage to the landed gentry. I believe that they will be prejudiced, in consequence of there being a strict line of demarcation between elected members, on the one hand, and ex-officio members on the other hand. If you devise a particular channel by which men may be elected to an office, they will be relegated to that channel alone. On the other hand, if country gentlemen avail themselves of the same channel of election, I am quite convinced they would have, as they deserve, the preference which would be due to their superior education, their local influence, their intelligence, and their knowledge of public affairs. It must not be thought we have any desire to exclude them from their just influence; but we wish that they should sit at the boards responsible to public opinion, and representative of public feeling, and not merely in the invidious position of ex-officio members forced into the board as representatives of land and property. I should have thought this a matter upon which extremes might meet, and that Conservatives and Radicals might unite to secure

    915
    a system by which these gentlemen might preserve their influence, instead of the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman, which is an attempt to secure for county magistrates reserved seats on the county boards. So long as the principle of direct representation is not acknowledged in the Bill, I have no alternative but to oppose its continued progress. It is a retrograde measure, and false to those principles which it has been the ambition of the Liberal Party to embody in legislation during the last half-century.
    MR. RODWELLsaid, that, after the full debate on the second reading, he thought the House might have been spared another discussion. The Bill had been received with great unanimity by a large majority of the Members of that House, and he wished to offer some reason why he thought its principle ought to be accepted. The objections which had been raised to the Bill resolved themselves into two questions. First, was it right to supersede the magistrates; and, secondly, was the board to be appointed in the manner proposed by the Bill, or by direct representation? With regard to the first point, he thought the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), who dealt so lavishly in unfriendly criticisms on the Bill, had gone out of his way in studiously finding fault with the proposal of the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in particular; but the noble Lord could hardly have given sufficient attention to the provisions of the measure. The Bill was not intended to supersede the justices at all, and it was rather remarkable that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), after speaking so highly of the magistrates, should wish to get rid of their services. But the Bill did not propose to get rid of them. The duties of the board must be discharged by somebody. The Bill proposed to take that body which had so well deserved the confidence of the country and the Guardians, and to fuse their respective duties, and form a strong board, so as to ensure the satisfactory discharge of the duties which would devolve upon them; and he considered that a far better proposal than that recommended by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He believed that the country would
    916
    be satisfied with the constitution of the board, and that its members would discharge their duties well and effectually. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that it would be a good thing if political agitation were introduced into every village, and that the election of members for county boards should afford an opportunity for the discussion of political matters. Now, he protested against any such use being made of the rural districts, and objected to their being exposed to the turmoil of contested elections. Those who knew the counties best were not in favour of a system of continued electioneering, which would revolutionize the rural districts. Extremes had met on this occasion in a remarkable way, for the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock and the hon. Member for Burnley opposed the Bill because they thought it would lead to centralization, and throw too much power into the hands of the Local Government Board. He (Mr. Rodwell), on the contrary, thought county boards would be a strong barrier against encroachments by the Local Government Board. Nobody could dread more than he did that the country should be Inspector-ridden; but he thought this measure, so far from producing that result, would furnish the best means of combating the evils dreaded by the two hon. Members. It was true, there was no excitement out-of-doors about this Bill; but a great many reflecting and rightly-judging men in the country thought that the time had come when this question should be dealt with; and, if the Chambers of Agriculture were to be taken as representing the opinions of the agriculturists of the country, it would be found that they were ready to accept this Bill, and they believed it would be extremely advantageous. With regard to the proportion of magistrates to be on the boards, and choice between Union and sessional areas, those were matters of detail, which could be discussed in the clauses. He might, however, say, in passing, that since he introduced a series of Amendments in the Valuation Bill, dealing with that subject, he had given it great attention; and he had found the difficulties in the way of Union areas to be almost insurmountable, as the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Yorke), who had

    917
    some Amendments on the Paper, would find, if he tried, to carry out his ideas by putting them into legal phraseology. After all, they would, under either system, get the same class of men, both as electors and elected, and the balance of convenience was greatly in favour of petty sessional areas. He, therefore, trusted the House would, without further delay, consent to go into Committee on the Bill.
    MR. BRISTOWEsaid, that, while he desired to see county boards established throughout the Kingdom, he did not approve of the lines upon which the present measure was drawn. It seemed to him that the Bill contained several provisions which were of a novel character in legislation, and which would not constitute good precedents for the future. One remarkable feature in connection with the present measure was that those who might be elected as Guardians of the poor were to have the power, not only of nominating gentlemen from among their own body to seats on the boards to be established under the Bill, but other gentlemen as well, provided they were qualified to be Guardians, thus giving a representative body the power to elect others to sit on a representative board. It had also surprised him that in a measure which proposed to constitute such boards it should have been thought necessary to divide the functions of quarter sessions into "judicial" and "administrative," and thus to set up a sort of dual government in connection with them, which might lead to considerable difficulty. But the Bill contained another feature to which he wished to draw particular attention. It was provided that, if any question arose as to whether any business was or was not within the jurisdiction of the county board, such question should be determined by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State, whose decision should be final. This, he contended, was giving to the Secretary of State legislative power such as he never before had. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would find a large crop of Amendments to deal with in Committee; and he doubted whether the Bill, as it now stood, would pass. It provided for the unsatisfactory novelty of indirect representation, and it was not at all the sort of Bill he should wish
    918
    to see passed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way, before they went into Committee, to announce his intention of relinquishing some of the more objectionable of its features.
    COLONEL BRISEsaid, he desired to express his strong feeling that the Union was preferable to the petty sessional area. There were many inconveniences arising from the adoption of the latter, which, it seemed to him, the former was free from. The Guardians had already been entrusted with educational and sanitary administration, and with other works of immense importance; and he thought it was a slur upon them that they should not have the power of electing representatives to the county board. The Union business was the most highly important of any transacted in the county. He highly approved the proposal which the Bill contained to reestablish in some slight degree the turnpike system. He believed the old principle that those who used the roads should pay for them was the right one, and he did not think it should be given up altogether. There had been a great deal of unnecessary enthusiasm about the abolition of turnpikes. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to meet them in some way with regard to the area. He much preferred the Union, on account of its being in the Unions that the most important business in each county was transacted; but still, much as he appreciated the Union as the unit of area, he would rather give it up than not see the Bill pass.
    MR. STORERsaid, he supported the Bill, because he thought it calculated to meet all the circumstances of the case. The country generally had received the Bill with satisfaction, and the difference of opinion which existed in regard to it was only on minor points. He thought opinion was about equally divided upon the question of the area. Some Chambers of Agriculture preferred the Union; others, like the one with which he was connected, the petty sessional division. In regard to the proposal of the hon. Member for Birmingham, he protested against the idea that the agricultural labourers were not represented in the House. He, as a county Member, should think he had disgraced his trust if he did not act just as much in the interests of the labourers as of their employers. He did not think a participation in the

    919
    election of members of county boards would be any advantage to the agricultural labourers. With regard to the constitution of the boards, he thought it was only fair to have an equal proportion of magistrates and elected members; because, if a preponderance was given to the last-named class, they would practically have placed in their hands the power to inflict a permanent mortgage upon the estates of the landlords by means of the imposition of rates. The magistrates might also be out-voted by the elective element, in which case they would probably retire altogether from the management of county affairs.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, the tenant-farmers were about to be again bamboozled by the Bill. Could it be a matter of surprise that Gentlemen on this side of the House did not like the Bill? Its object was to delay an effectual remedy for the evils which were complained of; and it was, in fact, a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. The Game Laws and their prosecutions interposed an impassable gulf between the labourers and the magistracy. The country was much dissatisfied with the way in which magistrates were elected. One side was just as bad as another, for if they knew the politics of a Lord Lieutenant, they would know from which Party he would select his magistrates. The fact was, it was a political scandal. If county boards were to add a permanent check to the controlling influence of centralization, they must be chosen by a free and independent constituency. The clear object of the Bill was, while keeping to the ear the word of promise of reform, to break it to the hope.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he could not support any of the Amendments which had been placed upon the Paper in reference to this measure. Hon. Members who had objected to the Bill had done so on grounds of a most various and conflicting character. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) opposed the Bill because it did not go half far enough; while the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) denounced it because it went too far. The speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) was distinguished by fairness and moderation of tone, and presented a singular and striking contrast to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Wood-
    920
    stock. He was somewhat surprised at the speech of the noble Lord, and still more at its tone. The noble Lord spoke as if the feelings of virtuous indignation at the. conduct which had been pursued by the Government were almost too great for him to bear; and, that being the case, it was with feelings of astonishment that he (Mr. Chaplin) remembered that on the second reading of this Bill, not three weeks ago, the noble Lord was content to sit silent and acquiesce without a word of protest on that occasion. If the noble Lord meant what he stated when he told the House that he was uttering the expiring wail of the Tory Party, because of the manner in which the banner of the Tory Party had been dragged through muddy paths—if the noble Lord believed that the Tory Party were pursuing a policy of surrendering their principles and opinions, and that by so doing they were acting in violation of political honesty, the noble Lord should lose not a moment in going over to the other side of the House. He, however, did not believe that the noble Lord did. in reality entertain such feelings. He believed rather that he was indulging in practical joking, and was experimenting upon the feelings of the House, and therefore he need pay no further attention to what the noble Lord had said. He, however, agreed with the noble Lord in thinking that no real necessity had been shown for setting up these new county boards, and that the duties hitherto cast upon the magistrates in quarter sessions had been discharged in the most efficient manner. The Bill might be looked upon as creating—first, new county authorities; and, secondly, new duties and powers to be conferred upon those authorities. What he valued the measure for chiefly was the new duties and powers it proposed to create, which, in his judgment, would be quite as efficiently carried out by the existing as by the proposed new authorities. The reason he did not oppose the Bill on the ground that it proposed to create these new authorities was because he believed that the question had been finally settled by the decision of the House on the second reading of this Bill, and by its decision on the Motion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk last year. Believing, therefore, that we were to have these new county boards, he confessed he was more in favour of the

    921
    Government measure, as it stood, rather than as it would be, if altered in the way proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that a household suffrage in counties was a matter of certainty within the next few years; but there were hon. Members in the House who held a different opinion, and he certainly considered that the form of representation for these county boards should not be placed on a basis of household suffrage till the principle was generally adopted with reference to Parliamentary Elections. He was, however, certain that a county board elected by household suffrage would be productive of so much confusion and turmoil, and would give rise to so much expense to the ratepayers, that they would be the very first to cry out against it. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would strictly adhere to the mode of election proposed by the Bill, to their area of election, and to the proportion named in the measure between the magistrates and the other members of the county board. There were one or two other points, which, however, he thought had better be dealt with in Committee.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, if he believed, and he should be sorry to do so, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down spoke the sentiments of Her Majesty's Government, he would be compelled to vote with the hon. Member for Birmingham. That hon. Gentleman had stated that, although he saw no reason for the measure, he was prepared to support it on two conditions—that Her Majesty's Government would adhere to the petty sessional division and the proportion of magistrates mentioned in the Bill.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he only expressed a hope that they would adhere to those provisions.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was not prepared to support the Bill if the Government did adhere to those provisions; but the Government had not said that they would do so. On the contrary, they had said that the questions referred to could be very fairly discussed in Committee, and the Government could deal with them after the discussion in the House. He would not be able to vote with the hon. Member for Burnley
    922
    (Mr. Rylands), because it would not be consistent with the course he had already taken in reference to the Bill. He was of opinion that the Bill was an important one. It was the first step in the direction of local government reform for the counties, and he was not prepared to take the responsibility of rejecting the measure. What he proposed was in the shape of an Amendment on the second reading to propound in some sense a counter-view, and to reserve the right to carry that out in Amendments in Committee. Of those Amendments he had given Notice, and he desired to go into Committee to discuss them. The hon. Member for Burnley had said that in voting for the second reading of the Bill he (Mr. Stansfeld) had confused public opinion, and that it was inconsistent with his own criticisms on the clauses of the Bill. That was a fair argument; but he was not prepared to admit its justice or its accuracy. He had made certain objections to certain clauses—as to the area of election, advocating the Union as against the petty sessional district; and again, as to the number of magistrates to form part of the board; and he had been fairly met by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. He understood his right hon. Friend to say that these were matters for the House to consider in Committee; and, further, that if a majority of the House from both sides of it expressed a strong opinion in reference to them, the Government might yield to that expression of opinion. They were questions which he intended to raise in Committee, and to take a division upon. He was sure that the magistrates would be in a better position if they were in a minority on the county board than if their number was equal to that of the elected members. In the latter case antagonism would be likely to arise as between the ex-officio and the elected element; while, in the former, the magistrates, from their leisure, education, wealth, and position, would, if they played their part, make their influence felt in the management of county affairs. The hon. Member for Burnley laid down two principles, and the first was that it was essential to enlist the widest possible interest of the ratepayers by a system of direct election. So far as that was concerned he was with him. The difficulty of expense might be met by having a

    923
    simultaneous election for several boards. Popular election and popular representation would, he believed, strengthen county government. The second principle he laid down was that the county board ought to become the municipality of the county. He did not exactly agree on that point with the hon. Member for Burnley. The principle for which he contended was that the future county government should be built up on the administrative unit—that they should give to the smallest only those functions which they were competent to discharge, and confer more extensive powers on the larger areas. He held that the rural sanitary district was one that should continue, and should not be dispensed with. He desired that the county board of the future should be built up on the subordinate rural sanitary districts, and that it should be left to the future to determine what functions should be assigned to the county board and to the smaller districts. He should not dwell on the subject of direct representation; he attached as much value to it as his hon. Friends near him, but he thought it not unreasonable that a certain number of justices should be ex-officio members of the board at its first institution. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to be content, on the present occasion, with going into Committee and reporting Progress, seeing that two Returns had been laid upon the Table which had not been printed, and which were essential to the consideration of the Amendments of which he had given Notice. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would make the best progress by giving the House the fullest opportunity of discussing every clause and every Amendment.
    MR. FLOYERobserved that, as a large majority of hon. Members approved of the principle of the Bill, he trusted the House would agree to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. As he understood it, the gist of the Bill was that in consequence of the progress made by many classes of persons, they should be associated with the magistrates in the conduct of county business. The right hon. Gentleman had apparently dissented, not from the principle of the Bill, but from the way in which it was proposed to give it effect; and, in particular, he had taken
    924
    another view of administrative areas and of the number of magistrates desirable. He did not participate in the fear which had been expressed that there would be a rivalry between the magistrates and the elected representatives of the county board. When a number of gentlemen were brought together to discuss administrative matters they would soon appreciate each other, and work together harmoniously. He thought it was of the greatest importance that the number of magistrates should not be reduced. It was admitted on all sides that they had conducted the county business with very great success, and they would be the only body on the board who had had any real practical experience of county matters. Some of the duties at present discharged by them were of a very difficult character, requiring large experience—such, for instance, as that of the management of lunatic asylums. Considering the size of the counties, and the great distances which the members of the county government board would have to travel, in order to serve upon committees at least once a month, he believed the effect of the proposed arrangement would be that the magistrates residing in the immediate neighbourhood of the county institutions would, for the most part, transact the business of those committees. He did not think that the number of magistrates who were to perform those duties should be cut down to so low a point as had been proposed, because if it were, it would be extremely difficult to get a sufficient number to transact the business. With regard to the Union being the electoral district for the choice of magistrates and guardians, he remembered that the Committee of 1873, over which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld) presided, and which had to consider the question of rectifying the boundaries of Unions and counties, took a great deal of evidence, but did not make a Report, because of the impossibility of coming to any conclusion on that subject. The right hon. Member opposite was strongly in favour of modifying the boundaries of Unions and counties; but he had not seen his way to carry that out. There were many counties in which more Unions sat astride—if he might so speak—of county boundaries than those which

    925
    were entirely contained in the county. ["No!"] As his assertion was disputed he would quote a few figures in its support. In Bedford there were four Unions wholly in the county, and five Unions not wholly contained in the county; in Berkshire only four Unions contained in the county, while no less than 11 Unions passed into two counties. In Cambridge, a stronger case still, there were three Unions wholly contained in the county, while 11 passed into other counties. It was all very well to say that the Union was preferable as a unit; but the practical question was, how were they going to carry it out? It was a difficult matter when a Union passed into two counties; but it was still more so when it passed into three or more counties. In the former case, with two representatives, one might be given to each county; but, in the latter, they could not proportion the representation, as magistrates could not be divided into decimal fractions. The advantage of the plan proposed in the Bill was that it was practicable. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) certainly was guilty of great inconsistency in his speech; for while he disparaged county magistrates, and certainly did not praise Lords Lieutenant, and said that to be the son of a lord was a passport to the magistracy, and drew a picture the reverse of complimentary, he wound up by affirming that this body, so badly appointed and so ill selected, conducted their business in a manner which was the admiration of the whole country. He (Mr. Floyer) supposed they became qualified by becoming magistrates, just as there were Members of that House who thought they became good Members by vigilance of small faults and by criticizing everything, although they probably before knew nothing about it, As an old magistrate, he regretted the necessity for the change proposed; but, at the same time, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that there had grown up in the counties an intelligent body of men who were fully competent to take part in the management of the county business. Those men were anxious to take their part in such management, and to devote their time and abilities for the purpose of assisting the magistrates in that business which it was admitted they had hitherto transacted so well. Looking at the political state of this country, it was wise—as far
    926
    as could be done without danger—not to exclude any such body from any position or privilege. He, therefore, cordially supported the further progress of the Bill.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, this was a most disappointing discussion. Hon. Members had come to the House to have a measure of great importance explained to them, and to be encouraged to adapt old institutions to the necessities of the time like practical and reasonable men. He could say, without the slightest affectation on his part, and he believed he could say the same for many on the Opposition side of the House, that the last thing they desired was to see the country gentlemen of England displaced from their natural position of taking part in the local government of the country. With the exception of the two sets of right hon. Gentlemen who had performed a political minuet upon this occasion, he did not know of anyone who was thoroughly satisfied with the position in which the House now stood regarding this Bill. It was a miserable Bill. It was a pitiable Bill. After all the alluring and enticing held out by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-President of the Local Government Board to his successor, to do something vigorous and good, they had the veriest minimum of reform, with the disheartening assurance that nothing further was intended. It was a perfect delusion to say to those on that side of the House—the Opposition—who were not in the secret, that any pledge whatever had been given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he would adopt any of the suggestions which, as Amendments, had been thrown out. Not one of them, as far as he knew, was yet accepted; and if they agreed to read the Bill a second time, it would go into Committee with all its present sins of infirmity upon its head just as they were now. The debate reminded him of the famous story of the late Lord Grey, who, when he was raised to the Upper House, said it was like discussing questions in a chamber of the dead—and certainly some very curious spectres had been raised to-night. One hon. Gentleman opposite gave as his reason for supporting the Bill that he expected that it would "restore turnpikes."[Laughter.] That was the very ritualism of local government—the very acme of exploded

    927
    and objectionable measures which they expected they had got rid of for ever. It was, however, too serious a matter for levity. His reason for asking the attention of the House for a few moments to-night was not because he differed from the extraordinary position laid down by the right hon. Member for, Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) as to the great object of local government reform, or to debate the after-thoughts of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who would vote for their Friends' Bill when in their hearts they did not like it. His object was a different one. He entreated the attention of the House—not the two Front Benches, for they were, perhaps, impenetrable to unofficial views—but of every independent Member, to one consideration, and it was an important one. For 25 years he had watched with disappointment and regret the wayward course of legislation in one particular. Whenever there was anything like an opportunity of taking common ground and making a common law for the United Kingdom, it was neglected and thrown away. But if ever there was an opportunity sent as a God-send to this House it was this Session, when, by a fortuitous concourse of circumstances, both the local government system of Ireland and the local government system of England were admitted to require reform—and thus they had a golden opportunity of getting rid of that discontent and jealousy which was the bane of the Empire. But the opportunity of bridging over the gulf of difference between the two countries was about to be lost by official imbecility. He was not to be answered by the flippant excuse that it was difficult to adjust to one single system the local government of both countries. Difficult! He never heard of anything that was worth doing that was not difficult. The business of the House was to overcome difficulties, and not to succumb to them, yielding to the indolence of right hon. Gentlemen. He told the right hon. Gentleman opposite that his duty was not to let the Session pass without showing discontented Ireland that the Government were anxious to embrace the opportunity of passing some law which would apply to both countries alike. If the Government were to send this Bill, and the Irish Grand Jury Bill, which had been kicked almost to death by the opprobrium of both
    928
    sections of Irish Members, to a Select Committee, would it be possible for anything to come back to the House like the wretched, paltering, helpless Bill they had now before them? The Grand. Jury Bill pleased nobody in Ireland, and the supporters of the County Boards Bill were at their wits' end to explain why they would vote for it when they did not like it. Nothing but the direst necessity would induce them to accept it, but some future explanations would be given. What that "but," or that explanation might be, the House did not yet know; but they might depend upon it it would be no better than the reason given for the Irish Grand Jury Bill—that tottering remnant of old sectarian jobbery; and, having made local government in England his study, he knew it to be distrusted by the mass of the rate paying population. It was deplorable, that, having no great measure on foot, and happily no War Estimates to provide for, they did not attack that great anomaly, and crush it, and show themselves for once to be in earnest in attempting to solidify the Empire. Did any hon. Gentleman on either side of the House really remember that they were now 78 years after the inception of Incorporate Union? What was an incorporate union, if it was not an identification and a fusion of the chief functions of life? Was that found in these two Bills? Could they find any man— farmer, bailiff, or overseer—who would know where he was if he was told that these Bills were the same in principle? They had—he did not say opposite—but discordant and unlike systems, which gave plausibility to the statement that Parliament was determined not to assimilate the law of the two portions of the Empire; and, until that was done, they could not expect the discontented people of Ireland to believe their protestations. If the Government were wise, they would refer the Bill to a Committee upstairs. Was it not possible, after 78 years of broken promises, to begin to make the same laws for the whole of the Empire? He was not such a pedant as to ask, and he had seen too much of the difficulty of legislation in that House to suppose it possible, that in matters of religion and education they could make one law for both countries; but, if it was impossible to assimilate the laws in respect to religion and

    929
    education, it was a duty to legislate upon those things respecting which the feelings of the two countries were not materially different. Was there any reason why the same law should not he adopted respecting roads and bridges? Out of 100 magistrates in Ireland 23 were nominated by the sheriff, and those 23 alone represented the interests of the gentry in the making of roads and bridges. That was a distinction for the worse in the case of Ireland. Yesterday the Government had only escaped by a majority of 5 having a vote recorded in favour of the same municipal franchise in the two countries. Seventy-eight years after what was called a Union, but which was legislatively only the farce of a Union, such a division was taken. He entered the House yesterday without any intention of taking part in the Business, and he would not forget soon the spectacle which met his eyes. ["Question!"] They were dealing with the question of local government in counties, and he was citing, by way of illustration and analogy, their mode of dealing with the local government of towns. Not only were the opposite benches empty, but there was not a single Cabinet Minister present. On the morning of such a notable and significant exhibition they were asked to pass this Bill, which deliberately began by excluding that portion of the Empire which most needed reform. From this point of view this was a miserable Bill, because it was faulty in conception; and, not being a general Bill, it would prove an abortive measure, and would meet with the disapprobation of both sides of the House.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that he had been charged by hon. Members on both sides of the House with many sins of commission and of omission; but he scarcely expected to have been charged with neglect in not having extended the operation of this measure to Ireland. He was willing to do anything that was practical; but nothing could be more impracticable than to attempt to deal in the same Bill with a subject of this character for both England and Ireland. This was a very difficult subject to deal with comprehensively, not merely as regarded the three Kingdoms, but so to allay the jealousies of various bodies; and to keep in view the varying circumstances of the counties and of the metro-
    930
    polis, as to combine them in one measure applicable to all alike. No one who had not tried it had a conception of the difficulty there was in framing measures of this nature. He thanked the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) for his speech, and he sympathized with him in his regret that the time should have arrived when, in his own opinion, and that of the Government, it was necessary to make a serious change in the system of county government. He himself, and most of the 12 Members of the Cabinet, had for many years been magistrates and chairmen of quarter sessions; and, therefore, it was monstrous to suppose that they were insensible to the difficulties they would have to encounter, nor that they would be otherwise than reluctant in asking the House to make a fundamental change in the constitution of those courts. The principle of the Bill was, that the county ratepayers, as well as the owners of property in the counties, should have a voice in the management of the county funds. There were two causes—to speak as a logician —which had called this Bill into existence, an efficient cause and a final cause. Last year the House had resolved, on the Motion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), that the time had come for its introduction, and hon. Gentlemen on that—the Government— side of the House were emphatically responsible for the decision arrived at on that occasion. This was the efficient cause; but there had been a final cause —namely, not only to give expression to the long-entertained although but faintly-expressed wish, on the part of county ratepayers, that they should have a voice in the administration of county funds, but also to bring forward new powers and functions for county administration, and that was impossible without a simultaneous change in the constitution of quarter sessions. The object in view was to give something like unity of representation to the rural districts of counties, and enable them to hold their own not only against the centralizing powers of the Government, but also against the domineering powers of some great towns; and also to check, to some extent, the centralizing tendency of Parliament itself. It had been repeated over and over again that for want of a change

    931
    in the constitution of the county authorities, functions and duties had been heaped upon the Boards of Guardians until the latter had nearly broken down under the weight imposed upon them. He had been much surprised to hear the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) object to the Bill on the ground that it would tend in the direction of centralization. The measure certainly contained no clauses to enact that centralization should cease; but he could scarcely understand any hon. Member who had taken the trouble to study the question failing to see that its whole tendency was in the contrary direction. If the Union area, for instance, had been adopted for the purposes of election, then the charge might have lain; because, in that case, the Local Government Board would have been more or less the central authority. But this had not been done. The area that had been adopted was one which would give to the boards an almost perfect independence of any central authority. With regard to the adoption of the Union area as the elective unit for the construction of county boards, he quite understood the point of view from which hon. Gentlemen opposite approached that subject. He had before, in speaking on this matter, stated that he had no rooted objection to Union areas. On the contrary, his intention and desire, in the first conception of the Bill, had been to found the county boards upon such areas; but when he came to examine thoroughly into the question, he found not simply that there were difficulties, which he should have been happy to endeavour to meet, in the way of devising means by which those areas might be turned into electoral bodies for county boards, but that no proposition of this nature could be of equal and invariable operation throughout the country. On the Boards of Guardians there were ex-officio members who, in many instances, were the life and soul of the boards; but if the Guardians were to elect the county boards, those ex-officio members must, for that particular purpose, be ousted from their functions, so that the decision would not, in fact, be the decision of the complete Board of Guardians. To show the House to what extent it would be necessary to provide special means for special representation in regard to the divided portions of the Unions, he would mention that there
    932
    were in England 647 Unions, 465 of which were wholly within one county, 147 in two counties, 31 in three, and four in four. There would thus be many broken portions to be provided for. The difficulties in the way of bringing the Unions within the county boundaries were immense. More than 3,000,000 acres of land would require to be dealt with, and in each case the question would arise whether a particular owner would have to pay a larger or a smaller sum in the shape of rates on the transfer of his property from one Union to another. He had a list of the boroughs of the Kingdom, and would mention a few cases to illustrate the further difficulties that arose from the exceptional position of the quarter sessions boroughs. In Devon there were 11 quarter sessions boroughs, in Norfolk four, in Shropshire five, in the West Riding four, and in Hants five. Another remarkable county was Durham. In the Durham Union there were 28 parishes, of which six were wholly in the quarter sessions borough, and four partly so, while 18 were outside the borough; in Sunderland, of the 11 parishes in the Union, seven were wholly, and four partly in the quarter sessions borough. In all of these cases, and there were 90 of them, the Guardians would be unable to vote as a united body for the election of a member to serve on the county board; and it would be quite a farce to regard such an election as a representation of the Board of Guardians. It had been asked what virtue there was in the petty sessional area, and he could say at once that there was no virtue in it at all; but that it was, for many reasons, a very convenient division, and the real division or unit under this Bill was the parish. That might be a good or a bad arrangement, but no one could say that the petty sessional area could be jobbed; these areas were convenient groups of parishes, and on that account alone they had been adopted by the Government. A question had been asked, why, if these administrative duties were to be assigned to county boards, the boards were not also to have the management of the police? He thought it would be sufficient to say, in reply, that if Government had placed the management of the police in the hands of the county boards, they would have been flying in the face of the unanimous Resolution of

    933
    the House of Commons of last year. He admitted that the establishment and management of the police was a municipal affair in the larger urban districts; but the police, during the last four years, had been paid to such a large extent out of the National Exchequer, that there seemed to be sufficient reason why they should be left under the control of the magistrates. It was an easy thing to leave the police rate with the magistrates just now, and no conflict would arise on that score. He did not know whether he need notice the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), who had seconded the Amendment. That speech had given him much pain; and he did not know what he himself had done, or what the Government had done, to deserve the sneers and sarcasms which had been bestowed upon them. For his own part, he felt entirely guiltless, and had heard the noble Lord's speech with no feeling but regret. As for the criticisms of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), he would ask, was it a reasonable thing to call upon the people of this country to submit to elections, political contests, and disturbances of that kind, which they had never asked for, and which the Government had every reason to believe would be thoroughly unpopular? Not only was there no evidence that the people had any desire for such elections, but the Government were even said by some to have gone out of their way in bringing forward so much of an electioneering arrangement as was to be found in this measure. The object of the Bill was a very humble one; it was to satisfy the reasonable demand which had been made to provide a body to which could be entrusted some very important new functions, and there was no intention whatever to secure, as the hon. Gentleman said, "government by superior persons." The hon. Gentleman also complained that Her Majesty's Government desired to secure "reserved seats" for the magistrates on the board. They desired no such thing. What they desired was that the justices should have a reasonable number on the board to carry on the work which they already so well performed. He did not anticipate any friction between the two sections of the board, and he believed that the representatives and the magistrates would work harmoniously together. With re-
    934
    gard to the Amendments, he recognized in them fair subjects of discussion. He could not say how far, without breaking down the scheme of the Bill, he could incorporate in it any of the proposals which were on the Notice Paper; but he could assure hon. Members that those Amendments should have the best consideration of himself and the Government.
    MR. O'DONNELL(who spoke amid cries of "Divide!") said, he perceived a desire on the part of the Government to shorten the discussion. That desire was not unnatural, for the more that was said about the measure the less lovely it looked; but he wished, as an Irish Member, interested in the measure of local self-government to be obtained for his own country, to support the Amendment. The Bill, in his opinion, combined the worst faults of bad Toryism with maudlin Liberalism, and ought to be thrown out by both sides. It was part of a general system of sham legislation for which the present Ministry was distinguished. This was not a Tory Bill of the good old time; it was a Bill of the new sham Tory time, and both Tories and Liberals ought to oppose it. This system of legislation by muddle, as he might call it, tended to produce in the minds of the people a habit of leaning on the central authority. It would not have the effect of educating the county constituencies for the performance of a single one of their functions before they were called on to take their part in Imperial legislation; but it would lower most decidedly the prestige of the governing authorities of the counties. This was an untenable attempt to carry out the appearance of a Liberal reform, while at the same time soothing the fears of ardent Tories by a number of restrictions intended to neutralize anything like popular power in county institutions. His belief, there fore, was that the measure, instead of providing necessary reform, would introduce confusion, recklessness, and carelessness into the present administration. The Bill was, in fact, a sham. It hold out expectations which it was not designed to carry out, and, in fact, kept the word of promise to the ear, and broke it to the hope. The Liberals ought to oppose the Bill, because it tended to bring the whole state of county government into confusion, and would really increase the

    935
    tendency to centralization. He protested against the unreal character of the Bill, and said that it was only an attempt to "dodge" the great questions at issue.
    MR. MITCHELL-HENRYmoved that the debate be adjourned. He said, that at the commencement of the Session the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer invited the Irish Members to take part in the General Business of the House, whether Irish or Imperial. They had endeavoured to do so, without much success, as was seen by the reception hon. Members got in tonight's debate. The reason why they claimed a hearing now was that the character of this Bill would determine the character of legislation for Ireland. It could not be supposed that Irish Members would allow this Bill to be passed without opposition for England, and then to be applied in a still more restricted manner to Ireland; for they knew by experience more was never given to Ireland than was given to England.
    MR. MELDON,in seconding the Motion, said, that he was not one of those who ever attempted to impede the Business of the House or unduly to protract discussion; but, on the present occasion, he earnestly entreated the Government to accede to the reasonable request for an adjournment, put forward by Members from Ireland. When the second reading of the Bill was being discussed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer consented to postpone the next stage until after the introduction of the Grand Jury Amendment (Ireland) Bill. That had now been done, and the state of affairs the Irish Members anticipated had come to pass. A Bill was introduced for Ireland quite different in principle from the Bill now being considered. Irish Representatives had fully made up their minds to resist to the utmost of their power all attempts at legislation for Ireland different in principle from England; and, on the present occasion, they wished to point out that a more popular measure of local government was proposed for England than for Ireland, and by taking the opportunity of discussing this question on the English Bill, they wished to secure equal legislation for Ireland. It was no answer to say, pass the English measure first, and then try and make the Irish Bill similar; because experience proved that once a
    936
    measure was passed for England, Irish Members would not be successful in obtaining similar legislation for Ireland. Look at borough and municipal franchises. Session after Session, Parliament was asked to assimilate the laws in the two countries; but, because England had what she wanted, Ireland was ignored. The number of English Members who wanted to speak in the present debate had been so large, that Irish Members had not been able to secure a hearing, and they were determined to oppose the further progress of the Bill, unless an assurance was given by the Government that the Irish Grand Jury Bill would be based on at least as popular a principle as the English. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to the adjournment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I can assure hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite that there is no desire on the part of the Government to prevent them from taking part in this debate. My right hon. Friend who has charge of the Bill would have been most anxious to answer any observations that might have been made by the Irish Members before he himself rose.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY(rising amid great interruption and cries of" Order!") said, an hon. Member behind him had addressed the House, but had failed to obtain a hearing.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am quite sure that there has been no indisposition to hear Irish Gentlemen speak on the Bill, and, as far as it was possible, we endeavoured to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell); but I am bound to say, that after we had heard some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks three or four times over, and when he seemed to have little intention to discuss the merits of the Bill, but only to refer to it in general terms, the House did not appear disposed to give him so much attention. But we are perfectly ready now—it is not very late—to listen to any speech on the merits of the Bill, if hon. Members opposite feel disposed to address us. I would point out to the hon. Member who proposed, and the

    937
    hon. and learned Member who has seconded, the Motion for adjournment, that what they have proposed to do is hardly reasonable, and I hope they will not persist in that course. In the first place, as regards Irish legislation on the subject, a Bill has been introduced, and is before the House. That Bill will be proceeded with, and the sooner we are able to make progress with the present Bill, the sooner shall we be able to get on with the Irish measure, and take an opportunity of discussing it on its merits. There is no desire to prevent hon. Gentlemen opposite discussing this Bill; it is fair and prudent that they should have an opportunity of doing so; and if they will allow us to go on and vote the Speaker out of the Chair, Progress shall be at once reported, and we shall be happy, on the occasion of any discussion that may arise on the details of the Bill in Committee, to have the advantage of any remarks hon. Members from Ireland may wish to make. I believe that one of the first Amendments down on the Paper for consideration in Committee raises the question whether the Bill is or is not to affect Ireland, and a discussion upon that point might be conveniently taken then. I trust that the Motion for adjournment will be withdrawn.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 44; Noes 244: Majority 200.—(Div. List, No. 45.)
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to direct the attention of the House to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he was always willing to give Irish Members the opportunity of taking part in debates on English Bills, while he deliberately refused that opportunity when they had asked for it on several occasions. To repeat such a statement in face of his action was little less than a mockery. If such conduct was to go on, he did not know what it would lead to. They had been told that they were to have a County Government Bill for Ireland, which was to be on the same footing as the English Bill; but when the measure was introduced, they found that that also was a mockery,
    938
    neither fulfilling the anticipations of its promoters, nor the statements of those who were responsible for it. The Grand Jury Law Amendment Bill was said to be framed on the same lines as the English Bill; but they found, on examining it, that it took away the very privileges which the English Bill conferred, and substituted others entirely different, and of a far more autocratic character. As an Irish Member, he felt an interest in this Bill; and when he moved the adjournment of the debate on the second reading, he was told that opportunity would be given for discussion on going into Committee. Yet they had not had it. It was said the Irish Members did not rise to speak. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) did rise repeatedly; and, in the face of that, the President of the Local Government Board rose at 11 o'clock to wind up the debate, refusing to Irish Members the privilege which had been enjoyed by Englishmen. It was absurd to offer them, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did, the opportunity of taking part in a debate at a quarter to 1. How could their constituents know their sentiments, when it was utterly impossible that anything done at that hour could be reported in the Irish papers. They spoke in that House under a great sense of responsibility, for the people they represented suffered under laws which had been forced upon them, and were maintained by that House against their will. They could do but little for people in this defenceless state, strive as they would; and it was, therefore, right that they should do all in their power, and leave no stone unturned to obtain for Ireland the same measure of justice that was now offered by the Government to England. As to the Grand Jury Law Amendment Bill, that miserable parody of legislation, he could not find in Parliamentary language terms sufficiently strong to characterize it. It was such a miserable substitute, such a wretched pretence to offer to people who were thirsting for benevolent legislation— people who did not believe in either the will or the desire of the House to legislate beneficially for them; but who, notwithstanding all discouragements and the rebuffs that House insisted upon administering to them on every possible occasion, still came asking for redress of

    939
    their grievances—still came appealing to that House not to close the doors of the Constitution in their face. He moved the adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— —(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Moldon) had expressed his intention of discussing the provisions of the Grand Jury Bill. During the debate in Committee on the Bill then before the House, opportunity would be given for that discussion when the Irish Bill was legitimately before the House, and it appeared to him that it would be a violation of the rules of debate for the hon. and learned Member to take such a course. He had not observed that any Irish Members had been denied the opportunity of speaking in that debate; while, as to the other demand that all Irish measures should be the same in their details as the Bills brought forward for England, where, on such a principle, would be the Home Rule Party? He was not in favour of any change in county government; but the Government were pledged to do something, and that being so, having had some experience of county administration for England, he thought the measure a beneficial one. At the same time, he could not help wishing that it had not been found necessary to introduce it at all. He trusted hon. Members from Ireland would not persist in attempting to discuss the Grand Jury Bill at this time; but that they would adhere, at all events, to the rules of debate, and offer no unfair interference with proposals relating solely to England.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, the hon. Member who had last spoken questioned the right of Irish Members to debate an Irish Bill on a discussion of an English measure, and he treated them to a speech on the tactics of the Home Rule Party upon a Motion for adjournment. He was thus as much out of Order as the hon. and learned Member for Kildare, whom he condemned. It was said that no Irish Members had spoken in that debate; but if the Speaker, in the exercise of that model impartiality which they all acknowledged, had called upon an Irish Member
    940
    during that evening, the result would have been to exclude some English Member from the debate—and who, of all those that had spoken, did they think ought to have been shut out? The English Members who had spoken deserved to be heard, and the Irish Members did not wish to interrupt them. There was time enough for all, and it was right that the English Members should have full and free scope. He would admit, however, that the desire of Irish Members to speak upon this subject had been quickened by their irritation at discovering the sort of Bill which the Government intended to bring in for Ireland. There was no disguising the fact, that since they had discovered the nature of the measure, they had girded up their loins for a real struggle upon this English Bill. They could call the proposal of the Government for Ireland nothing but a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. Her Majesty's Government had lost a magnificent opportunity for dealing in a bold and comprehensive way with this question of local legislation. Even hon. Gentlemen who did not believe in Home Rule, at least believed in the wisdom and sound policy of relegating to the counties such local administration as would lighten, to a great extent, the burdens of that House; and this Bill might have constituted local parliaments in the shires and counties that would have laid broad and deep foundations for such a reform as this country had not seen for 50 years. They must constitute these boards on a far wider scope than that in the Bill, and he fully agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) and his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) in their criticisms on this point. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would take time for reflection, and see if they could not broaden the scope and extend the area of this measure. Forty years ago the Irish Poor Law system was introduced; but the boards, then created for merely pauper purposes, had now control of schools, cattle disease, sanitation, and other functions never dreamed of 40 years ago. They had worked their way up from the very small and inadequate foundation of Poor Law boards to the position of local parliaments. Why should not the Government bring together

    941
    these different purposes in England into one general Bill, and put them under the control of one local county parliament? They were throwing away an opportunity in retaining all these jarring and conflicting boards, interests, and rights, instead of bringing them all into one body. He begged the House to consent to the adjournment, on the ground that a broader view would be taken of this opportunity, and a nobler use made of it, after further discussion of the question.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he wished to refer to some remarks which he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made respecting him during his absence from the House. The right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension in saying that he had not endeavoured to take part in the debate at an earlier stage than he had done. He had attempted to address the House—when the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens), and other hon. Gentlemen, rose; and, while he was himself desirous of taking part in the discussion, he did not like unnecessarily, at so early a stage, to prevent English Members on either side from speaking upon a measure which related to England. Although he was perfectly resolved to exercise his full privilege to speak on all English, as well as on all Irish, Bills, he should invariably, with regard to the former, let English Members lead. But he was surprised to hoar that the right hon. Gentleman had described his remarks that evening as consisting, for the most part, of repetitions; for he had a distinct recollection of having arranged his observations under different heads; and if he had repeated anything it was in consequence of the buzz of conversation that had prevailed on the benches opposite. The sin of repetition, if it was a sin, had been committed on the Ministerial bench itself; for the right hon. Gentleman had repeatedly promised to listen to hon. Members from Ireland, and to give every consideration to the views they might express in that House, and yet had denied them the opportunity he had so frequently promised them. With regard to the Motion for adjournment, he hoped that the House would consent to it, as there was a large number of Irish Members desirous of taking part in the discussion upon this important Bill. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire
    942
    (Mr. Newdegate) was wrong in supposing that they wanted to discuss the details of the Irish Bill while this one for England was before the House. Their earnest desire was to improve the character of English county administration; because they knew that that was their only chance of securing for Ireland a passable ideal of county administration, recognized and applied in that country.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was certainly not able altogether to understand the grounds upon which the adjournment of the House had been moved and pressed. If it was the opinion of the hon. Members from Ireland that the English County Government Bill ought to form a model for the Irish Bill, then he thought the best course would be to allow the former to proceed as speedily as possible, and thus ascertain what shape the Bill was finally to take before they adopted it as a model for legislation with regard to Ireland. If, on the other hand, hon. Members for Ireland thought the English Bill, in whatever shape its provisions might be, should be extended to their own country, they would have an early opportunity, in Committee, of moving that it be extended to Ireland. They could adopt it, in that way, either with or without amendment. Although the demand now made was one which was not altogether easy to be understood, still it appeared to him that the Government would do well, at that stage, not to indulge in one of those contests which marked, with not much credit to the House, the close of the proceedings of last Session. If the debate were adjourned, it could not be said that much time would be lost at that period of the Session. An hour or two more might be occupied in discussion, and then Progress could be made in Committee, which, at that advanced hour, could not be made that night. It would tax the ingenuity of the Members for Ireland to show how the cause of better government for their own country would be promoted by the obstruction of a County Government Bill for England.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the advice of the noble Lord who had just sat down was, no doubt, founded upon experience. Seeing what the feeling appeared to be in a certain part of the House, he thought that the Government would do well, under the circumstances, to accept it. He, there-

    943
    fore, would be willing, if the Motion for the adjournment of the House were withdrawn, to consent to the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY,before the Motion was withdrawn, wished to explain to the House that hon. Gentlemen were entirely in error when they supposed that Irish Members had any intontion to obstruct this measure. On the contrary, they had respectfully listened to everything said by English Members; and their only desire now was to explain fully their views on this and all other important questions.
    MR. PARNELLconfirmed the assurance of his hon. Friend (Mr. Mitchell Henry) that nothing was farther from his intention than to obstruct the progress of this Bill, or of any that had been introduced that Session
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Debate adjourned till Thursday next.

  SUPPLY.
  Report [4th March.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th March],"That the said Resolutions be read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  First Resolution read a first time.
  On Question "That the Resolution be read a second time,"
  MR. PARNELLcalled attention to a matter of some importance, to which he had referred when Vote I was passing through Committee. It was, he said, a question connected with the pay and allowances for recruits and hospitals. In the Estimates of 1876–7, at page 16, under the head of Special Allowances, a sum appeared of £13,190; and, two Sessions ago, the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to give some explanation respecting that item. The right hon. Gentleman's reply was that, if the hon. Member would move for Returns on the subject, he would be very willing to grant them. In compliance with that intimation, the hon. Member did move
  944
  for Returns. One was granted, and it gave a partial explanation of the item of £13,190. The hon. Member for Clonmel was naturally dissatisfied at the scanty nature of the information contained in that Return, and accordingly moved for a further Return. In the first the item of £11,179 was not explained, and in the second it was represented as being partly for hospital services and partly for recruiting and miscellaneous services. Of that sum of £11,179, it appeared that only £6,260 was supplied for hospital services, the remainder being put down in the Return as the average profits accruing to field officers and captains. These average profits would appear to be £6,278 for field officers and captains. Of the sum of £11,179, no portion seemed to have been spent for recruiting services. Under the head of Extra Pay, he found the sum of £6,910; but, in the Estimates of the present year, he was unable to discover any mention of the particular item of £13,190, which appeared in the Estimates of 1876–7. Before the Return, moved for by the hon. Member for Clonmel, was granted, that item of £13,190 was put under the head of Special Allowances. When the first Return was granted, only a portion of that sum was accounted for, and the remainder was put down as an allowance of £158 to each company. The subsequent Return explained that the balance of £11,179 was devoted to hospital and recruiting services; but only a portion—namely, £6,260—had been devoted to hospital services, and none to recruiting services. The item of £ 13,190 had disappeared from the Estimates of the present year; and he did not know where it was to be found. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman to tell him where it was, and to point it out, or to say whether the £6,910 was the item in question, and what had become of the rest of the £13,190, which had appeared in the Estimates of 1876–7, but not in the Estimates of 1878–9. For his own part, he was disposed to think that a portion of it was contained in the item of 6,910, for Extra Pay; because it was just what the captains of companies, the field officers, and staff sergeants received. If that was the case, he would like to know what had become of the balance? He moved that the Vote of £4,690,269 be reduced by the sum of £6,910. That was on Vote 1.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYexplained that the matter to which the hon. Member had directed attention came under Vote 21.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Second Resolution read a first time.
  On Question, "That the Resolution be read a second time,"
  Amendment proposed, to leave out"£4,572,000,"in order to insert"£4,565,090,"—(Mr. Parnell,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed,"That£4,572,000"stand part of proposed Resolution."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The question of the Stock Purse of the Foot Guards was originally raised by the hon. Member for Clonmel in 1876, and as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) has stated, I gave him the Return for which he asked. That Return explained how the money was distributed. The fact is, that the Stock Purse was as old as the reign of Charles II., when there was no standing Army; and it was originated by the officers of the Guards, who took charge of their own affairs, and paid various expenses, receiving certain profits on the supplies. Up to the time of the Crimean War that system continued. After the Crimean War, what had been an uncertain allowance was made a permanent allowance, dealing with the different subjects which had come under the head of the Stock Purse, such as recruiting services, hospital services, and the like. It was a certain sum paid to the officers in lieu of the profits they had received on supplies. A Committee sat in the War Office on the subject; and, after that inquiry, the Motion made in the House in 1876 was brought forward; and last year, the distribution to which I have just referred was not continued. This year, £6,910 is, I understand, the payment which was given to the captains. It is the payment which they have always had before. It was allotted to them, subsequent to the Crimean War, as a regular payment. The other items have now been distributed under the different heads to which they properly belong; not given separately, but mixed up with the other heads. That, I understand, is the arrangement which has been made; certainly, I know it was the one intended to be made. I am bound to say that I could not follow the hon. Member in his references; be-
  946
  cause the Memorandum he sent me contained the intimation that he was going to object to extra pay with respect to the Foot Guards. I have referred to the items of that pay, but I may not have looked at them with great care. I think my explanation will be sufficient, as showing that the £158 per company has been distributed over several items; whilst, with regard to these extra payments to captains, they are to be divisible amongst them. If you make the calculation, as, I believe the hon. Member has done, you will find that the former practice of keeping the items separate has been discontinued, and that they are found distributed under the various headings to which they respectively belong.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the accounts showed that, up to the years 1876 and 1877, inclusive, a very large sum of £6,000 had been voted, under the head of hospital expenses, recruiting expenses, and miscellaneous expenses— a sum which did not go for those purposes, but which formed part of the pay, or rather of the perquisite, of the officers of the Guards. Therefore, up to that period, neither the public nor the House were aware of the object to which that sum was devoted. It was now, for the first time, presented to the House in its true aspect as a sum of money payable to the officers of the Guards. A question remained to be discussed upon it that was deserving of the consideration of those who had regard for economy. That would be evident to anyone who recalled what had been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the present Secretary to the Treasury (Colonel Stanley) when this matter was brought before the House by the hon. Member for Clonmel. The hon. and gallant Gentleman then admitted that this sum was paid to the officers of the Guards, and was included under a head which did not suggest any payment to the officers of the Guards; and he said, also, he believed it was not in accordance with the feeling of those officers that there should be an inquiry into the Stock Purse expenses; that such an inquiry had been contemplated for some time past, but the question up to the time at which he spoke was not rife for investigation. As an inquiry had since taken place, those who had regard for economy, and those who looked with suspicion upon a Vote granted for one purpose and devoted to another, would

  947
  like to know the conclusions which had been come to, and the grounds on which those conclusions had been based. The Secretary to the Treasury seemed very doubtful as to whether these payments could not be sustained; because he used these words—"Whether these allowances were right or wrong, they were payments which had been made from time immemorial." So that all that he, holding high office at the time in the War Department could say was, that prescription was the argument on which he relied in behalf of these payments. A reason had now been made out for asking why these payments were made, and for asking the House to consider whether they should continue. With reference to the sum of £11,079, which had appeared in the former Estimates, it could not be found in the present Estimates, nor did the right hon. Gentleman, by any explanation, enable hon. Members to trace it there. It was a sum which was supposed to have been spent in recruiting. When he looked at the Return, to ascertain how the money was actually expended, and turned to the items for recruiting, he found that of that sum of £11,079, only £145 had been disbursed by the Guards in recruiting. On the other side, amongst the Receipts, he found under the head of "Ready money" paid to men discharged by purchase out of the taxes of the country into the pockets of the Guards' Department—or, in other words, into the Regimental Stock Purse—a sum, in excess, amounting to £713. That was to say, £11,000 was given to them, amongst other matters, for purposes of recruiting; they spent £145 on certain recruiting purposes; and then they were recouped for that expenditure of £145 with £713, taken out of the public funds. That certainly was a strange anomaly; but there was a stranger one still. The Return moved for by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore), showed that all the expenses of recruiting in these regiments of Grenadier Guards, Coldstream Guards, and Scots Guards were not borne out of that £11,000, not even by the £745 voted from another portion of the public funds, and passed into the Stock Purse; but voted under another head altogether, and brought out of the amount of £6,500. That was to say, the country had to pay, according to the Return, £6,500 for recruiting in the
  948
  Guards, and £145 out of the £11,000 besides. What had become of the £11,000 was hard to say. It was under some extraordinary fiction that £743 was recouped to the Guards from the Stock Purse Fund. If this was not a case for an inquiry, he had never heard of one. He had said nothing about the hospitals. He would not go into details on that part of the question; but it certainly seemed to him a strange circumstance that, although large sums had been voted for the Stock Purse Funds, out of which the officers of the Guards were supposed to defray all their hospital expenses, still some of the most sacred obligations which they could contract were left undischarged by those officers. A Roman Catholic clergyman, whose duty, as a pastor in Westminster, it was to attend all the hospitals of the Guards, told him only the other day that he himself had been in almost constant attendance there; that Roman Catholic clergymen paid frequent visits; that they had to attend the funerals of Catholic soldiers who died in these hospitals; and yet they received no remuneration whatever for discharging those duties. Whether it was in good taste for gentlemen who had the control of these funds to allow such services to be unrequited, he left them to decide. If it was true that the Guards, and not the War Office, had the control of the hospitals and the other institutions attached to these regiments, he certainly should look not to the War Department, but to the Guards themselves, to defray these expenses out of the funds at their disposal.
  MR. PARNELL,though not satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

MUTINY BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Secretary HARDY, Bill for punishing Mutiny and Desertion, and for the better payment of the Army and their quarters, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary HARDY, The JUDGE ADVOCATE, and Colonel LOYD LINDSAY.
Bill presented, and read the first time.
House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Re-port —Contagious Diseases (Animals) (22–37).
Third Reading— Public Parks (Scotland)* (18); Glebe Loans (Ireland)* (32), and passed.

THE EGYPTIAN OBELISK (CLEOPATRA'S NEEDLE).—QUESTION.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETbegged to ask the Lord President of the Council a Question. A statement which had been made that unless the hieroglyphics on Cleopatra's Needle were preserved by some process, they would be obliterated by the effects of the smoke of London. He therefore wished to inquire whether the noble Duke would consider the abvisability of taking the opinion of scientific men as to the best mode of preserving the inscriptions from the destructive effects of the London atmosphere, either by glazing the monolith, as similar monuments had been glazed in the British Museum, or by other mechanical means?
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that he would take immediate steps for making inquiries into the matter to which the noble Duke had referred. There could be no doubt that the preservation of the inscriptions was a question of great interest, and that means onght to be adopted in order to prevent their obliteration,

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL—(No. 22.)
(The Lord President.)
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL—(No. 22.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to he put into a Committee, read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he wished to make a few remarks in consequence of what passed in the debate on the Bill on Tuesday evening. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had complained that he had not answered all the points that had been raised by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon). He could assure their Lordships that any omission in that respect had not arisen from want of courtesy. The noble Earl had asked why they were not content to allow animals to come in from healthy countries instead of establishing compulsory slaughter from every country in Europe? As regarded cattle plague, all persons were very much agreed as to the necessity of getting rid of it in the manner proposed by the Bill. At the present moment cattle were altogether prohibited from Russia, Germany, and Belgium. All animals from Prance and the Netherlands were slaughtered at the port of landing. Cattle were slaughtered at the port of landing from Austria, Hungary, Greece, Italy, and Turkey; other animals from those countries were admitted after 12 hours' delay. The same regulations applied to animals from Portugal and Denmark. All those countries, cattle from which were admitted if healthy, had been subject to foot-and-mouth disease within the last few years. Foot-and-mouth disease came in from Spain in 1871, 1872, 1875, 1876, and 1877; from Portugal in 1871, 1873, 1874, 1875, and 1876; from Denmark in 1872, 1875, and 1877; from Sweden, in 1875, there were four cargoes of foot-and-mouth disease; leaving Norway as the only country from which we had no disease. The importation from Norway in 1876 was only 110 head of cattle; and it would, therefore, be useless to exclude Norway from the chapter of the countries dealt with by the Bill. In these circumstances, with a view to prevent the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease from these countries, the Government have thought it advisable, in
  828
  the Bill now before their Lordships, to provide for the compulsory slaughter of all imported animals at the port of landing. It was obvious that if severe restrictions were to be placed on the farmers of this country, as to the way in which their stock was to be dealt with for the stamping out of foot-and-mouth disease, it was but justice to them that all possible means should be taken for preventing the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease from foreign countries into this country. Therefore it was that they had proposed to deal with foreign countries in the manner proposed in the Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was sure the House was very much obliged to his noble Friend the Lord President; but as they were only to go into Committee pro formâ that evening, would it not be more convenient if his noble Friend postponed till the stage of actual Committee the observations with which he wished to supplement his speech of Tuesday night?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, in the course of the debate the other evening it was impressed upon the Government that they should consider the course which they intended to take with regard to the Bill, and especially that part of it affecting Ireland. Having had an opportunity of doing so, he thought it was but respectful to his noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) who made the suggestion, that he should avail himself of the first opportunity of informing their Lordships what course they proposed to pursue. His object in rising was not to supplement any of the remarks he made on the last occasion; but rather to fill up some laches of his in not answering a few of the points raised by his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Ripon). His noble Friend found fault with the Government for setting aside the Report of the Committee of 1873, and acting merely on that of the Committee of 1877. If his noble Friend would refresh his memory by comparing the Report of the Committee of 1873 with the provisions of this Bill on the subject of the cattle plague, he would see that they had done nearly everything recommended by that Committee; for they had limited the ports at which cattle might be landed to those places where proper arrangements were made; they

  829
  Lad reduced the ports for unscheduled animals from 32 to 19, and for scheduled animals from 16 to 8; they had provided for the slaughter of animals affected with pleuro-pueumonia, and made it compulsory to slaughter animals that had come in contact with diseased cattle. All those restrictions were recommended by the Select Committee of 1873. Therefore, it was incorrect to say that they had not followed the recommendations of the Committee. Then it was suggested that this measure was one that ought to be referred to a Select Committee, and he understood the grounds which the noble Earl stated were that there had been no Irish witnesses before the Committee, though there were five Irish Members serving on it, and that, therefore, the Irish case was not so fully made out as it ought to have been. He understood the noble Earl to say that he suggested the appointment of a Committee, not with a view of delaying the progress of the measure; and that he thought the appointment of a Committee need not retard the progress of the Bill for any time; but that it could be passed rapidly through that House, and be sent down to the other House of Parliament to receive consideration. The noble Earl thought it would be better to refer the Bill to a Select Committee with no view of obstruction. In that case he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) did. not know that he should offer any opposition; but it must be distinctly understood that it was with a view of going into the Irish part of the question, assuming that English matters were dealt with by the Committee last year, and that the Committee would not go into the whole question, but would confine themselves to evidence from Ireland. He must remind noble Lords who had spoken the other night that, besides Ireland, they had to consider England, Scotland, and Wales, and that, besides cattle, sheep and pigs were liable to foot-and-mouth disease. There were 36,357,825 cattle, sheep, and swine in the United Kingdom, and only 9,453,204 in Ireland. Lord Monck, President of the Irish Cattle Plague Association, had stated at a meeting of that body, that after examination of this Bill he was favourable to it, and it was agreed, with a few alterations, to accept it. If he was right in his understanding of the views of the noble
  830
  Lords opposite, Her Majesty's Government would not oppose the appointment of a Select Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONthanked his noble Friend the Lord President for his concession; but he reserved any further observations till the Motion for going into Committee to discuss the clauses.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Bill reported without Amendment.
  Amendments made; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 37.)

THE EASTERN QUESTION— THE TREATIES OF 1856—GREECE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLrose, pursuant to Notice, to call attention to the Treaties of 1856, and to our present position in respect of them; also to move for copies of any Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Greece, and said: My Lords, I have no doubt it will be in the recollection of the House that when the noble Earl at the head of the Government moved, some nights ago, the Vote of Credit Bills, he expressed a hope that the country would exhibit the aspect of a united people on the Eastern Question. My Lords, I do not rise to say a single word at variance with the spirit of the wish then expressed by the noble Earl. There have been undoubtedly great and profound differences of opinion. These differences may again emerge; but there is a time for everything, and I should be the last man to revive them at a time when the Prime Minister has told us, in the most solemn manner, that he and his Colleagues are engaged day by day in the arduous effort of securing the peace of Europe, and when my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is daily exposed to attacks out-of-doors as violent as they are unjust. My Lords, I have a definite object in view which I will endeavour to explain to your Lordships, and which I hope will not be found altogether unworthy of the consideration of your Lordships' House. I rise to deal with, and if I can, dispel some widely-prevalent misconceptions

  831
  with reference to the Treaties of 1856 which have obtained expression in this House, and out-of-doors—whether in attacks on the Government or in attacks on us who sit on this bench. My Lords, I think I may say that during the course of the debates which have recently been held in this House the tendency has been, on the one hand, to condemn the Government—or rather to upbraid the Government—on the ground that they have not fulfilled their obligations under the Treaty of 1856 of maintaining the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire. There has been, on the other hand, as against those who sit on this bench, a tendency to upbraid us for not upholding Treaties in which we ourselves had our share—which, in fact, we ourselves had approved on behalf of this country, and which we contended were of the greatest value for the interests of the British Empire. Again, on the part of some there has been a rejoicing over the destruction of Treaties which those who took part in this rejoicing claim the merit of always having denounced as foolish. Those are people who say—"Did not we always tell you so?" Now, my Lords, all those references equally indicate complete misconception of what the Treaties of 1856 really were. The public impression seems to be—and that impression is one which seems to be shared in by many Members of this House — that the Treaties of 1856 were an absolute guarantee for the maintenance of the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire, or, if not an absolute guarantee, at least a guarantee in such circumstances as have actually occurred. This being so, my Lords, I wish to recall to the mind of the House what those Treaties actually are. A short account of those Treaties may be given, and, in fact, has been given by noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs since the beginning of the present Session. In alluding to the accusation that the Turks had been encouraged to unreasonable resistence owing to the hopes held out to them by Her Majesty's Government, the noble Earl, in his own calm and philosophic manner, said that their resistance was rather owing to the difficulty experienced by the Oriental mind in appreciating the fact that the world has changed since the making of those Treaties. That is true. The world has
  832
  changed since that time—your Lordships' House has changed. Looking at the bench opposite to me, there is not now a single one remaining of the distinguished men who then surrounded the late Earl of Derby, and who took part in the debates of that time. If the change even among ourselves has been very great, in Europe it has been tremendous. France is no longer the France of 1853; Germany is no longer the Germany of 1853; Italy is no longer the Italy of 1853. Since then Europe has, in fact, changed altogether. But that is by no means a satisfactory account of the change which we find in our position in regard to the Treaties of 1856. There are other causes to which we must look for the change in reference to these Treaties, and I ask the House to follow me in a calm review of the Treaties of 1856 in order that we may see what they do and what they do not say, and what are the obligations which remain under them. Now, my Lords, at first sight, Article I. of the Tripartite Treaty of 1856 does seem an absolute and unconditional guarantee. The Treaty is one between Great Britain, Austria, and France, and the 1st Article declares—
  "The High Contracting Parties guarantee, jointly and severally, the independence and the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, recorded in the Treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th of March, 1856."
  Nothing apparently could be more absolute than that to anyone who never read the succeeding Articles or the Preamble of the Treaty; but it is no such thing. It is a guarantee in the event of an infringement of the general Treaty, not, of course, by Turkey itself, but by any of the other Powers; so that we are absolutely released from that 1st Article and from every part of the guarantee, unless it can be proved that there has been a previous infraction of the Treaty of Paris by some or one of the other Powers. In the general Treaty between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey there are no fewer than 34 clauses; but the whole principle of the Treaty is to be found in the 7th, 8th, and 9th Articles. The 7th Article contains the promises which the European Powers make to each other with respect to Turkey—
  "Their Majesties engage each on his part, to respect the independence and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire; guarantee in

  833
  common the strict observance of that engagement; and will, in consequence, consider any act tending to its violation as a question of general interest."
  The 8th Article defines the method in which those promises are to be fulfilled. The 9th Article contains a counter-pledge on the side of Turkey towards the European Powers in exchange for the protection given to her by the Powers. Now, let us look at each of these Articles in their order. The 7th Article, my Lords, begins with what appears to be a strong declaration. It says that the united Powers
  "declare the Sublime Porte admitted to participate in the advantages of the public law and system (concert) of Europe."
  Now, what does this mean? Had Turkey been an outlaw before 1856? On the contrary, she was a country with which nearly all the Sovereigns of Europe had concluded Treaties before 1856. They had sent Ambassadors and Ministers to Constantinople, and in every respect of International business she had been an European Power. But Turkey was not included with the other Powers in the great settlements of 1815; and it is a remarkable fact that in the war between Russia and Turkey, which happened 25 years before the Crimean War, Russia dwelt upon that fact. When, in 1828, Russia went to war with Turkey, there was this remarkable passage in her declaration of war—
  "And yet a war with Turkey would not in any way have embarrassed the relations of Russia with her principal allies. No convention of guarantee, no political combination connected the fate of the Ottoman Empire with the Healing Acts of 1814 and 1815, under the protection of which civilized and Christian Europe reposed after her long dissensions, and saw her Governments united by the recollection of common glory and a happy identity of principles and views."
  Now, it was to remedy that state of things that the Declaration to which I just now referred was made by the Great Powers in 1856—a Declaration by which Turkey was made a member of the European Family, and the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire was made a matter of general interest to the Great Powers. That is the history of this part of the 7th Article of the general Treaty, and the remaining portions of it make it clear that its sole purport was to es-
  834
  tablish the principle that the fate of Turkey was to be in the future an acknowledged matter of European concern. And now, my Lords, I want the House to remark that this Article has not the effect of excluding separate action on the part of the European Powers against Turkey. It may seem to do so at first sight; but on examination you will find that it does nothing of the kind. You cannot recognize a Power as independent without, at the same time, recognizing its responsibility towards other Powers. Turkey was not put up as a sort of elder brother, against whom no question was to be admitted. Accordingly, that she was to be responsible—like every other State—to all the Powers is conclusively shown by the following Article—Article 8 —which is in these terms—
  "If there should arise between the Sublime Porte and one or more of the other signing Powers, any misunderstanding which might endanger the maintenance of their relations, the Sublime Porto, and each of such Powers, before having recourse to the use of force, shall afford the other Contracting Parties the opportunity of preventing such an extremity by means of their mediation."
  I say, my Lords, this not only recognizes, but provides for the possible case of separate action on the part of the Powers against Turkey in case mediation should prove ineffectual. The guarantee given to Turkey does not contemplate an infraction of the Treaty by Turkey itself— that was a contingency which never was thought of, and could not have been provided against. The 8th Article, as I said before, contains a pledge which Turkey gives the Powers in return for what they are doing for her. And what was the demand made of her? All we asked of Turkey in 1856 for the blood and treasure which we had shed and expended for her in the Crimean War— and it was all the Great Powers asked of her for what they had done for her by the 7th Article—was that she should treat her own subjects with decency— that in her Government the common rights of humanity should be respected. According to the 9th Article—
  "His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, having, in his constant solicitude for the welfare of his subjects, issued a Firman which, while ameliorating their condition without distinction of religion or of race, records his generous intentions towards the Christian population of his Empire, and wishing to give a further proof of his sentiments in that respect, has resolved to

  835
  communicate to the Contracting Parties the said Firman emanating spontaneously from his sovereign will."
  I would particularly ask the attention of your Lordships to the last clause of this Article—
  "The Contracting Powers recognize the high value of this communication. It is clearly understood that it cannot, in any case, give to the said Powers the right to interfere, either collectively or separately, in the relation of His Majesty the Sultan with his subjects, nor in the internal administration of his Empire."
  The common impression is that by the clause I have just read the Powers of Europe repudiated any right to interfere with the internal affairs of Turkey. They did no such thing. You have only to read the clause carefully to see that. No lawyer, no jurist, would so interpret it. It is not a repudiation of the right of the Powers to interfere in extreme cases. It amounts only to this —that the fact of Turkey communicating the Firman to the Powers of Europe gave them no right of interference with the internal affairs of Turkey; but the clause does not take away the right which, in the nature of things, the Powers have to interfere in the internal affairs of Turkey. It is extremely important your Lordships should see that the result of the clause is simply this—-Turkey made promises to Europe, and was bound by them; but, at the same time, she was intrusted with the execution of her own promises. If those promises should be violated by Turkey, a case arises for which the Treaty does not provide, and for which, in the nature of things, no Treaty can provide. Now, another word on this point. I ask your Lordships, not as politicians, not as Members of the Liberal or of the Conservative Party, but as men of honour, in what position do we stand as regards the subject-races of Turkey in consequence of these transactions? We resisted Russian aggression; we were parties to putting Turkey in the position described in the Treaty; and we exacted formal promises from her that she would treat her Christian subjects with justice—that she would give them certain privileges. I ask, then, all your Lordships, as men of honour, does not that impose obligations on us? Word it as you please—I do not wish to lead you into extreme terms—but I say it does impose some sort of duty on our
  836
  part to see those promises carried into effect. In the common language of society in 1853 and 1854, and not only in that language, but in the correspondence of public men, and in a remarkable manner in the correspondence of the Prince Consort, our position towards the Christian subjects of Turkey is described as that of a Protectorate, in substitution of the exclusive Protectorate which had been claimed by Russia. Again, be it observed, our position under the 9th Article of the Treaty of Paris excludes absolutely any help to Turkey against insurrection on the part of her own subjects. And not only this, but it imposes a duty on us, in extreme cases, of insisting on reforms. Then, my Lords, there are subsidiary clauses. One, Article 11, was for the neutralization of the Black Sea, as a guarantee against sudden attack on Turkey. Then there were two others of great importance for the substitution of European for Russian guarantee over the vassal States—the Principalities of Wallachia and Roumania, and the Principality of Servia. In those three subsidiary Articles may be read the pith and core of the whole Treaty. They are consistent with its essential principle, and they are correlative with Article 9. And now, my Lords, I ask, how have those Treaties worked during the time which has elapsed since they were made, up to the present day? But, my Lords, in the first place, before I go into particular events to illustrate my meaning as to the obligations imposed on us, let me say this to the House— that, though we professed to admit Turkey into the family of European nations, there are two important respects in which, practically, she was never admitted to an equality with the other Powers. With regard to the non-interference in the internal affairs of Turkey, the condition, from the nature of the case, became little more than mere words. There has been perpetual interference on our part with these internal affairs through our agents, through our Ambassadors, and through our Consuls. Interference in the internal affairs of Turkey has not been the exception, but the rule. We were habitually interfering, because it became necessary in the interests of Turkey herself. To such an extent was this interference carried, that I find one of our Ambassadors thought himself entitled to remonstrate with the in-

  837
  dependent Sovereign of Turkey on the expense he was going to on the marriage of his daughter. That is the way the independence of the Sultan has been viewed by us—not through any ill-will on our part, but through good-will, and to save Turkey from the consequences of her own acts. Again, there is another respect in which Turkey has never been admitted into the brotherhood of nations. She never has been intrusted with legal jurisdiction over the subjects of other nations resident in her territory. Though we have thought her administration of justice quite good enough for 14,000,000 or 15,000,000 of other people, we never have thought it good enough for a single human being connected with ourselves, and special Acts of Parliament have been passed giving Consular jurisdiction in order that British subjects should not be subject to the jurisdiction of Turkish Courts. Many years ago Lord Russell pointed to the fact that this arose, not from any desire to violate Treaties, but because, in the administration of justice, the Turkish was not a civilized but a barbarous Government.
  Having referred to these general circumstances, I wish now to point out what has happened since the making of the Treaties of 1856. The first event that followed them was the Syrian massacres in 1860. It was the old story of the rival fanaticisms of the Mussulman and other tribes under Turkish rule, together with the weakness or corruption of Turkish officials. They were horrible massacres, and your Lordships will remember how they shocked the conscience of Europe, and provoked European intervention. And how does this stand with reference to the Treaty? It was not a violation of the Treaty—it was a case for which the Treaty did not provide. And what was the result? When these Syrian massacres took place, the Government of France told us that they could not abstain from interference. The other Powers agreed with her, and you will find, from the Papers presented to this House at that time, that Lord Palmorston and Lord Russell felt themselves compelled to concur in that interference. The result was an armed intervention by Europe, the occupation of Syria, and, therefore, a very decided interference in the internal affairs of Turkey. The interference of Europe, then, was the
  838
  dealing with a case for which the Treaties of 1856 did not provide, and could not have provided. That was the first proof after the making of those Treaties that Turkey could not always be intrusted with the execution of her own promises. I hope the Members of your Lordships' House will make up their minds to consider whether this was or was not to be called a violation of the Treaties. I contend that it was not provided for by the Treaties. It was outside the Treaties; but it was not in violation of the Treaties. Now, what was the second event? The second event was a very remarkable one. and extended over several years—it was a series of revolutions in the vassal States of Turkey. The Roumanian and Servian revolutions, which extended over nine years, brought about—first, the junction of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia; next, the appointment of one Hospodar for those two Principalities, resulting in their complete union under the name of Roumania; then the deliverance of Sorvia from Turkish garrisons; and, lastly, the election of a European Prince to preside over the great vassal Province of Roumania. How did Europe deal with these revolutionary movements? It was unquestionably the intention of the Treaties of 1856 that the status quo should be maintained, and that the vassal States of Turkey should be kept in vassalage under the Ottoman Power—divided, and not united under one Prince, and that the fortresses of Servia should be occupied by the Suzerain power, tending to keep the suzerainty of Turkey over its vassal States a reality. But the series of revolutions to which I have referred have all been tending directly to the separation and independence of these States—and yet every one of those revolutions has been sanctioned by the Powers—sanctioned reluctantly, sanctioned in some cases sulkily, but sanctioned. And why? Because it was no part of the obligations in the Treaties of 1856 to defend Turkey against insurrections. In relation to her own subjects, she was not protected by us. We had no call to protect her against the results of her own misgovernment; and accordingly, when, by hook or by crook—and sometimes by foreign aid—those insurrections succeeded, the Powers did not go to war for Turkey. That is a most sig-

  839
  nificant circumstance as showing the European understanding of the Treaties. What was the next event? The great and bloody insurrection in the Island of Crete in 1867. My noble Friend the Foreign Secretary knows that I never urged that it was our duty to interfere, or accused him because he refused to interfere. My only objection to his policy was that he carried his neutrality to such an extent that he refused to allow our naval officers to rescue women and children from the brutality of the Turkish troops. That, however, was settled in the manner in which things of the kind sometimes have been settled —by a naval officer taking the matter into his own hands, refusing to carry out to the letter the instructions to the Service, and carrying into safety a large number of fugitives. Although the Cretan insurrection had no general bearing on the question of Turkey and the Contracting Powers, it had this consequence—that it was perhaps the first event that aroused public feeling in this country with respect to Turkish government. During the 10 years which had elapsed between the making of the Treaties and the Cretan insurrection, the internal administration of Turkey had scarcely been brought under the consideration of the people of this country. The Syrian insurrection had been very bad, but that was far off in Asia; and, so far as I recollect, there had been no case in which any great complaint was made against the Government of Turkey in Europe till the insurrection in Crete. The next event was the breaking out of the war between Germany and Franco in July, 1870. In the course of a few weeks it became apparent to the world that France had temporarily ceased to be one of the great military Powers of Europe. In these circumstances, it was the duty of those who presided over our foreign relations at that time to consider what would be the result of a quarrel breaking out between Russia and Turkey in respect to the government of the Christian subjects of the Porte; and whether, without the assistance of that great military Ally with whom we were united during the Crimean War, it would be possible for us, either physically or morally, to take the same course as we did then? I need not say what the conclusion was at which our Foreign
  840
  Minister of that time arrived on the question; and I cannot help thinking that the sagacity displayed by my noble Friend behind me, who at the time held that office (Earl Granville), has not received its due meed of recognition from the fact that the public have hardly noticed the invaluable despatch which he wrote some weeks after the Franco-German War broke out, in which he gave full warning to Turkey as to the consequence which would be likely to result from any such quarrel with Russia. My noble Friend, on the 6th of October, 1870, wrote as follows:—
  "I have already told the Turkish Ambassador that I could not give assurances as to future contingencies. Would it not be more friendly to say more, and to point out that there are contingencies in which Turkey must feel sure that she could not rely upon our aid, and to impress upon her that her real safety will depend upon the spirit and feelings of the populations over which she rules? It is certain that the feelings of the Christian subjects of the Porte will be in favour of the Porto or of Russia exactly in proportion to the amount of liberty, prosperity, and order which they enjoy under the one, or are likely to obtain under the other."
  This is a most invaluable warning; but it throws also invaluable light on the understanding which was held in this country at the time as to the degree and kind of obligation which was imposed upon us by the Treaty of 1856. I say my noble Friend was perfectly right— that in no circumstances would we give Turkey assistance in any quarrel arising out of her misgovernment of her own subjects, and out of her breach of covenant in this respect with the Christian Powers of Europe. By this warning Turkey was thrown on her own defence, and she was warned that she must look to reform in her own administration as the only hope of safety. We now come to the first event connected with our own country which immediately followed the defeat of Franco. Russia lost no time in denouncing that clause of the Treaty of 1856 which forbade her to have a Fleet in the waters of the Black Sea. She had no quarrel with Turkey. Her act was simply a spontaneous one. She said to herself—"I see my opportunity, and I will take advantage of it." Unquestionably, that act was an outrage on the public law of Europe, and my noble Friend behind me did right in entering an immediate protest against it. He pronounced no opinion

  841
  against the merits of the claim. Turkey had come to possess a great ironclad Fleet; and thus, although, under the provisions of the Treaty, the Black Sea was neutralized, the Bosphorus might be armed to the teeth with men-of-war, which might at a moment's notice take possession of the whole seaboard of the Russian Empire. In these circumstances, it would not have been unreasonable had Russia brought the matter under the notice of the European Powers, and said—"This is a clause by which it is not reasonable I should be bound, and I ask you to relieve me from it." But instead of coming forward and saying this, and annulling the clause by the action of Europe, Russia did so by annulling the clause of her own will. That she should thus take the question into her own hands was a mode of proceeding against which my noble Friend very naturally protested. There was a Conference held, and as to the substance of the clause it was declared not unreasonable, that it should in the circumstances be abrogated; but a special Declaration was drawn up to the effect that such a violent act as that complained of on the part of any single Power to a Treaty was against the public law of Europe. That Declaration is as follows:—
  "The Plenipotentiaries of North Germany, of Austro-Hungary, of Great Britain, of Italy, of Russia, and of Turkey, assembled to-day in Conference, recognize that it is an essential principle of the law of nations that no Power can liberate itself from the engagements of a Treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the Contracting Powers by means of an amicable arrangement."
  To that Russia assented; and it is well worthy of remark, that although she thus obtained liberty to build a Fleet in the Black Sea, she has never, strange to say, taken advantage of that liberty for a period of six years. During these six years the command of the Black Sea was left to Turkey, and when the war broke out—a proof, I think, that it was not long premeditated by Russia—the Government of Turkey were as completely masters of the Euxine as if there had never been any modification of the Treaty.
  I now come to an event with which your Lordships are all familiar. The insurrection of 1875 broke out. What was the action of our Government? They tried to the very last moment to keep to
  842
  the principle that Turkey should be intrusted with the execution of her own promises. They resisted, as long as they could, every attempt towards external interference. They said—"Turkey has given new promises—let us try her again." I do not now say anything to blame the Government for the course which they then pursued. It was an attempt in the spirit of 1856; although, if they had acted otherwise, they would not have violated the provisions of the Treaty, as I have already maintained. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have read lately the Andrassy Note; but I would advise your Lordships to read it again. No such indictment against any Government in the world has ever been signed by the great European Powers. It contains a recapitulation, extending over a period of 30 years, of all the promises which had been made by Turkey and violated. It has many pages of the severest censure on the conduct of Turkey; and it is, it should be remembered, a declaration against the misgovernment of Turkey which can never be withdrawn. Do you think such a document could be signed by all the Powers without producing some effect on the political atmosphere of Europe, and casting a new light on the position of a semi-barbarous State?
  Then came the Bulgarian massacres in May, 1876, when, at last, not only the conscience, but the passion of the country was aroused, and my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Derby) felt, in a moment, that it would be impossible to maintain any longer the policy of abstention to which they had hitherto adhered with respect to the internal affairs of Turkey. My noble Friend accordingly, on the 5th of September, 1876, wrote as follows to our Ambassador at Constantinople:—
  "For your guidance as to the language to be held by you to the Turkish Ministers at this juncture, it is right that you should be accurately acquainted with the state of public opinion in England on the subject of Turkey. It is my duty to inform you that any sympathy which was previously felt hero towards that country has been completely destroyed by the recent lamentable occurrences in Bulgaria. The accounts of the outrages and excesses committed by the Turkish troops upon an unhappy and, for the most part, an unresisting population, has roused a universal feeling of indignation in all classes of English society, and to such a pitch has this risen that, in the extreme case of Russia

  843
  declaring war against Turkey, Her Majesty's Government would find it practically impossible to interfere in defence of the Ottoman Empire."
  There you have the announcement to the Turkish rulers that we were absolved from the duty of protecting the independence of the Turkish Empire; that circumstances had arisen which made it impossible that we should defend it. My Lords, I say that this declaration was new only in this respect—as a declaration of the principle that the misgovernment of Turkey, and the violation of her promises, forfeited her rights under the Treaties of 1856. Was Turkey to be bolstered up as a European Power, however bad her principles and conduct might be? Clearly not; and I only say for the Government that drew up those Treaties, that they never contemplated those results; and I do not believe that even Lord Palmerston would have adopted any other language than that of my noble Friend.
  My Lords, I come to the next point— the Servian War—with respect to which the Prime Minister had spoken with such severity. No doubt, the ordinary relations between a Sovereign State and its vassals might have justified such language; but it is hardly for us to be judges of the provocations that have been received from the subject populations of Turkey. We are so very comfortable ourselves at home, that it is difficult for us to estimate the full measure of such provocation, or to realize the temptations to which the neighbouring populations of Turkey are exposed; and you may take it as a fact that these populations will, on every possible occasion, try to assort their own independence. Well, the Servians went to war, and were completely beaten. What did Europe do when this happened? When the Turks were preparing to invade Servia, you said—"Forgive Servia, and resume your former relations with her." Why did you say this? Why did you deprecate the conquest of Servia by Turkey? Because you knew that it would not be allowed by Russia, or by Austria, or by Europe as a whole. You knew the law, that when once the Moslem Power has been driven from any part of Europe, it is impossible that it should ever be re-established. Now, we know what our claim is on Servia's gratitude. But what is the light thrown on the Treaties of 1856 by these transactions?
  844
  The relations between Turkey and her subject States formed part of those Treaties, and this was the consummation of a series of revolutions to which Europe was obliged to assent.
  Next I must mention the Instructions given to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) on going to the Conference. Those Instructions laid down the principle that it was absolutely necessary that some European guarantee should be taken for the execution of the promises of reform made by Turkey; and the Conference was, in fact, broken up upon that very point. Turkey would not admit even the most limited form of interference, and said—though the demands diminished one after another— that she would take her stand on her own interpretation of the Treaties of 1856, to the effect that in no case whatever had Europe any right to interfere.
  Now we come to the Protocol of London, March 31, 1877, which was signed on the understanding that if peace were not obtained, the document would have no effect. It was, however, important in this respect that Russia agreed to withdraw her threats of armed intervention, and that the efforts of England had succeeded so far as to secure Turkey another respite if she would sign the Protocol. But what happened? Turkey again refused, and in terms which, considering the efforts made in her behalf, were in the highest degree insulting to the Government—
  "Turkey, as an independent State, cannot submit to any interference, whether collective or not. The Treaty of Paris explicitly declared the principle of non-intervention, and Turkey is determined to keep the place which Providence has destined her for."
  What I want to represent to the House is, that up to that moment of the Protocol of London, the Treaty of 1856 was in full and satisfactory operation, and its principle was that the fate of Turkey should be settled by Europe, and not by Russia alone. It was in full force, and there was no violation of it till Turkey refused to put herself under the conditions proposed by the Protocol.
  My general proposition is, that in all these long transactions, there has been no violation of the Treaty of 1856, except by Turkey. She has been the only Power systematically violating the Treaty. It seems to be almost universally believed that when Russia deter-

  845
  mined to go to war with Turkey she broke the Treaty of 1856. I do not say that her conduct may not be condemned on other grounds; but I say that Russia, in taking up the common quarrel when all the other Powers refused, in no way violated the Treaty of 1856. That Treaty contemplated mediation, it is true; but it also contemplated individual action in the event of the failure of mediation. The noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office had said that time and patience would cure all; would have cured all the evils from which the Christian populations have so long suffered. Yes; but whose time and patience? Does it mean our time and patience, or the time and patience of those 15,000,000 of people who have been so long denied the blessings of good government? And why should this patience be demanded of them for the convenience of England, or even of Europe as a whole? Have they not waited and suffered long enough? One or two circumstances have shown us what would have happened to those populations if there had been no war. In September we had glimpses of what the state of things would be if Turkey had succeeded. During that terrible month of September, when the tide of invasion was rolled back by the repulse of General Gourko on the south of the Balkans, the Turkish Army were in possession of one of the richest parts of Bulgaria; and what was the spirit in which they acted? One of our Consuls wrote to Mr. Layard in terms of extreme horror at the conduct of both parties, and almost reviled the Bulgarians for the revengeful massacres they had committed; but he said that when the Turks were in full swing and full power there, and no insurrection was going on, their conduct was such as to lead to the belief that it was the intention of their Government to exterminate the Christian population in that part of the country. I am not going to say a word to-night in favour of Russia in any other respect than as concerns this Treaty. You may condemn her on any other ground, if you will, but not on the ground of the Treaty of 1856.
  My Lords, I have only a few words more to say as to the position in which we now stand in regard to these Treaties. A controversy has been going on in the public Press, which has been taken part
  846
  in by very eminent men signing their names, and affirming and disputing the proposition that war dissolves Treaties. I cannot help thinking that in this particular instance this is what the late Sir James Graham called a "logomachy." It is a dispute about abstract propositions which have no reference to the circumstances of the case. Russia, under the Treaty of 1856, had a separate as well as a collective quarrel with Turkey; she had a perfect right to go to war with Turkey, and an International right to impose her own conditions. But that we, on the other hand, have our rights and interests, and that Europe has her rights and interests, is a counter-proposition which is also equally true; and we are entitled to reject any proposals which are injurious to the interests of Europe. These two propositions, like many others in politics or in science, seem to be contradictory, but they are both true; and the only question is, whether the particular terms which Russia has insisted on imposing are such terms as really interfere with the interests of Europe? I have only to say this on behalf of those with whom I acted in 1856. In my opinion, the whole object of that Treaty would still be secured if you have really happy and independent Christian Provinces in Turkey. The form of that Treaty was to keep up the interest of Europe in that country through the then existing Government, and that Government was the Porte. But you know that, as an independent military Power, Turkey no longer exists in Europe. I hold that the objects which we aimed at in the Treaty of 1856 will be attained— so far as they can be attained—if you succeed in erecting really satisfactory Principalities in those Provinces. You cannot, however, do that under the Government of the Turks; and I believe that until the Government of the Turks is out of the way you will have these Provinces dependent on Russia. The moment there is no possibility of the Moslem Empire being restored over any part of that country, you will have developed those International jealousies which have already begun to work, and which will probably create a considerable counterpoise to the influence of Russia. I only wish, my Lords, to say this further word. I have often been asked whether it is really possible that in 1853 and 1854 we ever believed in the re-

  847
  generation of Turkey. I have no right to speak for others. I was the youngest Member of Lord Aberdeen's Cabinet, and I might very well shelter myself behind the authority of much older, abler, and wiser men. But I will confess that, as a member of that Cabinet, I never believed in the regeneration of the Turks. The regeneration of Turkey-is quite another matter; and I am happy to be able to produce evidence as to my views on that point—if your Lordships care to refer to a matter of so small significance as what my opinions were. In 1854 I contributed to The Edinburgh Review a political article on the diplomatic history of the Eastern Question, in which I expressed—as strongly as Mr. Cobden or Mr. Bright could have expressed it—my belief in the necessary fall of Turkey. But what I believed— and what other Members of the Cabinet believed—was that it was quite possible that a decently good Government could be maintained in Turkey until, by the natural progress of events, by the rise of the Christian population, and by their superior knowledge and industry, another form of Government should be peacefully substituted for the existing one. The question of the regeneration of the Turks had nothing to do with the Treaty of 1856, so long as that great change could be brought about peacefully, as was most desirable. The truth is, that we are now witnessing one of those great changes in the history of the world which we might possibly guide, but which it is absolutely impossible to control. It is a change fraught with enormous blessings to an important part of the population of Eastern Europe. And I trust that in the Conference which is about to assemble Her Majesty's Government will look to what is the real interest and honour of England, which is to see that a good Government is established in the Provinces which have been liberated by the arms of Russia.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had renewed his accusations of oppression against the Turkish Government; but these were disproved by the prosperity of Bulgaria, which was not a mountainous country, inaccessible to tax-gathers, but a flat country, with the Turks living in the midst of the other inhabitants. The noble Duke also spoke
  848
  of 15,000,000 of Christian subjects. Those figures were very incorrect, for they were nearer to the entire population of Turkey in Europe, and nearly 5,000,000 had to be deducted from them for the Wallachians and Moldavians, who had nothing to say to the Turkish Government. The noble Duke said that the conscience of Europe was shocked by the massacres in Bulgaria. How was it that it was not shocked by the proceedings of the Russians, which the Grand Duke Nicholas had just now called Holy work? Was it holy work to send 2,000 sick and wounded out of Kars to perish in the snow; to starve the prisoners in Plevna; to starve them in Roumania; to hang Polish surgeons, who were doubly protected as Austrian subjects, and under the Geneva Convention? He asked himself how it was that those partisans of Russia in this country, who named the author of all this misery the Divine figure from the North, did not tremble to follow in the footsteps of the courtiers of that other King, who, when he made an oration, shouted —"It is the voice of a god and not of a man," and they did not dread to bring upon their idolized patron the death of Herod. He desired to remind their Lordships that a short time ago a Motion was before that House on the subject of Russian encroachments on the Treaties of 1856 and 1871. But how could their Lordships possibly have accepted the Resolution of the noble Lord (Lord Campbell) after the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had himself set aside those Treaties by his despatch of 6th June of last year? That despatch was written as if those Treaties did not exist—and, setting aside part of the public law of Europe, the lower and selfish ground of our material interests was substituted. The noble Earl told the House that our interests were precisely defined in that despatch; but though that despatch did not define them with exact precision, some of them had been clearly defined by the Colleagues of the noble Earl. The speech of the Home Secretary—to the effect that Constantinople was not to be menaced or approached—might be taken as the most important. The declaration of the right hon. Gentleman to the House of Commons must be considered as binding on Her Majesty's Government as any statement by the noble Earl the

  849
  Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In the first place, it was accepted by the Government, inasmuch as it had not been modified or corrected by any subsequent declaration on the part of Her Majesty's Government. In the second place, though the two Houses of Parliament were equal, the statement of the Home Secretary was, if there were any difference, made more directly to the country, since it was made to the Representatives of the constituencies and to a larger audience; while the proceedings in the other House were reported more fully by the Press than those in their Lordships' House. The question, then, arose, why the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had taken steps which must have led—and had led—to that calamity which England was pledged to resist:—for since the Fleet in the Sea of Marmora went away to Mudania, it was clear that the protection of British subjects was only a pretext. Those interests were not in danger at the time; and it was a cruel and heartless act to send the Fleet into the Sea of Marmora after the warning given by Russia that that act would lead to their entry into Constantinople. It was a cruel thing to risk this; for the noble Earl must have known that the Russian Army could not be brought into Constantinople without great probability of the massacre of the inhabitants, and of the destruction of that populous city by fire, and leaving houseless all the women and children and sick and wounded. The noble Earl could not now say that the Fleet was despatched to protect British interests in the Black Sea and in the Straits; for if that were the case, why did he on a former occasion prevent the despatch of the Fleet when it might have served that purpose? When the noble Earl stated that the great body of the people of England approved of, and were therefore jointly responsible with him for, the present state of affairs, he did not correctly state the case, for the people of England—or rather that portion only which had no regard for Treaties—had approved of neutrality under very different circumstances. They had accepted it with the conditions laid down by the Home Secretary and others of the noble Earl's Colleagues, and they had been led by Her Majesty's Government to believe in the promises and assurances given by Russia at the com-
  850
  mencement of the war. The people of England were ignorant of the very different intentions of Russia disclosed to the noble Earl by Count Schouvaloff on the 8th of June. It now appeared that the noble Earl's Colleagues were also kept in ignorance of them for 10 days—
  THE EARL OF DERBY: That is absolutely a mistake.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that it appeared from one of the Parliamentary Papers that the noble Earl told Count Schouvaloff on the 18th that before he could give any opinion on the terms of peace he must consult his Colleagues.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My noble Friend is speaking under an entire misconception. I do not recollect precisely what passed; but I know this—that I have kept back no communication of importance from my Colleagues for 24 hours. When I received this Paper from Count Schouvaloff, it was circulated, among the Members of the Cabinet, in the ordinary way. I understood that I was not called upon at the moment of its reception to express any opinion on its terms; and I said, when asked, that I could not do so without taking the opinion of my Colleagues.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwas glad to hear it. He would ask how England, who was at present without an Ally, could expect to have any, after having abandoned the Ally she was bound by Treaty to defend? Rome abandoned the Saguntines and paid the penalty, for Hannibal ravaged all the Ausonian cities. But Rome had only abandoned one city; and England had to answer for the desertion of many cities. When the Roman Envoys went to Spain to ask for Allies they were received with derision, and told to go and seek for them where the slaughter of Saguntum was unknown. Ibi quaratis socios ubi Saguntina dades ignota est. The abandoment of Khiva, of Achin, and of the thousands of old men, women, and children, who had perished on the roads from Adrianople, would be cast in our teeth when we sought for Allies. The noble Earl the Secretary of State said, a short time ago, that the possession of Armenia brought Russia no nearer to India. It might be so as a matter of miles; but Roman history again showed how fallacious was that

  851
  opinion and way of looking at the matter; for Hannibal, when he reached the Pyrenees, had not got much nearer to Rome than when he was at Barcelona; yet Livy said that when he reached the Pyrenees, just as though he had already crossed the Alps, the Cisalpine Gauls rose in insurrection against the Romans. It appeared that some of Her Majesty's Ministers did not know how to receive a deputation; for the noble Earl had told one he was always glad to receive instructions from his employers. Was that the language fitting for a servant of the Crown, selected by the Crown because he was supposed to know more than the rest of his fellow-subjects of the affairs intrusted to him? and in this case he did know more, for the deputation did not know of the conditions contained in the Memorandum of June 8. The Secretary of State appeared to be rashly endeavouring to graze with his chariot wheels, as closely as possible, the boundary stones of impeachment; and if the noble Earl thought that part of the Constitution was obsolete, he might pause before causing a risk of yet greater popular tumult and excitement, which might endanger not only the Government, but also some of the Institutions of the country. The Revolution of 1848, and the fall of King Louis Philippe, were principally owing to his neglect—or supposed neglect—of the honour of France. He would conclude by appealing to the noble Earl at the head of the Government to take vigorous action, now that he must be convinced that he had the country with him; and that, more successful than Laocoon, he had been able to unmask the Sinon of Harley Street, and to persuade his countrymen not to trust to the wooden horse of Russian assurances and professions.
  LORD HAMMONDsaid, he desired to make some observations on the present aspect of affairs and the approaching Congress. There could be no doubt that, for all practical purposes, the Treaty of 1856 was dead. We might hold an inquest over its body, pronounce a verdict of misadventure, and decently inter it; but it was vain to attempt to resuscitate it. He thought there had never been a greater delusion than the idea that the primary, if not the sole, object for which statesmen, for the last 50 years, had striven to keep alive
  852
  the Turkish Empire, was to be found in any special regard for Turkey as a Mussulman Power. He ventured to assert that the real object with those who for that long period had administered the affairs of the Government of this country was not primarily to uphold Turkey for Turkey's sake, but to do so for the sake of the great European interests which would be brought in jeopardy by its downfall, and the apprehension—which would seem now about to receive realization— that the overthrow of the Turkish Empire in Europe might involve the establishment of a Russian Empire in its place. To obviate such a catastrophe, the wearisome negotiations which preceded the Crimean War were directed; the blood and treasure of that war were expended; and though it was true that the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire were set forth as to be upheld under the Treaty of 1856, that engagement was rather as a means to an end, and not the end itself; for the general solicitude of Europe shrank from contemplating the consequences of the subversion of the Turkish Empire, and looked forward with dismay and apprehension to a general war among the Powers of Europe for the division of the spoils—to the possible establishment of Russian supremacy on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, and to the disturbance of the balance of power in Europe, as the necessary result of such momentous changes. With such dangers we now stood face to face. We might find, indeed, in the provisions of the Treaty of 1856 faint outlines of what the general interests of Europe might require; but any attempt to patch up its remains could scarcely fail to end in disappointment. We must frame a new system, in which the interests of the several States of Europe might find an appropriate place. Happily for this country, as he gathered from the statement of the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs some nights ago, our special interests were less directly at stake in the settlement to be made than those of other Powers. The cession of Batoum to Russia, and the cession of a frontier in Armenia which, while it included Kars, ran down to Bayazid, would not, he apprehended, materially affect our interests: and, so far as he understood, the boundary line left the head-waters

  853
  of the Euphrates in the possession of Turkey, and would not intercept the caravan route between Trebizonde and Persia. But, be that as it might, the Porte had for very many years steadily disregarded our representations for the improvement of that road, and allowed Russia to attract an undue proportion of the trade to the neighbouring port of Poti, than which Batoum would be a more commodious station in the interests of Russia, and also for such European trade with Persia as, notwithstanding Custom House impediments, might follow that direction. British trade, indeed, as he understood, had found a better line of access in the direction of Persia than it had hitherto found through Turkey. As regarded another point, he was unable to share the apprehensions entertained in some quarters — that this increase of Russian territory in Armenia involved a menace to British India. The danger, he conceived, for India lay not in Russian armies, but in Russian. intrigues; and the occupation even of the whole valley of the Euphrates would not facilitate those intrigues, which would be more probably directed against the British possessions through Herat and Affghanistan. But though the interests of this country in Asia might not be deeply concerned in the coming settlement, we could not disregard the interests of European nations at large, which were to be provided for in Europe. For instance, the maintenance of the navigable channel of the Danube, as it existed before the late war, was essential to the interests of Central Europe. But the transfer to Roumania of the whole navigable channels of the Delta from Isatchi to the sea, would sooner or later render nugatory all the efforts which had been made of late years for its improvement. Severed, though it might be, from Turkey, the independence of Roumania would be a fiction;—to all intents and purposes Roumania would be the vassal of Russia; and it was well-known how Russia dealt with the Danube between the Treaty of Adrianople, when she acquired the Delta, and the Crimean War, when she was deprived of it; how, acting in the interests of her own corn-growing Provinces, she evaded her engagements to improve the navigable channel of the Danube for the benefit of the rival in-
  854
  terests of other corn-growing countries situated on its banks. The zeal and intelligence of the European Commission established under the Treaty of 1856, seconded by the skill of Sir Charles Hartley, the British Engineer of the Commission, succeeded in obtaining for the shipping of all nations a navigable channel having 18 feet or 19 feet depth of water, instead of one limited to between 8 feet and 10 feet, which only was obtained during the Russian occupation. True, indeed, engagements might be contracted for keeping open the channel; but who would venture hereafter implicitly to rely on such engagements? But after all came the great difficulty of Bulgaria, involving, as it did, questions of perplexing magnitude, among which not the least would be that of providing against the constitution, however disguised in name, of a Russian Province, comprising a very large and important portion of European Turkey; and how to reconcile the concession of absolute Bulgarian autonomy with the modified autonomy of other Provinces of European Turkey which were to be left under the suzerainty of the Sultan. The object which, from the beginning of these troubles, all the Powers professed to have in view was the amelioration of the lot of those—and more specifically of the Christians—who, whatever might be their nationality or creed, suffered from maladministration under their Mussulman Governors. But a satisfactory settlement in that respect, which would secure the peace of Europe and the well-being of the populations at large, could never be arrived at by setting up an exclusive Christian supremacy as a substitute for the exclusive Mussulman supremacy which had hitherto held sway in European Turkey. The only hope of arriving at such a settlement would seem to lie in a fusion of the antagonistic races; and he thought such a fusion was not impossible. There was no question but that, in some districts at least, Christians and Mussulmans had heretofore lived in amity and good neighbourhood with each other; and what was now required was the constitution of some responsible governing authority— Christian, if it could be found—under whose supremacy and control a system of local administration might be established, in which persons of every race, in proportion to their numbers in each locality,

  855
  might find admission; which all, therefore, might equally respect; and under which all might indifferently obtain security for life and property, and enjoy equal rights and privileges in the Courts of Justice. The population of European Turkey, excluding Servia and Roumania, amounted, according to the tables in The Gotha Almanack of 1876, to about 8,400,000 souls, of whom about 4,800,000 were Christians or Jews-there being about 300,000 Roman Catholics, and between 70,000 and 80,000 Jews—and3,600,000Mahomedans; and, taking separately the Bulgaria of the Conference, there would be in the Province so constituted about 2,000,000 Christians and Jews, and 1,300,000 Mussulmans. It was impossible in such a state of things to suppose that the Mussulmans would be content to live in peace if placed in unqualified subjection to the Christians; and the alternative would seem to be social equality between Christians and Mussulmans—as he believed existed in British India between members of different creeds—or the extermination of the latter; and this could, he thought, scarcely be contemplated with complacency in any quarter. But besides this general division of the population; it must be borne in mind that the Christians were not at one among themselves. It was said in "another place," a few days ago, that the result of personal inquiry at Constantinople was, that it admitted of proof that there was a temptation to persecution on the part of the Greek Church. It was notorious, indeed, that much of the persecution to which the Greeks had been exposed originated with the Greek clergy, who did not hesitate to invoke the support of Mussulman authorities to enforce their pecuniary exactions from their flocks. It was no less well known that in some quarters Roman Catholics had suffered— and, indeed, were still suffering—from the intolerant spirit by which the Greek Church when dominant was actuated; and not long since a statement had been put forth by the pastor of a Protestant community in Macedonia—whose trustworthiness was, he understood, admitted by well-informed persons in this country —as to the sufferings of Protestants in Bulgaria at the hands of Greek Church authorities. Moreover, the systematic oppression and persecution to which,
  856
  not only in Bulgaria, but also in Servia and Roumania, the unfortunate Jews were exposed, were notorious. In such a state of things it was impossible not to concur in the opinion that there could be no greater boon to the rising nationalities of Turkey than that the influence of England should be used, as far as possible, not only on behalf of all persecuted peoples—whether Jews or Protestants—but also to save the majority of the population from the horror and misery which they would bring on themselves if they encouraged a persecuting spirit. Such a boon it might be in the power of the Congress to provide; and, at all events, we might, he hoped, derive an assurance from what fell from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs some short time ago—that Her Majesty's Representatives in the Congress would be instructed earnestly to endeavour to secure that boon for the whole population of European Turkey. One word more, and he had done. Whatever conclusions the Conference might arrive at, it might be hoped that they would not involve this country in any entangling engagement in the form of guarantees. We had had sufficient experience of the illusory character of such engagements; and it was surely unworthy of a great Power to undertake with others a responsibility the discharge of which did not depend on itself alone, and which might be rendered impossible by circumstances which it had no power to control.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, if the present state of affairs was, in my opinion, one of the same political tension that has existed for the last few weeks, or if I thought there was any risk of hostilities being renewed or ex-tended, I should preserve silence on the present occasion. I trust, however, that this is not the case; and I can assure your Lordships that I have no intention of saying anything which might tend to embarrass Her Majesty's Government. One reason for the few remarks which I desire to make is this—that while I have listened with admiration to the singularly lucid way in which, from his point of view, the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) has stated the history and the view he takes of these Treaties, I cannot say that I quite agree with the moral which he draws from the facts. If I understood him rightly, he holds that the Treaty of 1856 imposed certain

  857
  obligations upon Turkey, and that the other Powers who were signataries to the Treaty having corresponding duties were entitled, either jointly or separately, when the obligations of Turkey were unfulfilled, to intervene. I admit that the Treaty imposed duties upon Turkey, because, as the noble Duke pointed out, the 7th Article provides for the admission of Turkey into the European concert; but the Treaty also imposes upon Turkey corresponding obligations. She was thenceforward to provide better government for her Christian populations, and to carry out those reforms which she had long before specified. Those reforms were, in the reign of the Sultan Abdul Medjid, formulated in a famous document; but that document for years remained a dead letter, and when the Treaty of 1856 was agreed to, the terms were re-imposed; and how have they been executed? They have remained, to all intents and purposes, a dead letter, and the condition of the Christian subjects of the Porte remained in most essentials the same as before. The abuses grew with increased strength; until at last the Turkish Government, having become a borrower to a very great extent, was compelled to repudiate her obligations, and to acknowledge herself to be practically bankrupt. That bankruptcy was an important point in the matter; because, if there had before been any question as to her executing the promised reforms, the fact of her becoming bankrupt rendered it impossible for her to fulfil her undertaking. Turkey, therefore, having accepted the Treaty of 1856, with its obligations, failed in her performance of them. On the other hand, Russia also submitted to the Article in the Treaty which provided for the neutralization of the Black Sea and for the non-maintenance of military and maritime arsenals. It is known that the Article was one to which Russia only submitted after difficulty; and I do not think the noble Duke will deny that the reluctant assent of Russia was mainly due to pressure brought to bear by the English Government. This being so, it was, perhaps, not unnatural that Russia would watch carefully for an opportunity to procure the cancellation of this particular Article of the Treaty. That opportunity presented itself in 1871, and Russia obtained the abrogation of the Article to
  858
  which she objected, but she did this by obtaining—whatever the circumstances may have been—the formal assent of Europe. There was a departure from the original contract; and there can be no doubt that as Turkey failed in her obligations, so Russia had failed in hers, though she did subsequently obtain the consent of Europe. The moral I would draw from this state of facts is, that we must look to it carefully in any European arrangements that are now made, that they shall not only be practicable, but shall have a fair likelihood of being carried into effect. They will be of little value if they carry in themselves the seeds of early dissolution. They must take into account the tendencies and affinities of nations, and the plain indication of events. We must look beyond the immediate consequences and exigencies of the moment. It is comparatively easy for conquerors to proceed on the væ victis principle—it is easy for by standing nations to patch up hastily a quarrel and put it, like an unclean thing, out of sight; but a quarrel thus made up affords but an insecure foundation for the future well-being and peace of the countries interested. It was, as we all know, the policy of the First Napoleon to press his Treaties upon reluctant and conquered nations without any reference to the future; and we know what the result of that was. We have also seen in a recent war a great military Power extorting two Provinces from France; but does anybody suppose that France would have assented to such a cession of territory except under a sense of absolute compulsion, and that a large proportion of the French nation do not look to the time when they may regain what has been wrested from them? It may be said, in answer to this, that the Treaty of Vienna lasted many years comparatively unimpaired. It was only comparatively; but so far as it did remain unimpaired, it was maintained by the exhaustion of all parties concerned. In addition, those who look to the circumstances, to the times, and the conditions under which the Treaty of Vienna was framed, will admit that it was singularly moderate, and that to its moderation is in a great measure due the permanence that followed its arrangements. Therefore, I trust that in the forthcoming Congress Europe will

  859
  look not merely to the immediate exigencies of the case, but to the future and permanent condition, and will consider what is likely to endure, as well as what may satisfy the requirements of the moment. Nature in all these matters is stronger than the mere parchments of diplomatists; and, if the necessary territorial re-arrangements are made with foresight and sagacity, we may look for a long endurance of them—I will not say for absolute finality, for that exists neither in politics nor in any decree or institution of man. I do not desire to go into any details of the question, or to deal with any matters affecting special interests in which this country is engaged. Nor do I desire to touch upon the relations of different foreign countries. In the immediate face of the coming Conference I think it would be undesirable to do so. One thing, however, I desire to say, and very much in the sense of the noble Duke—namely, that the condition of things as regards Turkey and her Rulers, especially in relation to Europe, has absolutely passed away. I do not deny that in a merely diplomatic point of view the position which Turkey held as regards this country was a convenient one. It was the position of a Government not strong enough to stand by itself, but strong enough to stand with the support of England—a Government holding the keys of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, and exercising an important influence in the East. A Government such as that, living under the protection of England, was, in a diplomatic point of view, undoubtedly convenient. But any reasonable person who has watched the course of affairs, and who has read history, must have seen that such an arrangement as that was necessarily in its nature temporary. Well, that condition of things has, I believe, absolutely passed away, so completely passed away, that if it were possible to revive a real and substantial portion of Turkish authority in these countries, it may well be questioned if such a revival would be for English interests. Whether we regard the change which has occurred with or without apprehension, it is equally important that we should be clear on that point before this country goes into Conference or Congress; and what there will have to be considered is this—what shall be the substitute for that which
  860
  has passed away. I do not look for a substitute being found in any possible revival of a dead Government and a fallen race—umbra et imago cadentis civitatis. You cannot re-establish this. Nor do I look for a substitute in the over-shadowing power of a colossal Empire. A better—and perhaps indeed the only—substitute is, in my mind, to be looked for in the improvement and gradual strengthening—it must be most gradual—of the subject-races of Turkey —not few in number, and, as I quite admit, possessed of the faults and vices which a long servitude has engendered, but who, after all, possess the germs of vitality and progress. That is the substitute to which I look; but, anyhow, whether that be so or not, there is a large work of re-construction to be performed. My Lords, it is no light task that lies before the Congress; and I cannot resist expressing an earnest desire that if those races be accepted as the substitute for the state of things which has passed away, this country at least may be fortunate enough to gain the good-will of those people. There is nothing in this wish which ought to offend any man or any Party. Such a wish is, I think, in strict conformity with the true interests of this country. It is a wish which I remember was expressed by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary some years ago. The broad statesmanship of Lord Grenville, the generous policy of Mr. Canning, the enthusiasm even of Lord Byron, still live in the recollection of the East, and make it not difficult for us to acquire the friendship and good-will of those races. It may be said that recent events have lost us that good-will. If that be so, it is not impossible to regain it. The differences of neighbouring nations and races are proverbial; and, although it may sound ill for human nature, it is absolutely certain that while, on the one hand, it will be difficult for Russia to preserve the gratitude she has won, on the other hand, by good policy on our part, I believe it will be easy for England to acquire it. I trust the Congress will keep steadily before it this view—that the great object should be, not a temporary, but a permanent settlement—as far as human effort can achieve it—of this great question; for it would be beyond the power of all words, shocking and repulsive to think

  861
  that after the torrents of blood that have been poured forth, after the amount of human agony that has been inflicted, there should, in a few years, be a repetition of those horrors.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he did not think this was the time to come forward and recount the misdeeds of the Turks. He regretted that in this moment of defeat any one should have come forward to trample on the vanquished, and to flatter the arrogant. What did his noble Friend who opened the discussion say of the Treaties? It amounted to this—that they bound Turkey to take care of her Christian subjects; that England had an equal right with Russia and every other Power to go to war with Turkey to effect that object; but they gave to Turkey no matter of right whatever, and his noble Friend said that the partitioning of Turkey would be no violation of the Treaties. He could not help regarding that as a very strange view to take of those Treaties. He must ask what was the value of the Treaty at all? Was not the object of the Treaty to keep the peace in the East of Europe; and, if so, were not these wars violations of the Treaty? He was not a party to it, and was not in the Government at the time of the Crimean War, and could therefore speak with impartiality; but he did regret that they had such an attack from his noble Friend on a conquered and prostrate Power, our ancient Ally, and with whom we had a trade amounting to £11,000,000 or £12,000,000 yearly. With respect to the future, he hoped that now Turkey was, as he might say, "gone," something would be done for her unfortunate population, who had suffered so much, and that this country would do all in its power to lessen the misery which the war had occasioned.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDregretted that Russia had not spoken out more plainly and frankly with regard to the Treaty of Peace, and with regard to the terms of that Treaty. If she had done so, it would have allayed the great alarm, almost amounting to panic, which prevailed in this country. At the same time, he must confess we were, in a great measure, to blame in the matter; for surely we gave the Emperor of Russia no encouragement to lay his plans before us. They had, unfortunately—or perhaps we should rather say fortunately—
  862
  a war party in the country — there always was such a party—and he was grieved at the language used by Members of that party in that House, and in the House of Commons—language which, in his opinion, was scarcely becoming so great and powerful a nation as this was. When such language had been used, and in such places, he thought that they could not be astonished that the Emperor of Russia had not made us his confidant in giving to us before the other Powers information as to the terms of peace. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll), in his able speech, had displayed great knowledge of the Treaties of 1856 and 1871—but into that question he (the Duke of Rutland) would not enter. He might, however, observe that he was opposed to the Crimean War, and that he had at the time done his utmost to prevent this country from entering into hostilities against Russia. The course which he then took he had never regretted; but he was, nevertheless, prepared to admit that the Crimean War had produced throe great advantages. It proved, in the first place, that the British Army was as full of determination and pluck as it had shown itself to be at any previous period of our history. It gave us, in the second place, an insight into the mal-administration of the Army, and the many respects in which it required reformation —and which, he believed, had since been reformed—so that he hoped it was now in a satisfactory condition. There was a third advantage which we derived from that war, and that was knowledge that neither by force of Treaties nor of arms could Turkey be upheld, and that she was an anachronism in the European system. That a war party, at the same time, existed in the country could not, he thought, be denied; and he was reminded by that fact of a story which was told him by a noble Friend of his who happened to be travelling in a railway carriage with another gentleman, shortly after a horrible murder had been committed on one of the Metropolitan lines. The gentleman who was with his noble Friend turned to him and said—"I wonder you are not afraid to travel in this carriage with me alone." "Afraid," replied his noble Friend; "why should I be? I do not suppose you mean to attack me; and if you did, you may be perfectly sure I could defend

  863
  myself." Now, that was the way in which, in his opinion, we ought to meet the apprehended danger of Russian invasion. Such a mode of meeting it would certainly be more becoming to the greatness, real power, real strength, and enormous resources of England, than indulgence in anything like alarm or panic. He was happy, he might add, to find that the preliminaries of peace, at all events, had been concluded; and he hoped the Great Powers would soon go into a Conference, not with a view to bolster up Turkey, but to find for her Government some substitute, and make some satisfactory and permanent arrangement. If in that Conference the Representative of England, whoever he might be, found that her interests were threatened, Her Majesty's Ministers, as well as the Opposition, would, he felt assured, be prepared to defend her rights and interests, while bearing in mind that, in the words of his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, the first interest of England was peace.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, that much had been said of the misgovernment of the Porte; but he would remind their Lordships that when the troops of Russia first burst across the Danube, they were surprised at finding that the condition of the Bulgarian population was much better than they had anticipated—much better, in fact, than that of Russia herself. Then, with regard to the destruction of the Turkish Empire and Government, he wanted to know what they proposed to substitute for them? He thought that would be a very difficult problem to solve. The noble Duke opposite, who had included in his Notice a Motion for Papers relating to Greece, had not said a word about that country throughout the whole of his speech—although the Greeks constituted a large portion of the Christian population of European Turkey, and although, according to the proposed partition of Turkey, Greece would be completely cut off from Constantinople. The object of Russia was to keep out Greece from the new arrangements, and to extend Slav territory as far southwards as possible. If we were to succeed in the unjust, impolitic, and inconsistent policy of driving the Turks out of Europe, Greece, he contended, had the first claim on our generosity. A great portion of the speech of the noble
  864
  Duke (the Duke of Argyll) was founded on the assumption that there had existed in this country a party so far favourable to maintaining the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire that they would have joined in a war against Russia and united with Turkey. He (the Earl of Feversham) had never heard of such a party. He heartily regretted the refusal of Turkey to agree to the demands of the Conference, or to the Protocol of London; for a little timely obedience would have saved her many future disasters; but the result of her obstinacy had been, as everyone knew, to leave her dependent on her own resources. The noble Duke had said that it was open to any Power who had been a signatary of the Treaty of 1856 to take separate action; that, however, was not the opinion expressed by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his despatch of May 1, in which he censured the Russian Government and denied the right of any one Power to release itself from its engagements without the consent of the other contracting parties. A policy of conditional neutrality was, no doubt, very commendable; but the noble Earl must have known that the further the Russians advanced beyond the Balkans the more onerous would be the terms of peace. He could not but regret that when Plevna had fallen the noble Earl had not asked for some assurance or guarantee that the victorious armies would not advance further than Adria-nople. If some such step had been taken the Government might very fairly have said that further progress on the part of Russia would endanger interests which we should be prepared to defend; and if the Russian Government had declined to give the required guarantee, we ought to have taken action for the maintenance of those interests, oven though we desired to avoid war. We should have sent our Fleet into Turkish waters; and in that case Turkey would not have surrendered her last lines of defence, and we should have been in the position of the beati possidentes, and masters of the situation instead of Russia. The limitation of the Russian advance would then have been the condition of our neutrality. With regard to the terms of peace, he was afraid that European Turkey would disappear, while Bulgaria would practically fall

  865
  into the hands of Russia. In Armenia, if Russia was to have Kars and Batoum and Erzeroum, she would have bases of attack from which she could dominate the whole country, and which would render her a standing menace to India. As for Constantinople itself, he trusted that nothing would be done which would leave Turkey wholly weak and powerless, but that some amount—and a considerable amount—of territory in Europe would still remain under direct Turkish rule, and that, notwithstanding what had fallen from noble Lords who had turned their backs upon history and flung Treaties to the winds, we should try to retain as much as we could of those Treaties that had hitherto secured the interests of this country.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, the state of your Lordships' House would not encourage anyone to enter at unnecessary length into the questions, however important, which the noble Duke has raised in this discussion. At the same time, I do not wish to appear wanting in courtesy to my noble Friend, or to your Lordships. The noble Duke dealt mainly with retrospective questions—and, for my own part, I can perfectly understand his very natural and proper desire to explain and to justify the position and the views which he held at the time of the Crimean War. I am not, my Lords, disposed to criticize the statements of my noble Friend with regard to the Treaty of 1856, and for this reason—that inasmuch as I agree with him in his general conclusion, I do not know that it would serve any practical purpose to dispute or cavil at the arguments by which he arrived at that conclusion. I cannot, however, go quite so far as he does in one respect. When I read that 7th Article of the Treaty of the 30th of March, by which we engaged to respect the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, to guarantee the strict observance of that engagement, and to consider any act tending to its violation as a question of general interest, I cannot quite reconcile myself to the construction that that implies nothing more than that Turkey is admitted into the concert of European Powers. When you recognize and guarantee the independence and integrity of a nation, you certainly give some pledge that you will endeavour to pro-
  866
  vent that integrity and independence being violated, though it may be a question how far you will go in your efforts for that object. But I quite agree in the practical conclusion of the noble Duke that that guarantee, whatever it may be worth, does not involve an obligation on the guaranteeing parties to make war. It is expressly said that any act tending to the violation of the guarantee is to be considered a question of general interest; and nobody who examines the language of the Treaty will fail to see that that form of words would never have been adopted if it had been intended to bind each of the guaranteeing parties to make war. But I should be inclined to look at the matter from a more general point of view. I think we may take it for granted that if, at the time of the Crimean War, English statesmen and the English public had been told—"This is not a thing that you are doing once for all; you may set the Turkish Empire on its legs for another 20 or 25 years, but at the end of that time you will have to do the same thing again, and each succeeding generation of Englishmen after another will have to repeat the process for an indefinite length of time"—if that, I say, had been fairly put before the country, I think it is certain that we should never have had a Crimean War at all. I look upon the policy of that time as an attempt to see whether, by obtaining for the Turkish Empire a generation of peace and security from outward attack, it might not be possible to make that State really independent, self-supporting, and strong enough to protect itself against other Powers. That experiment has been tried; and, whatever we may think as to who it is on whom the blame should rest, the fact remains that Turkey has not shown itself to be a State which is able to stand permanently on its own resources. So far, then, as the trial of this experiment is concerned, the object aimed at by the Crimean War-has been attained, and the result has been unsuccessful. I agree, therefore, with the noble Duke's practical conclusion that we were quite free to decline to go to war in defence of the Turkish Empire. With regard to the other question which he raised— namely, as to the duty imposed on the Powers which guaranteed the Turkish

  867
  Empire, to see that proper protection was given to the subject-populations, there, again, I should say it is very difficult to lay down any fixed and definite rule. I agree with my noble Friend that as far as the Treaty itself goes it does not settle the question one way or the other. It simply says that the issue of the firman by the Sultan in favour of his Christian subjects is not to give to the contracting Powers any right of interference which they did not possess before. But whenever you take up the attitude of Protector towards any State, it follows as a necessary consequence that the assumption of that position involves a corresponding right of interference. Whenever we have discussed that subject in this House —and we have done so on several occasions within the last two years—I have always said that the practical limit of our right and duty of interference, as it seemed to me, was not so much one to be found in the letter, or even in the spirit of any Treaty into which we had entered; but was a limit fixed and defined by the practical impossibility of carrying into effect a policy of minute interference and intervention. With regard to the circumstances of the last two years, it is a question of simple fact that, foreseeing the great European complication which would follow on the Russo-Turkish War, we have done everything which seemed to us to lie in our power to prevent that war, short of a resort to force, or, what is the same thing, a menace of force. We hesitated a good deal before we agreed to join in the Andrassy Note, and we declined to take part in later proceedings, which were a further development of the same policy. We did so, because we were reluctant to embark on a course of action which we knew had been more or less arranged and settled by other Powers among themselves; but with regard to the aims and objects of which we were altogether in the dark. When that matter had ceased to be in question, we interposed to put an end to the Servian War—ostensibly on the face of it for the protection of Servia, but also with the distinct idea in our minds, that if the Turkish generals had pushed their advantages as they might have done, Russia could have taken part in the quarrel, and a Russo-Turkish war would inevitably have broken out. I must add that at
  868
  the proceedings of the Conference, again, we gave the Government of the Porte a fair and honourable mode of escape out of its difficulty. The Turkish Government very unwisely refused to avail themselves of the opportunity so offered to them. We were not even then discouraged. The idea of the Protocol was not one which originated with us; but we accepted it willingly, and it was proposed to the Porte as an expedient which might probably have served to avert war. The Turkish Government again refused to avail themselves of that opportunity—acting, as I have always believed, and still believe, not so much from overrating their own resources, or underrating the dangers to which they would be liable, as from the conviction that, do what they would, war was sooner or later inevitable, and therefore they might as well have it at once. However, when that was done—when the Protocol was rejected—it was clear that our part was played out, and that we had no alternative left us, except either to take part in the war, or to assume a position of neutrality. And, practically, there was no option; for a course of neutrality was the only course which any Government could at that time have adopted consistently with the state of public feeling in this country. The noble Earl (the Earl of Feversham) has asked why we did not interfere when the Russians had crossed the Balkans, and tell them that they must not go beyond Adrianople. There were two reasons. In the first place, a declaration of that kind would have been a wide departure from the conditions of neutrality which we had announced; and, in the next place, if we had fixed on Adrianople, or any other point, as the limit of the Russian operations, the inevitable effect would have been that the Turkish Armies would have fallen back beyond that point, and we should have been compelled, whether we would or not, to have become parties to the war. I may mention in this connection that I have observed frequent criticisms on the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in not taking up the Russian terms of peace in the summer, and endeavouring to induce the Government of the Porte to accept them. My answer to that is, simply that no man is bound to attempt to do that which he knows on the face of it to be impossible. The

  869
  Russian Armies had at that time made no considerable progress; and very shortly after those terms were communicated to us there began that remarkable series of temporary successes which the Turkish forces obtained; and your Lordships may judge of what the feeling at that time was in Constantinople, by the fact that a Turkish official —whether then actually in office I do not know, but a man eminent in public life—expressed to foreign diplomatists his hope that if the Porte succeeded in conquering the Russian Province of Georgia, Europe would allow them to keep it. Your Lordships will judge whether a people in that state of mind were likely to accept a peace such as was proposed by Russia. As to the general position, every man sees and feels that the state of things contemplated in 1856 and 1871 is a state which has ceased to exist. We may take those Treaties as a point of departure. We may say that we consider them as still binding, until Europe has ratified new arrangements; but if we take them as the point of departure, it is, undoubtedly, with the intention of departing from them. Your Lordships will not expect me to enter upon the question of the coming Conference, or to say what will be the language or the conduct of England at that Conference; but one or two principles, I think, we may at once lay down. We wish the settlement to be a settlement in a European, and not in an exclusively Russian sense. We wish it to be one which, as far as circumstances allow, may have in it an element of durability. We wish it to be one also which, as far as circumstances admit, will hold the balance fairly between different races and creeds. But I should only be deceiving your Lordships if I were to hold out the hope that the Conference will have before it an easy task. We have six Governments to deal with; each has its own view of the settlement that would be most desirable; and most of these Governments look at the question not merely as it concerns the points immediately in dispute, but as its decision may operate on the general system of European politics; that circumstance creates a condition of things, which is of no common perplexity. We will do what is in our power to bring about a satisfactory result; but what the result will be, it would be
  870
  unwise in any man to attempt to predict.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he wished the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when the Russian Ambassador told him it was not the interest of Russia to interfere with the road of England to India, had asked him what he meant by the road to India. He should not be surprised if Russia felt that round the Cape was the best way for soldiers to go to India. That would not be so strange as that Englishmen should think that, because there existed a road at present to India through the Suez Canal, that, therefore, was and always must be the best road to India; when we knew that if Russia obtained all she wanted in Asia Minor, she might, in four or five years, construct a railway to India. We were not specially interested in Turkey in Europe, and Austria would take care that a powerful Bulgaria should not be established on her frontier. It had often been hinted to us that if we wanted Egypt, there would be no great objection to our taking it. Egypt was interesting to us financially, but the country itself was of comparatively little importance to us. The Suez Canal was, of course, important; but we did not want Egypt in order to safeguard the Suez Canal. That would be safeguarded as long as we held the sea. It was the interest of a great many people that England should acquire Egypt. Every enemy of England wished to see her acquire Egypt; because her doing so might bring her into collision with France. It had been said that Turkey in Europe, as a military Power, had ceased to exist. At the end of the Franco-German War it was said that Franco, as a central military Power, had ceased to exist. Whether Turkey had ceased to exist as a military Power we could not tell yet. France, in a few years had sprung up as strong, if not stronger, than ever, and nobody could deny that the bulk of the Turkish nation had shown themselves to be full of vigour, and possessed of great vitality.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that even at that hour and in a House so thin he had risen for a moment to place himself in the same line with the noble Duke who had spoken on the right (the Duke of Somerset) and his noble Friend who had just sat down (the Earl of Dunraven). They must have both convinced the

  871
  House that the noble Duke who opened the debate (the Duke of Argyll) had not represented the Opposition benches. As that noble Duke had gone away—without one remark upon the Motion he concluded with—it might not be appropriate to touch on anything which seemed inaccurate or contradictory in his picture of events since 1856. But, as regarded his general arraignment of the Ottoman Empire, he (Lord Campbell), at a proper time, would be disposed to meet it, both as regarded the engagements the Sublime Porte had entered into, the degree to which they had been acted on, and the persons who were really to be blamed for their imperfect execution. While listening to the noble Earl the Secretary of State that night, he (Lord Campbell) was forcibly reminded of the "destructive criticism of Treaties," which a year ago the noble Duke had imputed to him as a habit. The noble Earl appeared to be resolved that night to give the noble Duke a copious illustration of it. But he would not detain their Lordships. If it seemed to him a duty to bring any further views before the House previous to the Conference, he would attempt to do it in some other manner. Little as he concurred with the arguments of the noble Duke, had he been present to divide the House upon his Motion, he (Lord Campbell) would have been able to vote with him upon it.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.