Sitting of 17 April 1879

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Cumberland County (Eastern Division), v. the Hon. Charles Wentworth George Howard, deceased.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class I., Vote 1, £29,540, Royal Palaces—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) * [125].
Second Reading—Land Drainage Provisional Order (Bispham, &c.) * [104]; Licensing Laws Amendment [25], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Inverness) * [112]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Paisley) * [110]; Blind and Deaf-Mute Children (Education) [93].

QUESTIONS.
  POST OFFICE—BOOK POST RATES—TRANSMISSION OF CIRCULARS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that the United States Congress has passed an Act to transmit circulars by the papyrograph, and other means of taking numerous impressions, as printed matter; and, whether the restrictions which the English Post Office are in future to place upon the transmission of such circulars have been determined upon from a legal construction of what is printed matter or with a view of improving Post Office revenue?
    LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, he was aware that the United States Congress had passed the Act referred to. As to the restrictions which the English Post Office were in future to place upon the transmission of such circulars, those restrictions had been determined upon from a legal construction of what was printed matter. The decision had been come to in consequence of an opinion obtained from the Law Officers of the Crown, not with the view of improving Post Office revenue, but of preventing ulterior loss. The Order, however, would not be put in force on the 1st of May next, and the whole subject was meanwhile undergoing further consideration.

  SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH COMPANIES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. RYLANDSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will lay upon the Table of the House Copy of any Correspondence which may have taken place between the Lords of the Treasury, the
    516
    Postmaster General, and the Comptroller and Auditor General, with reference to outstanding claims against Submarine Telegraph Companies?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, he could not produce the Correspondence in question. A number of the contracts were still under discussion, or were about to be discussed, and it would not be for the interest of the Public Service that the Correspondence—which necessarily entered into details—should be laid upon the Table before the contracts themselves were made public.

  AFGHANISTAN—THE WAR—ADVANCE ON CABUL.—QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question, of which I have given him private Notice. I wish to know, Whether it is true, as reported by a Reuter's telegram, printed, I think, in all the journals this morning, that General Maude's division has received orders to advance; whether the division is to go to Cabul; whether such an order has been given by the Home authorities; and, if so, what are the reasons for taking such a step?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, no such order was given by the Home authorities. Neither have we received any communication on the subject, nor have we any reason to believe there is any truth in the report.

  PRIVILEGE—THE CLARE WRIT.

    OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he desired to raise a question affecting the Privileges of the House. On the last day of the Sitting, before the Easter Recess, there was a Motion down in the name of the Secretary of State for the Home Department regarding the Clare Writ; but the right hon. Gentleman was in no great hurry to bring it on, and he postponed it until to-morrow (Friday). The House having adjourned, he (Lord Robert Montagu) was surprised to find from the Order Book that the consideration of the Report of the Select Committee was put down before Supply, and as the first Order of the Day. Many years ago it was the custom to move the adjournment of the House, and on that Motion Members brought forward

    517
    grievances. The practice was found inconvenient, because it involved a Member rising at the end of a debate and speaking upon a number of questions. A Committee was therefore appointed, and the result was, it was determined that Supply should take the place of the Motion to adjourn, that Supply should be put down as the first Order on Fridays, and that Members should move Amendments to the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair. In the course of the debate it was prophesied that in a few years the Government would try to take away the rights of private Members by putting down their Orders before Supply, and pledges were therefore given by Mr. Disraeli and Lord Palmerston, each on behalf of his Party, that Supply should always be the first Order of the Day. From that day it had been the first Order; but now the rule or understanding was departed from. It could not be said in excuse that the matter was one of Privilege, for the issue of a Writ did not come within the definition of Privilege given by the best authority on the question, Sir Erskine May, who said, in one of the editions of his book on the Rules and Practice of Parliament, at page 265—
    "Questions of privilege and other matters suddenly arising may be considered without previous notice; and the former take precedence, not only of other motions, but of all orders of the day. But, in order to entitle a question of privilege to precedence, it must refer to some matter which has recently arisen, which directly concerns the privileges of the House, and calls for its present interposition.…Such priority is conceded on the assumption that the earliest opportunity has been taken for bringing such a question before the House which precludes previous notice; and that the dignity of the House demands its immediate consideration.…As precedence is naturally desired by members, care is taken not to extend that claim to any motion which does not strictly relate to a matter of privilege."—[May's Parliamentary Practice, 7th ed. p. 265.]
    Neither did the case come within the category of questions of Privilege at page 82, which were—1, Disobedience to Orders or Rules of the House; 2, indignities to the character of Parliament; 3, insults to Members or reflections upon their character; and 4, in interference with the officers of the House in the discharge of their duty. In these circumstances, he would ask Mr. Speaker to declare his opinion, Whether the Order
    518
    in question could take precedence of Supply on Friday or any other night?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question of the noble Lord raises this point—Whether the consideration of the Report of the Committee with reference to the issue of the Writ for Clare is to be treated as a matter of Privilege or not? Upon the best consideration I can give to the matter, it appears to me it ought to be so treated, and as such it will necessarily take the first place on the Orders of the Day. I find, upon a former occasion, in 1839, when a Committee was appointed with reference to the question of the issue of a Writ for the borough of Southwark, the Committee made a Report containing Resolutions to the effect that the seat was vacant, whereupon the House at once considered these Resolutions and agreed to them, and the Writ was moved for at once. That course, in this instance, was not taken; but the House thought proper to postpone to a future day the consideration of the Report of the Committee, which, however, does not affect the main point, and I am of opinion that whenever the Report is considered by the House it may be properly treated as a question of Privilege, as affecting the seat of a Member of this House.

  THE "TICHBORNE DEMONSTRATION."

    QUESTION.
    DR. KENEALY: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the resolutions passed at a great meeting held on Monday last in Hyde Park with reference to the Tichborne Claimant, at present confined at Portland, that he was not Arthur Orton; and whether, taking into consideration that the large majority of the people of this country are in favour of that theory, he will cause an inquiry to be made on his subject, which has now been agitating the country for more than five years?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I suppose, Sir, that I, in common with other hon. Members, first heard of the report of the meeting referred to in the papers of Tuesday; but I have no official communication of the resolutions passed at that meeting. All I can say is, that it is not my intention to issue any further inquiry about the person referred to.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS.

    QUESTION.
    In reply to Mr. GOSCHEN,
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that he proposed to take Supply as the first Order of Business on Monday next, and that later in the evening he proposed to bring in a Bill with regard to Joint Stock Companies and Banks.

  EGYPT—FINANCIAL CHANGES—DISMISSAL OF MR. RIVERS WILSON AND M. BLIGNIERES.

    QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, that since the House last met some remarkable circumstances had occurred in Eastern Europe, as to which he wished to put a series of Questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As they would require a little explanation, to put himself in Order he would conclude with a Motion. It had been stated in the organs of public information that, in consequence of various proceedings, to which he need not further refer, as they were well known to the House, the Khedive had dismissed Mr. Rivers Wilson and M. Blignières, who had been called his European Ministers. He had seen that it was stated, also, that Mr. Rivers Wilson had declined to be so dismissed, alleging that he could not be dismissed without the permission of the Government of England. The House would remember that on a former occasion, when a Question with regard to the position of Mr. Rivers Wilson, was addressed by him (Sir Julian Goldsmid) to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the occasion of a Motion by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), the right hon. Gentleman clearly stated that Mr. Wilson was in Egypt as a servant of the Khedive, and that the Khedive had absolute authority to dismiss him without the interference of Her Majesty's Government; and the right hon. Gentleman added that they did not propose to have any direct communication with Mr. Rivers Wilson, because they did not wish it to be imagined that he in any way represented the British Government. That being so, the first Question he (Sir Julian
    520
    Goldsmid) desired to put to the right hon. Gentleman was, Whether it was true that Mr. Rivers Wilson had put in such a plea as had been alleged against his dismissal by the Khedive, his master; and, secondly, if such were the case, what reason or authority he had for saying he would not be dismissed without the permission of the British Government? This was a matter of considerable importance, because it had been asserted in various quarters that England and France were about to embark in a serious course of interference with Egyptian affairs. As he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) was one of those who thought that the Government had quite enough to do at present without interfering in the affairs of Egypt, he apprehended that the House of Commons would wish to know the exact position occupied by Mr. Rivers Wilson, both with regard to the Khedive and with regard to England. That was his (Sir Julian Goldsmid's) first proposition. He was quite aware that when Questions relating to foreign affairs were put in that House, it was the custom of the Government to adopt one of three courses in reply—either they replied that Ministers had no information; or that the matter in dispute was still pending, and that, as the Government was acting in concert with a Foreign Power, it would therefore be inconvenient to offer any explanation; or that, as the question had been settled, there was no use in discussing it. For his part, he objected to all and each of those three courses, and was of opinion that it was quite time the House of Commons should be taken a little more into the confidence of Her Majesty's Government than they were at present. Then, again, it had been said that an appeal had been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Sultan to dethrone the Khedive for having dismissed his European servants. He (Sir Julian Goldsmid) should like to know, Whether any such strange action had been adopted by the Government? Had any such course been taken, it would be a revival of a policy towards Egypt which would have most serious results, and would tend to perpetuate evils which it had, he thought, been the aim of British Ministers to remove. Upon this point he would also remark that it seemed strange that a British Government, having a quarrel

    521
    with the Khedive, if they had one, should not be able to manage that quarrel itself, but should have to seek the assistance of the Sultan to help them out of their difficulty. He therefore thought that if our Government had asked the Sultan to interfere it was very unwise. And the same thing should be said with regard to accepting any offer of interference on his part. There was another point of very considerable importance. When, upon a former occasion, he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there was any truth in a statement which appeared in the papers with regard to an intimation said to have been sent to the Khedive by Her Majesty's Government, as to the position of Mr. Rivers Wilson and M. de Blignières, the right hon. Gentleman replied that the French Government were acting in concert with the English Government, and therefore he was not able to say whether the statement was or was not correct. If such were the case, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state, Whether he considered it desirable that such action in concert, binding us to another Government, should be taken without the concurrence of the House of Commons? The result of such a proceeding, he thought, might be not only disastrous to ourselves, but disastrous also to our international relations; and as it was possible that the interests of France might be entirely different from our interests, Her Majesty's Government ought to hesitate before they pledged themselves to absolute unity of action in the matter. He was aware that his hon. Friend (Mr. E. Jenkins) had replied to the letter he had published in The Times on this subject; but, in his opinion, his hon. Friend had not touched the real question he had endeavoured to raise. We had, strictly speaking, no more right to interfere with the private government of Egypt than we had to interfere with the private government of any European country. All we had the right to do was to look after our interests in the Suez Canal. He repeated, he should like to know, Whether there were any, and, if so, what joint relations between the English and French Governments? The Suez Canal had nothing whatever to do with the interests of the bondholders. France had an interest in the latter on account of the Credit Foncier; but not
    522
    we. If people put their money into such loans in order to make extravagant gains, they ought to know that they were running extravagant risks; and there was no reason why Her Majesty's Government should endeavour to support them in their effort to obtain the immoderate rate of interest they claimed. If, as he had seen it stated, the French Government were not desirous of doing anything, he should concur with the Government in assisting them to do nothing; but if action was to be taken, the House ought to be informed of the relations existing between the two countries. Our position, as he had said, was entirely different from that of the French, and therefore he desired to know, What the joint action was to which the Government was stated to have pledged itself? And he should like to have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government would take no action which might involve this country in responsibility for Egyptian rule without having previously consulted Parliament. In conclusion, he held that because the Khedive had exercised his right to dismiss one or two of his Ministers, that was no adequate reason for our interfering with the Khedive, or inducing the Sultan to interfere. Therefore, he hoped the House would receive a full and frank explanation from the Government as to what was really being done or contemplated. This was all the more necessary, considering the number and the magnitude of our international complications at the present moment. He himself thought we should not take any unusual course in the present case, because Mr. Rivers Wilson was one of the Commissioners for the reduction of our National Debt. But rather the reverse; for since Mr. Wilson had left, the Government had forgotten all about the reduction of the National Debt. That was surely, therefore, one reason why he should come back to us and attend to his duties. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to set their minds at rest in connection with the points he had mentioned, and concluded with the Motion that the House do now adjourn.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman some additional Questions, and, therefore, he would second the Motion for adjournment. It would not be expedient, he

    523
    admitted, at present to discuss all the questions raised; but he wished to know first, How soon the Government expected to lay on the Table of the House further Papers relating to Egypt, and whether they would contain the text of the Identic Note said to have been despatched by England and France; and, secondly, whether it was true that the Government had made any implied or direct promise to the Italian Government to give them a place in the arrangements entered into at the time Mr. Rivers Wilson and M. Blignières were appointed; and whether it was true that there had been expressed on the part of the Italian Government any feeling of disappointment at the action which Her Majesty's Government had since taken? for it was as well that it should be known whether Her Majesty's Government were or were not in complete accord with the Italian Government on the subject.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Julian Goldsmid.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I think it would be hardly convenient to enter into a long and general discussion of the Egyptian question at the present moment. The matter is one on which I have spoken more than once, and at the proper time I shall be glad and willing to speak upon it again. But I am ready to answer the Questions which have been raised by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Julian Goldsmid), and I can say generally this—That these events, to which so much attention has been drawn, have occurred very recently; and although we have had several telegraphic communications on the subject, we have not received, and shall not receive until the end of this week, any full written communication respecting them, or any full explanation of what really has taken place, or of the grounds on which what has been done has been done. I will, therefore, only content myself by saying, with regard to the first Question put by the hon. Baronet whether it was true that Mr. Rivers Wilson has declined to be dismissed, that we have received no communication to that effect. It may be true, or it may not; but we have not received any communication on the sub-
    524
    ject. With regard to the next Question, as to whether an appeal has been made to the Sultan to interfere in the matter, no such appeal has been made; and with respect to the Question of concert with France, I have been somewhat mystified by the speech of the hon. Baronet, because the hon. Gentleman spoke in language which implied on his part a knowledge that we are in communication with France, that we have pledged ourselves to some joint action, and that he has almost equal knowledge that France is not going to take any action at all. I can only say that in the present state of things, not having received full explanation of what has taken place, we have not pledged ourselves to anything at all; but we are in communication with the French Government, who are very greatly interested in this matter as well as ourselves, and we shall, I have no doubt, very shortly be in a better position to decide what steps, if any, ought to be taken. I do not think I really can say more at the present moment. With regard to the first Question of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins), I believe that certain Papers relating to the Egyptian affairs are ready, and will be almost immediately presented to the House; but I am not able definitely to answer the Question. The second Question put by the hon. Member respecting the Italian Government is one of those Questions on which I would rather not enter at the present time.

  TURKEY—EASTERN ROUMELIA—THE PROPOSED JOINT OCCUPATION.

    QUESTION.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERwished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before the Motion of the hon. Baronet was withdrawn, Whether any credence should be given to the statements repeatedly made in the public Press, to the effect that the plan of a joint occupation of Bulgaria had been given up?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am not prepared to say that the plan is given up; but that is a Question of which I think it would be more convenient that Notice should be given. I do not understand that the plan has been absolutely given up; but, undoubtedly, questions have arisen with regard to it, and the attention of the

    525
    Powers has been turned in another direction.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID, while expressing his readiness to withdraw his Motion, said, that, inconsequence of the answers which he had received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would, in accordance with the views of the right hon. Gentleman, repeat several of his Questions on an early occasion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  TREATY OF BERLIN—PROTOCOL 13—GREECE AND TURKEY—RECTIFICATION OF FRONTIER.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. W. CARTWRIGHT, in rising to call attention to the portion of Protocol 13 of the Berlin Congress relating to a proposed rectification of frontier between Greece and Turkey; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, tranquillity in the East demands that satisfaction be given to the just claims of Greece, and no satisfaction can be considered adequate that does not ensure execution of the recommendations embodied in Protocol 13 of the Berlin Congress,"
  said, that in bringing forward his Motion, he wished to say a few words of explanation. Prom the commencement of the Session he had asked for Papers, but these had been persistently withheld; until at last he found that it was no longer possible to wait with the Motion in reference to Greece, of which his Notice had been down for a long while. Under these circumstances, he would have to claim the indulgence of the House, inasmuch as in the course of his statement he would have to rely on information that was not official. He trusted the House would believe that the information on which he ventured to rely was not mere rumour, but possessed some amount of value. The first who recorded his opinion was Count Capo d'Istrias, a Greek, it was true, and therefore perhaps a partial witness, but one thoroughly acquainted with the country.
  526
  He drew up a Memorandum, in which he urged the necessity of not separating from Greece the Provinces of Thessaly and Epirus. In 1829 there was in Poros a Conference of Representatives of the three Powers to settle the basis for pacification of Greece. They drew up a Protocol of recommendations. The English name affixed to it was that of Lord Stratford do Redcliffe, a guarantee that the plan proposed was one formed with knowledge and political prudence. That Protocol demanded for Greece, not merely on the Continent territory almost identical with that proposed for cession by the Berlin Congress, but also the incorporation with Greece of Crete and Samos. So strongly did Lord Stratford de Redcliffe feel the importance of Greece being made to include these territories, that he resigned when the decision of the European Cabinets refused to accept this project. The principle from which he approached the subject under consideration was this—that, in his opinion, there was nothing which made it incumbent in defence of British interests to avoid an alliance with what was progressive, and seek an alliance with that which was retrograde, as Her Majesty's Government seemed to have done in reference to Geeece. Although the Government had shown an indisposition to produce Papers on this subject, yet he was not speaking from mere gossip when he said that it seemed to him proved that before, at, and after the Congress at Berlin, the Government turned their back upon principles which they ought to have strenuously upheld, showing a striking contrast to the generosity, sympathy, and Liberal instincts of Lord Palmerston with regard to the freedom of Belgium and Italy. When that noble Lord directed the affairs of this country, he was careful that nothing should dissociate the British Government from what was progressive in Europe, and should lead them to associate themselves with that which was retrograde. That policy, he (Mr. Cartwright) considered the policy worthy of a great statesman; whereas, in the action of Her Majesty's Government towards Greece, there had been exhibited almost a cynicism in the indifference which had been shown to the claims of that country. It was easy to say that there were shortcomings on the part of Greece. Where was there a nation without shortcomings?

  527
  but where, on the other hand, would they find a more busy and active element than an industrious Greek? Turkey in Europe was dying out, physically and morally, and was shrinking. Was that the case with Greece? The population of the ancient Kingdom had increased from 752,000 in 1838 to 1,220,000 in 1870. It could not be said that there was a blight on the country, when they had such a fact as that. This progress had taken place under circumstances avowedly the most disadvantageous that any country had ever had to struggle against. If the Spirit of Evil had devised deliberately a configuration that was intended to be most adverse to the well-being of the country, that Spirit could not have devised a configuration worse than that into which the people of Greece had been squeezed by the unwisdom of European Cabinets. The fact had been recognized by a series of eminent statesmen. When the Kingdom of Greece was created in 1830, it was by a concurrence of testimony and authority established that what was then created was not a real Kingdom of Greece, but an abortion. In 1854, Lord Palmerston felt so much the importance of strengthening the Kingdom of Greece that he favoured the annexation of Epirus. Indeed, Lord Beaconsfield himself, last year at the Congress, admitted that the existing Frontier of Greece was an indefensible one, and that it "constituted a danger and disaster." The Greek Frontier, which was fixed in 1830, was not one which made the Kingdom, but one which truncated and crippled the country, while at the same time European diplomacy had weighted the nation with an exorbitant load of debt. His charge against Her Majesty's Government was that they had thoroughly broken the hopes they had held out to Greece. Greece had never concealed her desires, but she never unduly pushed them. In fact, it could be shown from the Papers, such as had been published, that from first to last what Greece said was, "If England will give us her promise that she will let us have a helping hand, we will leave to her the fulfilment of our hopes and aspirations." What was the result? Her Majesty's Government invariably assumed an unfavourable attitude towards Greece, although the greatest Ministers of England had always made it a cardinal point of their
  528
  policy to promote the interests and extension of Greece as the proper course of England to adopt for the ultimate solution of the Eastern Question in accordance with the real interests of England. It was owing to the pressure put upon Greece by England that Greece did not join the late war against Turkey; and that being the case, the Government was bound to support the interests of Greece, and take care that the very moderate decisions of the Congress in her favour were carried out in their integrity. The impartial student of contemporary history, in so far as it related to this question, must, he thought, conclude that Her Majesty's Government had utterly broken the promises made to the Greeks, while the Greeks themselves had, on the other hand, in no way shown a want of confidence in the hopes they were led to entertain. When war broke out between Russia and Turkey, an agitation naturally sprung up among the Greek population; and Her Majesty's Government, anxious to circumscribe the dangers of Turkey, made representations upon that matter to the Greek Government. On June 9, 1877, Lord Derby wrote, calling the attention of the Greek Government to the subject of the agitation that prevailed, and urging them to take steps to arrest it, that agitation being upon the Turkish Frontier and among populations which were under Turkish rule. The Greek Minister replied, expressing confidence in the English Government, and he said that his Government would be entirely guided by Her Majesty's Government; but he asked for some assurance that Greek interests should not be allowed to suffer upon the conclusion of peace. This was the key to their language throughout. Greece, from first to last, said that all that was asked was that there should be a consideration of the Hellenic Question, whenever the questions arising out of the war came to be considered. There was no cloaking or concealing of what it was that Greece wished, for she said, from first to last, that she wished the Hellenic Question to be considered. On July 7, Lord Derby sent a reply to the appeal that had been made to him; and a very cautious and uncertain one it was. He asked what was the precise meaning of the phrase "the Hellenic Question?" and he said that the Govern-

  529
  ment were not prepared to give assurances as to events that might occur; but he was ready to assure the Greek Government that so far as lay in the power of the English Government, when the time came for a settlement of the questions that had been raised, it would use its best influence to secure to the Greek populations any administrative reforms that might be conferred upon the inhabitants of other Provinces. It was a kind of stock phrase that ran through all that English Correspondence, that English Ministers would use to the utmost their ability, their influence, and their power in insuring a consideration of Greek desires. These assurances were accepted in good faith by Greece, and she never gave way in her confidence that to the best of our power we should secure the consideration of the Hellenic Question. In consequence of the advance of the Russian troops there was a great effervescence among the Greek population, which was at first supposed to arise from a kind of conspiracy. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, took a remarkable step. They spoke in terms of menace, and said that, as a protecting Power, we had a right to expect that Greece would follow the course which had been pointed out for her. Months passed, and at last the Congress met; and when it came to be a question of discussing the Greek Frontier, Lord Beaconsfield, though he spoke in no enthusiastic terms with regard to Greek claims, made one remarkable statement, for he said the movement of the Greek population in the Provinces of Turkey had not boon fomented by the Greek Government. He would now say a few words as to the Congress. When it was about to meet, on the 23rd of February last year, an official demand was addressed to Her Majesty's Government for the admission of Greek Representatives to the then approaching Congress, and then the assurance was given that the condition of the Hellenic population would be discussed at the approaching Congress. There was a reiteration of the Greek demand and the nature of it, and it was declared that it was a sacred duty on the part of the Greek Representative to plead the cause of the Hellenic population of the Ottoman Empire. The answer of Lord Derby was dated March 9, and in it he declared that Her Majesty's Govern-
  530
  ment had considered the appeal which had been thus made to them, that they were of opinion the Greeks were fairly entitled to be represented at the Congress, and that they would signify this opinion to the other Powers. There was not one word of reservation here as to the Greek claims when the Congress was about to meet. When the Congress was about to assemble, Lord Salisbury, as Foreign Secretary, drew up instructions for the third British Plenipotentiary, Lord Odo Russell; and amongst the questions which our Ambassador at Berlin was told to prepare his mind for were those connected with the administrative institutions in Thessaly, Epirus, Crete, and other Provinces, and with the claims which w7ould undoubtedly be advanced by the Government of Greece to some of these Provinces—claims which ought to receive careful consideration. It could not be said that Her Majesty's Government did not understand the sense and meaning which the Greeks put upon the claims which they advanced. But when the Congress actually met, the British Representatives proposed to limit the right of the Greeks to be heard to parochial matters—matters of internal or ecclesiastical organization; school matters; matters of considerable local importance, but of a strictly parochial bearing. Thanks, however, to French, and not to English auspices, the Greeks were allowed to be heard in reference to political questions—in reference to the future of the Turkish Provinces bordering upon their country. The Conference was brought to a close, and the Treaty which was the result of it contained a clause—the 24th—providing that, in the event of Turkey and Greece not being able to arrive at a rectification of Frontier, in accordance with the lines which had been proposed by the French, and grudgingly accepted by the English Representatives, the Greek Government might apply to the Powers, with a view to obtain their mediation for the execution of that portion of the Treaty. In what he was now about to state on this head he was obliged, in consequence of the reticence of Her Majesty's Government, to speak from private information, but from information which he believed to be thoroughly trustworthy. The Congress was brought to a conclusion in July last; but it was not until

  531
  after the lapse of six months, in December, that the Turkish Government could be induced to take the slightest step, not towards the execution of the provision of the Treaty to which he referred, but towards recognizing the fact that such a provision existed. On the 17th of July, according to his information, the Greek Government requested the Porte, in deference to the resolutions of the Congress, to appoint Commissioners with the view of carrying out or negotiating a rectification of the Frontier on the basis of the Berlin Treaty; but six weeks elapsed without there being a possibility of getting even an acknowledgment of the receipt of that demand. It would almost seem that the acknowledgment was considered by the Turkish Government to be sufficient, for no notice was taken of the request itself; and on the 2nd September the Greek Government again addressed the Porte on the subject, and asked that the Commissioners should be appointed within a week; and what was the reply? The Grand Vizier, Safvet Pasha, said—"I have had no time to take your demand into consideration. I must go to the Sultan, and I must also talk with my colleagues." Subsequently the Greek Minister at Constantinople was informed that, some weeks before, a Memorandum had been drawn up by Safvet Pasha and sent to the Powers, complaining of the decision which had been arrived at by the Congress on the question of the rectification of the Greek Frontier, and stating that he would not communicate with Greece with reference to it till he had received an answer to his Circular from the Powers. That was a Circular which had been sent out by Safvet Pasha with a view to secretly rendering altogether nugatory the decisions which had been openly arrived at by the Congress. Greece, being afterwards told that there was no chance of Commissioners being appointed and that nothing would be done in the matter, turned to the Powers and addressed a Circular to them, in virtue of the provision contained in the Berlin Treaty, calling for mediation; and out of this appeal had arisen the despatch of the 21st of October, from the French Government addressed to the English Government, in which M. Waddington drew attention to the danger of the claims of Greece being ignored, and of the importance of
  532
  friendly and trustworthy relations being established between Turkey and Greece, remarking upon the great impropriety of Turkey being permitted to pick this and that out of the Treaty, and to accept or reject just what she pleased. M. Waddington concluded by saying that the moment had arrived to offer mediation between Turkey and Greece, and that he hoped Her Majesty's Government would join with France in offering that mediation. No answer to that despatch had ever been published; but as the proposed mediation had never been acted upon, the only conclusion to be drawn was that our Government were not willing to respond to the appeal made to them, and that they had thrown cold water upon the proposal. At length, on the 25th of December, the Porte informed the Greek Government that a Commissioner—Mukhtar Pasha—had been appointed to consider the proposed rectification of the Frontier, and two days afterwards Greece communicated the name of the Commissioner selected to act on its behalf. The Porte thereupon put a lamentable amount of miserable pettifogging obstructions in the way of the consideration of the question. A place of meeting for the Commissioners was appointed which did not exist save in the imagination of those appointing it, and then Mukhtar Pasha could not be found; the result being that weeks elapsed, and ultimately it was announced, on the part of the Ottoman Government, that they had not found time to draw up instructions for their Commissioner, whose departure must consequently be postponed. When these obstacles were overcome and the Commissioners at last succeeded in holding a meeting, which took place on February 8, it was said on behalf of the Turks that no instructions had been given by the Ottoman Government with reference to the interpretation put upon the Protocol, and that it was for the Greek Commissioner to say what the interpretation was. The Greek Commissioner, however, repudiated the responsibility, and the matter being referred to Constantinople, 35 days elapsed before any reply could be obtained. When the reply did come, the Turkish Commissioner proposed to give a little slice of territory to Greece—an offer which was naturally rejected—and the Conference came to an end without any

  533
  settlement of the question. On the 21st March an appeal was made to the Powers to mediate according to the terms of the Berlin Protocols. By the Resolution which he (Mr. Cartwright) proposed he did not commit the House to this or that point of detail, but merely asserted that the rectification of Frontier proposed by Prance, and accepted by the Berlin Congress, was the minimum of that which was necessary to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of the Greeks. He disputed the allegations that such a rectification would be regarded with dissatisfaction by the Albanians, or that there was any rivalry between them and the Greeks. He could say of his own knowledge, at least, that a few years ago Janina was thoroughly Greek in character. It was the site of an old ecclesiastical see, dating from the beginning of the 14th century, and not many years ago more than half the population were Greeks. Moreover, in the darkest days of Greek oppression, when the Mussulman rode roughshod over the land, Janina was a place in which Greek letters and culture prevailed more than anywhere else. The Albanian population was not restricted to Albania proper; be had found them in the heart of the Morea and in Athens itself, and among those who had been foremost in all the wars of independence the Albanians were conspicuous. They should not, therefore, run away with the idea that because deputations had come from some places to protest against the destruction of Albania, therefore the Albanian population were animated by a strong anti-Greek feeling. He would not deny, however, that there were Albanians who had no Greek sympathies; they were in the northern part of Albania, and were of the Catholic, not of the Greek faith. The case which he put before the House was a melancholy one for an Englishman. The facts in the Blue Book showed that the action of the Government had not certainly been one of cordiality to Greece; they had not stretched out the hand to a nationality which contained the elements of progress and promise for the future. The Government had taken up on every capital occasion a position behind which the Turk had been able to screen himself. He believed, however, that before long the principal thing for which the Treaty of Berlin would be remem-
  534
  bered was, that it was from the date of that Treaty that the Hellenic Question had become a reality, and an important reality, in the political development of the East, because, from the day that it had obtained a recognized place in the register of diplomacy, it could not be ignored. It was because he entertained a firm belief that there was no possibility of shelving the question, unless they laid violent hands upon and strangled the Greek population, that he had ventured to call the attention of the House to the subject, and to submit his Resolution, which affirmed that the proposed rectification of Frontier between Greece and Turkey, contained in Protocol 13 of the Berlin Congress, was the minimum of that which, was necessary to satisfy the just claims of Greece.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in seconding the Resolution, said, that anyone who had heard the exhaustive statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) must be convinced that there had been a melancholy consistency in the action of Her Majesty's Government towards Greece. However individual Members might have been at variance with one another, Her Majesty's Government, whether represented by Lord Derby, Lord Salisbury, or Lord Beaconsfield, whether at an early or at a later stage of these negotiations, had invariably assumed a tone of discouragement, neglect—he had almost said dislike—towards the aspirations of the Greek Government and people. If Lord Derby and Lord Salisbury chilled them with their despatches, Lord Beaconsfield froze them with his speeches. If, when the Greeks appealed for better government, they met for the moment with a certain illusory support, they soon found themselves in the position of the person who, when he asked for bread, was presented with a stone; for when they required a rectification of Frontier, so that there should be a transfer of populations, Christian in religion and Greek in sympathy, to the rule of the Greek Government, they were met with illustrations of the desirability of improved local relations and better parochial government. The 13th sitting of the Congress of Berlin began with a curious speech from the Prime Minister, containing reflections on a predecessor

  535
  of his own—one of the most eminent statesmen of this country. The Prime Minister denounced the settlement made by him with regard to the Greek Frontier as "imperfect and disastrous." It was the Duke of Wellington who was mainly responsible for the arrangements made at the time of the liberation of Greece. If the wide line which was asked for by the Count Capo d'Istrias, and of which Lord Stratford de Redcliffe had expressed himself in favour, had not been adopted, no one was more responsible than the Duke of Wellington, who was then at the head of a Conservative Administration. When, however, they found a Conservative Minister in 1878 denouncing the work of his Conservative predecessor as having been imperfect and disastrous, they were not obliged to show extraordinary deference to the recommendations of the present Prime Minister, who was animated by the same unfortunate dislike to the principle of nationalities, and of increasing the liberties of countries long oppressed, which had inspired the Duke of Wellington. He wished particularly to call attention to that part of the speech in which Lord Beaconsfield summed up the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government by asserting that he was not in favour of anything which could be called a territorial aggrandizement of Greece, and that he only unwillingly and out of deference to the opinions of his illustrious Colleagues consented to what he called a rectification of Frontier. Having drawn this distinction, the noble Earl proceeded to make that famous joke or sarcasm that contained much which was cruel when you considered its object. Comparing nations with individuals, he asserted that each had a future, and he told the Greek Government that the best thing they could do was to have patience and wait. In point of fact, however, the nations which had played a mighty part in the history of the world were not those which had relied upon a vague expectation of the future. They were those which had relied on their own strong arms and their diplomatic skill and on that Providence which, in the long run, always acted on the side of long-suffering nations. Since the Declaration of Independence and the Coronation of King Otho, Greece had upon the whole proved itself to be worthy of those great privileges of liberty and Constitutional govern-
  536
  ment which, after much hesitation, the Great Powers of Europe were induced to confer upon it, and he believed that the paper bonds with which diplomacy had attempted to fetter its hands would be rapidly torn asunder. His hon. Friend had mentioned the increase of population. Quite recently a German work had been published at Gotha, which contained a carefully-prepared statistical survey of the present Kingdom of Greece and of the neighbouring countries. The fourth part, just issued, had especial reference to the Provinces of Thessaly and Epirus. The author adduced numerous facts to show there was every reason for believing that the Kingdom of Greece was in a fair way to fulfil, not, perhaps, those poetical aspirations which so entranced literary gentlemen many years ago at the time of its emancipation, but the hopes of men of business, who knew that before any great development could be made in the direction of intellectual work or literary performance a certain modicum of material comfort and wealth was absolutely necessary. We must, of course, ask ourselves this question—"Do the Greeks come into court with clean hands?" Could the Greeks say—"We have since 1830 so governed the lands you gave us, and also the Ionian Islands, that we can certainly say that the countries which we ask you to transfer to us will be improved in their lot." Since 1830, the population of Greece had almost doubled. In that year, owing to the centuries of despotism under which Greece had suffered, and to the devastation to which it had been exposed in the struggle against Turkey—a devastation which had not been equalled in Europe since Turenne ravaged the Palatinate—there were only nine towns of which it could be said that one stone stood upon another, whereas there were now no fewer than 130 "populous places," which were shown to be places of importance by the fact that they possessed post-offices. Then the German author showed that the area of cultivated land in Greece had, since 1830, increased by nearly one-third, and now stood at 2,500,000 acres. It would be said that that was not a large per centage out of a total acreage of 15,000,000 acres; but the land had been wasted for years by Turkish despotism, and a large portion of it could only be cultivated after an enormous expenditure

  537
  of labour and capital. Again, Greece produced at the present moment three-fourths of the cereals necessary for its own consumption. In 1830 there were 380,000 mulberry trees, whereas there were now 1,300,000. The number of olive trees had also increased from 300,000 to 7,000,000, and the fig trees from 50,000 to 980,000. He would now consider whether the Greeks had been true to the ancient fame of their race as a commercial and maritime nation. In 1821 there were only 450 ships which could be fairly said to hail from Greek territory, and their tonnage was only 52,000. In 1878 there were 5,200 Greek vessels with a tonnage of 250,000. Turning to the subject of education, he found that their progress might not be so great as could be wished; but of the boys of school age two-thirds did make a certain attendance, and at the last Census in 1870, 33 per cent of the population were able to read and write. Those facts he considered very remarkable, seeing that they had been achieved in the very limited period since Greece became an independent Power. It was not long since England could say that only 33 per cent of her population were able to read and write, and surely they were not to condemn Greece. If the Greeks had not made all the progress which could be desired, still they were making honest attempts to improve their position and to prove themselves worthy of the great privileges conferred upon them. Indeed, considering that the mind of the Greek Government had been perpetually diverted by troubles on their borders, the material, moral, and intellectual advance they had made was really considerable. Again, the Greeks had shown themselves to possess in a singular degree the peculiar quality, which was a clear mark of a Sovereign people—he meant the power of assimilating whatever fragments of other nations and populations might be found within their borders. In 1830, when Greece was made independent, there was a very large Albanian population within it borders; and there was also in some of the Frontier districts in the North a considerable Wallach element, who had settled down to habits of industry and obtained employment. Mr. Martin's work showed the vast extent of the Albanian population within Greece proper. Since 1830, not
  538
  only there had not been the smallest discontent on the part of that population, but to all intents and purposes the difference between them and the Greeks had disappeared, owing to the Greek tongue having become the tongue of the Albanians within the borders of Greece. Those Albanians were characterized by great social and industrial activity, and their race had furnished to the Greek soil the greatest number of cultivators, as well as a valuable maritime class. An enormous amount of excitement had been raised on the ground that a largo Albanian population, contrary to its own wishes and to all the principles of national justice, was about to be separated from its mother race, and incorporated in the Greek Kingdom. But in the Greek Kingdom the Albanian race found a natural homo, was welcomed by the Greek people, and had not rebelled; and it might be anticipated that when the Greek Kingdom got an extension of territory, even if in the territory so ceded there was a certain Albanian population, that population, being kindred to the Greeks in mind, in wishes, and in aspirations, would not prove a source of difficulty or of danger either to Greece or to Europe; but, on the contrary, like the Albanians within its present limits, be a fresh source of strength to the Kingdom, which they had illustrated by glorious deeds of naval daring during the War of Independence. He would ask the attention of the House to an article which he had yesterday seen in The Augsberg Gazette with regard to the population which was dealt with by the 13th Protocol of the Berlin Congress. The result of that article—the writer of which evidently had no leaning in favour of Greece, but a strong desire to do everything that was just to the Albanians—was that the whole of the district of Epirus, which it was proposed now to cede to Greece, with the exception of a small tract on the sea coast inhabited by Albanian Mahomedans, was entirely inhabited by Greeks or by Albanian Christians, who were closely allied by sympathy and by common traditions to the Greek nation. As to what was proposed with regard to Thessaly, he would observe that, although the Greek Government, with great wisdom and moderation, had agreed strictly to the Protocol of the Congress, and expressed their willing-

  539
  ness to be satisfied with, the line of the Salembria river, yet he thought it would be impracticable to make that river a satisfactory boundary. It was laid down by high authorities that the worst Frontier was a river. Whatever discontent there had been among the Greek population South of the Salembria existed also among the population North of that river. In his opinion, Greece was entitled to hold the line of hills which would guard her Frontier. He felt that he had troubled the House too much with matters of detail; but he had noticed the tendency in conversations and in the discussions in the Press to advance this question of boundaries until it had become one of enormous importance; and the broad fact which he wished to impress upon the House and the Government was that Epirus, and certainly that portion of it which was included in the town of Janina, was inhabited by a population mostly Greek, but almost altogether Christian. The line of demarcation was more of religion than of race, and only on the coast on the Western side was there any appreciable number of Albanian Mahomedans. He hoped and trusted that the Government would abandon, if they had not already abandoned, the carping spirit in which apparently, in the Treaty of Berlin and since, they had approached the legitimate claims of the Greeks, and that they would once more identify the name of England with the great cause of liberty in the East of Europe. He did not believe that England had always followed one foreign policy, but that it had been repeatedly altered, according to the home policy of the Government of the country. He believed that if it had not been the will of Providence to take away Mr. Canning when he died, all the vexed questions which had troubled the present generation would have been settled, or placed in a fair way to be settled. He was, however, succeeded by the Duke of Wellington, who opposed the policy Canning had pursued, and desired to confine the Greeks in as narrow limits as possible. Although the arrangements which were made last year would not as a whole work, there was one thing which he feared would remain in the minds of the inhabitants of Eastern Roumelia, and that was a detestation of the English
  540
  name, owing to the fact that they would believe that the mind of the English nation, as represented by its diplomacy, was opposed to the acquirement by them of liberty and good government. That being the case, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would fortify themselves with the support and goodwill of the Greek people. If they did not, he feared the day was not far distant when another English Prime Minister might have to say, like the Duke of Wellington, that there never had been any question in his memory so disastrous to the interests of England as the Greek question; and that once more the English nation might have to feel that the councils of her Ministers had brought contempt on the policy of England.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, tranquillity in the East demands that satisfaction be given to the just claims of Greece, and no satisfaction can be considered adequate that does not ensure execution of the recommendations embodied in Protocol 13 of the Berlin Congress,"—(Mr. Cartwright,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, although I am desirous of saying a few words on the present occasion, I should very gladly, indeed, have refrained from doing so, if I had understood that the Government, or any individual of it, was prepared without delay to do so; because I feel that we approach the subject under very great disadvantages in the state of ignorance in which we unfortunately stand, having had no Papers placed in our hands and having no authoritative intimation of the intentions or of the actions of Her Majesty's Government. However, I hope that delay on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite will be soon supplied, and that what we may say on the present occasion may not bear an adverse construction; and I am sanguine enough to believe that even in the present House of Commons there may be found a disposition on the part of many hon. Members to encourage the first of legitimate aspirations on the part of the Hellenic races after freedom, and I hope that the declaration of the Government

  541
  will be such as to give satisfaction to the House and to the country. For my own part, I have been exceedingly desirous during these last few months, as far as my judgment could guide me, to avoid saying anything which could interfere with the fairest and best chance which the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin might have of taking full and unmixed effect, and for that reason I would not introduce into the discussion the slightest allusion to any of the questions remaining unsettled under the Treaty, except the question which has been now submitted to the House. With respect to that question, I think in every point of view we must acknowledge our debt of obligation to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) and my noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), not only for the great care and ability with which they have treated the subject, but likewise for their having undertaken at the present time to bring it under consideration, because this is not a discussion which aims at interrupting or modifying the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin. Had it been so, whatever I might have thought of those stipulations originally, I should have thought it a great responsibility to have taken it upon myself, as a Member of Parliament, to have endeavoured to interfere with the decisions of a European Congress, and that which it decreed or recommended; but on the present occasion the case is entirely different. The contention of my hon. and my noble Friends is not that the Treaty of Berlin has been maintained by Her Majesty's Government and is likely to be enforced upon the Hellenic population; it is directly the reverse. It is that the Treaty of Berlin contains recommendations which are valuable and important in the interests of the liberty and happiness of Greece, and that so far as we know we have as yet received no evidence whatever that our Government, the Government of this country, the whole of whose traditions are connected, inseparably connected, with freedom, has acted energetically in support of the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin. Now, Sir, that is really what we are entitled to ask of Her Majesty's Government. If Her Majesty's Government should state to-night that they are engaged in negotiations, that the matter is approaching maturity and has not yet reached it, I
  542
  can well believe that the House may feel that there is necessarily great force in such a plea when used by a Government, because on the conduct of such negotiations a great deal may depend. I do not know what may be the intention of my hon. Friend with regard to taking a Division upon this Motion. I assume it may depend a good deal upon the tone adopted by the Ministry; but, Sir, we know that the case stands thus—we know that the Porte has gone back upon its usual resources of craft, and inert but obstinate resistance; and every device that ingenuity can suggest has been used to evade giving effect to the recommendations of the Treaty of Berlin, notwithstanding that the signature of its own Minister is appended to that document. And, further, we know this—that it is not a case in which, so far as our information goes, Her Majesty's Government have difficulty to apprehend upon the part of other European Powers. There is abundant evidence that France is in earnest. We have most unfortunately allowed her to take, with reference to the Hellenic races, the first place as the champion of their interests and the mainstay of their hopes. But that does not exclude us from active and energetic co-operation. Whatever comments may be made on the conduct of our Plenipotentiaries at Berlin—and I, for my own part, felt it my duty to make some severe comments upon it—the door is not yet closed. The expectations held out to the Greeks by Lord Salisbury in the despatch of the 8th of June, 1878, remain on record, and as it was only referred to without citing the words a short time ago, I should like to read the words of that despatch to the House. On the 8th of June, 1878, Lord Salisbury wrote—
  "The claims which will undoubtedly be advanced by the Government of Greece in reference to some of these provisions will receive the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Plenipotentiaries, and, I doubt not, that of the Representatives of other Powers."
  That language was language as strong as it was possible for a Government to use in the view of a European Congress, and it conveyed, with as little reservation as diplomatic usages would allow, the distinct intention of the British Government. It was a pledge to the Government of Greece to support and to advance, within reasonable limits, the

  543
  territorial claims of the Greet Government. I dwell upon this, because there was one sentence in the speech of ray hon. Friend from which I thought an inference might be drawn the reverse of what he intended—namely, that the pledges of the Government had been confined to administrative, or, as he called them, "parochial" claims. At the time this despatch was written, the territorial claims of Greece, and all of them, were entirely and bodily before the Minister who wrote it, and. it was with the fullest knowledge of what Greece sought that these words were used; and I am within the judgment of the House when I speak this opinion, with great confidence, that those who, under such circumstances, promised careful consideration to certain territorial claims on their part, and express an undoubted belief that similar consideration will be given them by the Representatives of other Powers do, in fact, convey their intention to grant and to promote those measures, within reasonable limits, so far as lies in their power. That pledge, so far as we know, remains, down to the present time, entirely unredeemed; but there is yet time for us to redeem it. It certainly was not redeemed at the Congress, because the only record bearing upon it in the Protocols was a record of scruple and difficulty raised by the British Plenipotentiaries in respect to the territorial concession made by the Congress. Turkey has used every effort to evade it; but the result of the Congress is that we now believe that no one of the Continental European Powers is antagonistic to the claims of Greece. France labours, and has done so, energetically, consistently, and wisely, as well as generously, to promote them, and what is required to procure their complete success—their success, I mean, according to the intentions and spirit of the Congress—depends upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. In these circumstances I do not wish to give to this debate a polemical aspect. I do not wish, so far as I am concerned, to press the Government at a given moment to go beyond the limits they may think those which discretion requires them to observe; but I do wish to convey to them, and to the House, my opinion that the claims on the part of the Greek Kingdom and the Greek races is a very
  544
  strong claim indeed. For a long time the people of this country, and even many hon. Members of this House, allowed the same Russian antipathies and apprehensions to prevail upon them with respect to the Hellenic populations of Turkey as prevail upon them still, to a great extent, with respect to its Slavonian populations. What I must call the cant of a section of persons was, that all these Greek and Christian populations of Turkey would fling themselves into the arms of Russia. Now, at length, we have got rid entirely of that superstition. It has at length come to be understood that there is something of an antagonism and a sharp, perhaps a too sharp, and unwise antagonism between the Hellenic and the Slavonian Christians of the Turkish Empire. There do exist very strong sympathies indeed between the Slavonian populations, and probably also the Armenian populations, and the Russians. But as regards the Hellenic races the case is altogether different. The field is altogether and absolutely open. You have nothing to deter you from entering. You are invited to enter by the obligations of the Treaty of Berlin, by the co-operation of France, and, I will venture to say, by the strong and general feeling of the British nation. I do, therefore, hope that the declaration of the Government to-night will be of such a character as my hon. Friend desires, and one that will give us some hope that they are about to act in this direction. I take it for granted that my hon. Friend is not weighted with a pedantic regard to the precise terms of the Motion. That would be very alien indeed to his character. I was glad to hear him say himself that what he had in view was the spirit of the Treaty of Berlin, and not the exact observation of a line which may have been drawn in haste. I trust, then, that either this evening, or on some future occasion, we shall have favourable assurances from Her Majesty's Government that they will endeavour to give a full, an early, an energetic effect to the Treaty, not with injustice to Turkey, but in the interests of Greece. The time that has elapsed for its fulfilment is too long. There is no justification for it, and it is, in my opinion, absurd to set up the pretext that there have been real justifying causes for a delay of nine months before a single step is taken

  545
  to give effect to the recommendations of this Treaty of Berlin. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend opposite, or the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, will be able to give the assurances we desire to-night, in plain language that will satisfy the country, and will tell us that the subject has not been brought before the notice of the House with any undue degree of impatience. Ere long we shall look for a distinct and full account of the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government with reference to this important stipulation, for I must say that much of the happiness of the people of the East depends upon it, and much, also, of the honour and credit of our own country. I do not think it at all necessary that I should enter into detail upon all the topics upon which my hon. Friend and my noble Friend have dwelt so ably; but I entirely subscribe in substance, and I would almost say in detail, to the just and legitimate declaration which they made with regard to the present state and reasonable claims of Greece. No doubt there were expectations too sanguine and too high-flown at the time of the political regeneration of the country, and there is now a certain amount of disappointment. We must, however, look practically to the state of the country, and remember that great difficulties have been encountered. To one of those reference has not been made this evening—namely, to the unfortunate operation of the former system of government, under which the natural leaders of the people were driven out of the country, there was no aristocracy, and hardly any middle class, and foreigners, some of them not of the most sympathizing kind, came to take the direction of affairs, and a load of debt was hung like a millstone round the neck of the infant nation. But now the contrast is remarkable, for we have in Greece a free Press, an increasing population, a trade and a marine enormously augmented, a flourishing University—and, if I may venture to add a word on them, I would say that my noble Friend has done even less than justice to the extreme anxiety of the Greek people to obtain the blessings of education. There is also a regular, and it may also be a sound, administration of justice. At any rate, lately, when a most scandalous case of ecclesi-
  546
  astical corruption occurred, in the shape of a simoniacal election of Bishops, it was disposed of by the regular action of the judicial machinery of the country and the infliction of condign punishment upon the offenders. No doubt, the administration of justice is occasionally discredited; but I do not think that there is, upon the whole, anything to justify those general invectives and that ill-natured and unkindly criticism of the condition of Greece which has sometimes been indulged in. Those who think that cases of brigandage are sufficient to condemn the Greek nation ought to bear in mind the condition of England, and even of London, 100 years ago, and how long it was since highwaymen operated on Hay Hill. However, I do not contend that the civilization of Greece is effective for all purposes; on the contrary, the Greeks are behindhand, and have so much to do that their resources may be strained in the accomplishment of their objects. The Government will not give countenance, I hope, to coloured and unfair representations of the condition of Greece, but will join us in deprecating them. My hon. Friend having reminded the House of this most solemn pledge, given by the Government in the most solemn manner before the Congress, I hope they will consider the force and vitality of that pledge still existing, and that they will also consider the manner in which the character of England is tied to its redemption. If our obligations on that branch of the Eastern Question can be satisfactorily redeemed, I am quite sure that there is no Gentleman sitting on that side of the House, however pugnacious he might be, who would not at once gladly feel that he could but too well afford to drop one out of the category of our political differences. I am rather sanguine as to what we may expect from the Government on this matter; and no one will be better pleased than myself if their declaration will be such as to remove it out of our way.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I can assure the House and the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) that there is no feeling whatever on the part of the Government of objection to the course he has taken in bringing the matter before our notice. We have felt that the question naturally commanded the interest of Parliament,

  547
  and that in the hands of the hon. Member it would be treated with knowledge and moderation; and we are conscious that he has for a considerable time exercised great discretion and consideration in not pressing the question forward at a time when it was inconvenient that it should be discussed. Now, on the part of the Government, I am not in a position, at the present moment, to enter into a full discussion of the large questions which are involved in this matter; but we have certainly thought that it would be improper on our part to check or to discourage any observations which hon. Gentlemen like the Mover and Seconder and others might wish to address to the House on a matter of such very great importance; and I only hope, if I am not able to speak on behalf of the Government with the same unreserve with which others have already spoken, it will not be understood that my inability proceeds either from any indifference or that it is owing to any desire to avoid a proper and full discussion of the question when it is ripe. The matter is now in a position in which it is by no means to be regretted that attention should be drawn to it in Parliament, but in a position in which it would not be possible for the Members of Her Majesty's Government to speak fully and completely. We wish to say that we feel, and have felt throughout these negotiations and throughout all these Eastern complications—we have felt that it was a matter of the greatest importance, in the interest of the general tranquillity in the East, as well as for the well-being of no country more than Turkey herself, that there should be a reasonable and satisfactory arrangement arrived at between Greece and Turkey. We have felt that it was a matter of great importance to the races of Europe—a matter of the greatest possible importance to Turkey herself—that there should be established something in the nature of a friendly relation, even if we could not expect it to be a very cordial one, between her and her nearest neighbour, and we have desired by every means in our power to promote and further any arrangement which might bring about that state of things. No one can look at the position of affairs and the relations existing between Greece and Turkey without feeling that any settle-
  548
  ment of that character must be a settlement that would involve a rectification of Frontier, and would involve a concession on the part of Turkey of some portion of territory which might naturally be assigned to Greece. We have desired both in the earlier communications, and in the proceedings in the Berlin Congress, to assist and promote such an arrangement as might bring about that good feeling between them—a good feeling that must embrace on the one hand a rectification of the Frontier, and on the other hand some corresponding cordiality and readiness on the part of Greece to give assurances that might lead to friendly relations between her and her neighbour Turkey. Now, we have felt, and it was felt, I believe, at the Berlin Congress, that the best arrangement which could be made would be an arrangement which should be in the nature of a direct agreement between the two Powers. In the Conference there were, no doubt, certain direct lines indicated which would probably afford material for satisfactory settlement. In the 13th Protocol, to which reference has been made, the subject was brought prominently before the Congress, and something in the nature of a line was recommended and favourably received by the Representatives of the Powers, with the view of pointing out what concessions might fairly be made. If anyone will take the trouble to examine carefully the language of the recommendation, and examine also the map and geographical features, they will see there is a vagueness in the particular language used, and, probably, that vagueness was not unintentional. The recommendation does not mark out the precise line which should be drawn for settlement. It was the hope, and it has all along been the hope of Her Majesty's Government, that the arrangements founded upon and started from that recommendation, might be arrived at by a direct communication between Greece and Turkey, and it has been the earnest desire, and the best efforts of Her Majesty's Government have been directed, to promote and bring about a direct communication and agreement between the two Powers principally interested in this matter. We know that communications are still going on, and we are not without hope that some satis-

  549
  factory result may be arrived at. But if those attempts which have been made to bring about a direct and satisfactory settlement between the Porte and Greece should, unfortunately, not be successful, then will arise the question whether the time has not come when the mediation which was proposed and indicated in the Treaty of Berlin ought not to take place. And, undoubtedly, if that should appear to be the only way left to promote a settlement, Her Majesty's Government will be ready to take their proper part as to the engagements into which they entered in the Treaty of Berlin. We believe the other to be the more excellent way of settling the matter if an agreement could be arrived at, and we do not altogether abandon the hope that it may be, though, no doubt, the question is one which involves a great deal of difficulty, connected as it is with questions of race and religion which are thorny and intricate. These are the considerations which have naturally led to delay and disappointment in the negotiations which have been set on foot, and from which, at one time, we expected better things. But I can, at all events, certainly say that the feelings and convictions of Her Majesty's Government are unchanged, for we believe that no proper settlement will be arrived at unless this great question is settled between Greece and Turkey themselves, and we are most anxious to promote in every possible way the establishment of friendly relations between these Powers. We do not all regret that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire has thought it right to raise this question. We certainly cannot complain of the language used in the course of this debate; but I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to ask us to come to a vote on the subject. I think a vote would be embarrassing, and might be misunderstood. I hope he will be satisfied—as I gather my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich will be satisfied—with an assurance that this matter is one which is engaging, and will continue to command, the full attention and earnest sympathy of Her Majesty's Government, and that he will allow us to endeavour to bring about a settlement without the necessity of having any Division on the subject in the House of Commons.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could not think that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in the least degree satisfactory to the House. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that the convictions of the Government on this subject were altogether unchanged; but the House wanted to know what the convictions of the Government were? From documents, the authenticity of which could not be doubted, the Government were known to have taken up at various times wholly different and inconsistent lines upon this question, and the House wanted to know what line they were going to take up now and in the future, and what were the negotiations in which they were now engaged? The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government were not in a position to enter on the whole discussion to-night; but he had given no reason for thinking so. He had not communicated to the House the present position of the negotiations. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I said they were going on.] Undoubtedly; but, according to the Government, negotiations had been going on for about nine months. The negotiations were of a very puzzling kind; for although the Government had not laid documents on the Table, they were being carried on in a very public way, for there were many who had seen French, Turkish, and Greek despatches on the subject, and knew from them what had been going on, but the despatches of England and Germany had not been allowed to see the light of day. During live and a-half months nothing was done, and Turkey, having gained so much time, afterwards proceeded to gain other three months and a-half by pretending to do something. He would venture to tell the House, as far as he could, what the negotiations now said to be going on really were. The Turkish and Greek Governments both sent Commissioners to meet each other. In spite of the refusal of a passage to the Greek Commissioners, in spite of their yacht being twice fired upon, in spite of a meeting-place being appointed which did not exist and which was described as near another place which had no existence either, in spite of all these difficulties the Commissioners did meet. At the first meeting, the Turkish Com-

  551
  missioners said they wished the Greeks to propose a boundary line. The Greek Commissioners very properly said their boundary was the boundary considered by the Powers at Berlin. The Turkish Commissioners said they could not negotiate upon that line, and there the negotiations stopped. After 35 days' delay the Turks telegraphed home as they pretended, and took three weeks to get an answer. Finally they produced fresh instructions, which were so ridiculous as to be not worth argument. It was proposed to give to Greece about one-sixth of the territory named in the Protocol. Turkey, so long ago as last September, informally but definitely proposed to give Greece a small strip of territory in Thessaly, so long as they would renounce any claim in Epirus. From that proposal they had made no advance. Greece had been driven to break up the Conference; and what chance was there of any settlement being reached without pressure from the Powers? The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bourke) had been in Paris, and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) thought he must have heard there some very plain language. It was, he believed, highly probable that the hon. Gentleman was communicated with upon this subject, and that what he heard there was the gravest dissatisfaction in the French Government with the action of our Government upon it. When the French Chambers re-assembled, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would be astonished if a Motion were not brought forward, with the approval of the French Government itself, which would censure the conduct of the English Government on this question. The French Government had addressed a Memorandum to our Government, sounding them with regard to mediation. Was it not the fact that at present the sole difficulty in the way of European mediation was the obstruction of our Government—that every other Government was prepared for mediation, that France was strongly in favour of it, and that Italy alone had made its assent depend on what England might do? The Government were again putting pressure on the Porte; but were these negotiations of a kind to satisfy the House? The proposal of the Conference, it must be remembered, was in itself a compromise. It did not by any means give to Greece all she
  552
  might have asked for. It gave up Crete without the Greek claims being so much as heard, and it gave up all chance of the establishment of a really natural boundary, which would have been the boundary of the Olympus range. Lord Salisbury's Circular, after he assumed Office as Foreign Secretary, indicated a wish to patronize the Greek claims—to run the Greeks against the Sclavs. That policy was largely supported, but it was altogether abandoned when the Congress met. At the first three meetings of the Congress it was still maintained in name; but it had been proved in debate in that House that the ultimate proposal, out of which all these difficulties had arisen, was the work of our Government. The reduction of the Greek Frontier claims to "the irreducible minimum" was the work of our Government, unassisted by any other Power. M. Waddington's first proposal was to give to Greece by the Treaty itself the Olympus range, her natural boundary. Ultimately a French proposal was accepted—a proposal reduced to the smallest limit by English pressure, and English pressure alone, which was continued until the very hour the Conference met, particularly in the interviews between Lord Beaconsfield and M. Waddington and Count Andrassy. There was another point which had been referred to before, but had not been mentioned that evening, and that was to the force of the word inviter in the Protocol relating to Greece. It had been inaccurately translated as meaning merely to "invite;" whereas the fact was it was one of the strongest words known to diplomacy. Her Majesty's Government had assumed all through that the word amounted to a mere recommendation to the Turks; but so far from being a mere recommendation, it was a most solemn declaration of the Powers of what they required Turkey to do, and he hoped Her Majesty's Ministers would regard it as such. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Government were not able to enter into the whole discussion of this Greek Question now, but surely there had been delay enough. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House felt that there was no more scandalous failure recorded in modern English history than the failure of our Government

  553
  to maintain the claims of the Greeks in this matter; especially their action during the last 10 or 11 months as compared with their promises during the continuance of the war. It had been clearly shown by his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cart-wright), from the Papers, what the character of those promises were, and how they were accepted by the Greeks; and surely, in these circumstances, it was not enough for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come forward now and say he was not in a position fully to discuss the question, merely because negotiations were pending. Negotiations had been pending for nine months, and they might be pending for nine years or 90 years at the present rate, and we ourselves should not see the end of the controversies on the subject. The grounds of complaint on the part of Greece were well established. It had been shown that her existing boundaries had been spoken of as plainly cramping the development of the country; they did not give the country the means of living, as it were. It was the small extent of the Greek Dominion, and notably the way in which the boundaries were drawn, which prevented the late King Leopold from accepting the Throne in 1830. Another point that had been omitted was in relation to the town of Janina, respecting which the House ought to protest against the view of the Government that Turkey must be supported in holding out against its inclusion in the new boundary of Greece. He believed that when European pressure was brought to bear upon Turkey, as it would undoubtedly have to be brought, the question in dispute would be narrowed down to the town of Janina. The Porte would give way on everything except in regard to that single town. Now, if there was one point more important than another to which the Greeks must look it was the town of Janina, the home of the literature of the Greek race, the educational capital where a larger number of students were trained than in any other town; and it could not be left outside without leaving the question of the rectification of her Frontier still unsettled. Lord Byron spoke of it, in his notes to Childe Harold, as superior even to Athens in refinement and learning, and even in the purity of the Greek of its population. Sir Austen Layard,
  554
  with his strong views, which he had consistently held for many years, could not be expected to express those opinions which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) believed the great majority of the English people held with regard to the Greek Question. In a speech delivered in that House, not long ago, that Gentleman protested against the cession of Corfu to Greece, on the ground that it was Albanian and not Greek, and if ceded to any country, ought to have been handed over to Turkey. In the case of Janina, he endeavoured to prove that there was not a single Greek there; yet there were 39,000 male Christians in that villayet, and only 2,000 Mussulmans; and if, as he (Sir Charles W. Dilke), believed, two-thirds of the Albanians were Mohammedans, the Albanian population would be very small indeed. The deputation that was coming to this country spoke Greek, and one of them could not speak any other language; but as their expenses were paid by the Turks, he hoped that their views and their statements would not be seriously received in Paris or in the House. While saying that negotiations with regard to this Greek Question were still pending, Her Majesty's Government had all through kept the House in the dark to a most extraordinary and unprecedented extent with respect to the character of those negotiations. The patience of the House, in regard to the refusal of the Government to give information on that subject, was amazing. No doubt it was usual, when awkward Questions were put with reference to foreign affairs, for Ministers to refuse information while negotiating; but not when negotiations had been pending for so long a period as a year or more—the usual course in a case of that kind being to give information from time to time as the negotiations went on. The Government had not furnished Papers on this subject which could be of use to any human being. All that the Government had given was a mass of Blue Books, containing accounts of small outrages on single Mussulmen, while documents of importance relating to the Treaty of Berlin were kept back. It was monstrous that those documents should be kept back, and that the House should be kept in ignorance of what took place so far back as July, August, and September last. Hon. Members had, no doubt, become ac-

  555
  quainted with the purport of some of these Papers, through the medium of the Press; but they had not obtained them from the Government. There were some German despatches, especially, which had still been withheld, although it was understood that they went in detail into the question of putting pressure on Turkey in regard to carrying out the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin and the Protocols of the Congress. The House, therefore, had reason to complain of the way in which information had been withheld. There was the promise of the Government before the Congress met that Greece should be represented at the Congress; then there was their action in the first two or three meetings of the Congress when they pretended to press the Greek claims; and then there was great delay until the 13th meeting before those claims were brought forward. Then, as they all knew, it was the British Government that cut down the claims of Greece and sheared them into the form they afterwards presented. Prom this they might judge what was likely to be the conduct of the Government in future. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: No, no!] Last year the right hon. Gentleman opposite said "No, no;" but the statement which he contradicted was declared to be true by the Leader of the House. Lord Beaconsfield and the English Plenipotentiaries cut down the claims of Greece as presented by M. Waddington. Looking at these circumstances, it could not be believed that Parliament would be acting wisely in trusting the Government with unlimited discretion on this subject. If the Government were left to follow their own devices months more might be consumed in these delays, and at the end of months and years the question might be no nearer settlement than at the present time. Our Government alone stood aside, or actually placed themselves in opposition, and it was for the House to tell them that it was now time that opposition should cease, and that they ought to join in mediation with the other Powers.
  MR. MONKsaid, he cordially agreed with the concluding remarks that fell from his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). Nothing, in his opinion, could have been more unsatisfactory than the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chan-
  556
  cellor of the Exchequer to the appeal of the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone). As the Forms of the House prevented him (Mr. Monk) from moving the Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), which he had placed upon the Paper, and which ran as follows:—
  "That, in the present circumstances, and having regard to the state of the relations between Turkey and Greece, it is essential that Her Majesty's Government should concur in the direct mediation of the Great Powers with a view to the early solution of the question of Frontiers between Turkey and Greece,"
  he desired to take that opportunity of stating his views on the question before the House. He agreed with the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), that whatever might be the views of private Members on the question of the rectification of the Græco-Turkish Frontier, the only safe standpoint for Parliament and the country was the basis laid down in the Protocol of the Berlin Congress. For his part, although he considered the Protocol fell far short of meeting the justice of the case, and although he deplored the feeble policy and faltering steps by which the 13th Protocol was arrived at owing to the backsliding and egotism of Lord Beaconsfield, yet he unhesitatingly, though reluctantly, accepted the decision of the Congress; and he ventured to submit to the House that the time had arrived—many thought it had arrived long ago—when the machinery provided in that Protocol should be set in motion. At the same time, he did not abate one iota of his complaint that the interests of Greece had been cruelly neglected by the Premier at Berlin, when in his jaunty manner he informed the world that States, like individuals, which had a future, were in a position to be able to wait, and when he expressed his conviction that Greece and Turkey would proceed to a rectification of their Frontier, and so get rid of a cause of disorder, and secure a lasting peace. Could any prophecy be more absurd, or less likely to be fulfilled? Fortunately, the other Plenipotentiaries took a more sensible view of the difficulties of the case, and insisted on a proviso to the effect that the Powers were prepared to offer direct mediation. The object of M. Waddington, in his very moderate

  557
  proposal, was to secure for Turkey, as well as for Greece, a condition of internal security and prosperity. Greece, said the French Minister, could never prosper within her present limits; or, in short, without the Gulfs of Arta and Volo and the adjacent territories. Even Lord Beaconsfield admitted that in the eye of every statesman the Frontier of 1831 was a danger and a disaster, as well to Turkey as to Greece, and was conducive to brigandage. And yet he not only refused to acquiesce in the first proposal of France that Thessaly and Epirus should be ceded to Greece; but he declared that he looked upon the more restricted boundaries of the valleys of the Salamyrias and of the Calamas as open to discussion, and at length withdrew his opposition to that more modest proposal in the most ungracious manner, only because he found himself to be in a hopeless minority on the subject. The noble Lord, however, expressed his hope, and even his conviction, that an equitable solution of the question of Frontiers would be accepted by the Sultan. Hitherto, his hopes had been unfulfilled. The present state of affairs was so unsatisfactory that, for the sake of Turkey as well as of Greece, it was incumbent on the Powers to exercise direct mediation. He (Mr. Monk) agreed with the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Oartwright), that the boundary proposed in the Protocol was the least that Greece had a right to expect; and he thought that by such mediation Turkey might be induced to submit to the views of the Great Powers as expressed in the Protocol. But whatever might be the result of mediation, it would be infinitely preferable to the existing state of things. He wished to remind the House that Greece had deserved well of the Great Powers, and especially of England. At the request of the Government, Greece withdrew her troops when about to cross the Frontier, and refrained from attacking Turkey, when the Sultan was engaged in a death struggle with Russia. On the faith of British promises, Greece kept back her Army, and repressed disorders on the Frontier. In return for this, ail that England had done waste obtain a hearing for Greece at the Congress; and when Greece looked to England for support, a deaf ear was turned to her, and she was left to threw herself into the
  558
  arms of France. He honoured France for opening her arms to receive her; while he regretted to say not a word of sympathy fell from Lord Beaconsfield's lips. Well might Greece exclaim—"Save me from such friends!" By this neglect of the interests of Greece, this country sacrificed a friend; nay, more, it lost the friendship of a race, which in days yet to come might prove of far more use to her than Turkey was ever likely again to be. Great was the dissatisfaction felt in this country at the action of our Representatives at the Congress at Berlin in respect to Greece—and great would be the dissatisfaction at the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when it was read in the papers to-morrow. It was a grievous mistake to allow an opportunity of redressing a grievance, which had existed since 1831, to slip from our hands at the Congress. Whatever territorial changes were to be made ought to have received the sanction of the European Congress. It was a gross blunder to postpone the question of the rectification of the Greece-Turkish Frontier; it was a still greater blunder to leave so difficult a problem to be solved by hereditary foemen. He would ask the House whether it was for the interest of Europe, or of this country, that a burning question like this should be left longer unsettled, or left to the chances of separate diplomatic action? It was true that Greece had a future, as she had had a past. There was life, and energy, and an unconquerable love of freedom in the breasts of the Greek populations in Thessaly and Epirus. It was useless to attempt to repress those feelings which prompted them to union with Greece by maintaining a boundary line which had been condemned by every European statesman during the last 40 years. "Annex those populations to Greece," said M. Waddington, "they will be for her a source of strength, while they are but one of weakness to Turkey." He hoped that the Government would, in the interests of both those countries, accede as soon as possible to the joint intervention of the Powers with a view to a final settlement of the Frontier Question.
  MR. BAXTERremarked that a good deal had been said about Greece having a future. He not only believed in a great future for that country, but he had been persuaded for a long time that the

  559
  whole policy of England—he did not say the recent policy, or the policy of the present Government alone—had for years past been consistently and persistently to ignore that future. Now, he was not one of those who were constantly finding fault and expressing nothing but dissatisfaction and disappointment at the Treaty of Berlin. No doubt that Treaty had its faults, and in one particular, the particular referred to that evening—namely, the question of Eastern Roumelia and the Balkan fortresses—he believed that the Government would find that it would be perfectly impossible to carry the Treaty into effect. There might be other blemishes; but he said now what he had said over and over again in the country—that it was a great step in advance of the state of things before. It was an enormous improvement upon the status quo ante. Treaties were not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, which could not be changed. There might be improvements; alterations might be effected in that Treaty; but his contention was that the blow dealt at the Ottoman Empire at Berlin was so severe that civilization and humanity might well rejoice that it would never recover from it; and the Plenipotentiaries at Berlin, however they might like it, would find their names going down to posterity as having done everything in their power to destroy the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire. Reference had been made to several books on Greece; but in all that had been said no allusion had been made to a work which had been recently issued under the title of New Greece. In that work the writer, Mr. Lewis Sargeant, declared that the whole spell of the Porte had been broken, and demonstrated the impossibility of rehabilitating the Turkish power in Europe. In that view he (Mr. Baxter) entirely concurred. But, he would ask the House, was not this the exact "bag and baggage" policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone)? He supported the Motion of his hon. Friend, because it was the very least that they could do for Greece, and because he expected that if the recommendations of the Berlin Congress were not carried out to their fullest extent, they need not look for tranquillity in that country. He confessed that he would
  560
  go much further. He did not believe in the adequacy of the concessions that had been granted, nor in the permanency of the Frontier, because the Hellenic element was predominant, and he believed would assert its nationality very far beyond. He had long felt that not only the Government, but the country, had not been sufficiently alive to the position and prospects of the Kingdom of Greece—a Kingdom which he believed it to the wisest policy on the part of this country to strengthen and extend in every possible way, whatever might happen to the tottering Ottoman Empire. It was surely high time, after all they had heard on the subject, for giving up and abandoning for ever the tradition, he might call it the superstition, that the Ottoman Empire was of the slightest use to Great Britain. Surely their true policy ought to be to support and do all they could to strengthen not a small disunited Bulgaria, but a large Bulgaria on the Danube, and on the Ægean the Kingdom of Greece, which would be a far more powerful barrier against Muscovite aggression or Northern ambition than any tottering Mohammedan Power. Reference had been made that evening to the policy of Canning, who called a new world into existence to redress the balance of the old. Well, could anyone read the history of that time without coming to the conclusion that Mr. Canning had no belief in, and no admiration for, Russia, nor any belief in her designs? At the same time, all through his despatches they saw that it was Mr. Canning's firm belief that Great Britain ought to take the lead in Eastern policy on behalf of the rising nationalities, to give up the delusion that we had anything to get from Turkey, and that we ought to be jealous of Russian power, and so compel those nationalities to throw themselves into the arms of the Czar. He thought the country was scarcely aware how very grievous were the errors committed by the Powers of Europe, and especially, he was sorry to say, by England, all through the history of Greece, from the breaking out of the insurrection to the time when King Otho was sent away. Notwithstanding that, everyone who had travelled in Greece knew that the Greeks had a very kindly feeling towards this country. They knew that

  561
  we sympathized with them in their great struggle, for we had not only done that, but we had sent them arms and money, and whether the battle of Navarino was a blunder or not, every Greek knew it was, at least, the heaviest blow struck in favour of Greek independence. Nor had they forgotten the kindly part which England took at the time of the change of dynasty, and the cession of the Ionian Islands. What he would say was that the Government had had a golden opportunity lately to strengthen the good feeling of the Greeks towards this country, and to obliterate the recollection of former mistakes. But no one reading the Blue Books could fail to come to the conclusion that Lord Beaconsfield followed the example of Lord Castlereagh, and that in 1878 was done precisely what was done in 1821. They all knew that the British Government were alone responsible for the recall of the Greek Army; and that being so, he was extremely sorry that the Government had not, at the Berlin Congress, used their utmost endeavours, not by recommendation, but by distinct provision, to obtain for Greece as much territory as she would have obtained for herself by force of arms. Undoubtedly, the greatest blunder made in connection with Greece was the narrow limits within which she was confined. When the Throne was offered to Prince Leopold, he wrote to Lord Aberdeen, pointing out that it was not worth while to take the Kingdom unless Epirus and Thessaly and the Island of Crete were annexed. He supposed that no one who knew the country would deny that its chief requirement was a very large extension of territory, and his impression was that the extension proposed by Prince Leopold was the very least that could be accepted. For his part, he would go a great deal further, and say that he should gladly see annexed to Greece every contiguous Province and every adjacent island in which the Hellenic element was predominant, and which might exhibit a wish to be so annexed to what might be called the Fatherland. He was perfectly persuaded that when they should see Greece with 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 more inhabitants, with added provinces and harbours, they would then be much nearer the solution of the Eastern Question than they were at present. For these
  562
  reasons he cordially supported the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that, having listened carefully to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was free to admit that, in its general tone, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be more hopeful for the future than the observations which had been recently made in "another place" by the First Minister of the Crown. At the same time, the language of the right hon. Gentleman was so vague, and conveyed such little information, that his speech could not be regarded as a satisfactory solution of this question. No one could read the promise made by Her Majesty's Government to the Greek Government without coming to the conclusion that they intended most definitely to take a leading part in the Congress of Berlin as a friend of Greece. When, however, Her Majesty's Ministry entered the Congress, their convictions underwent a marked change on that subject. Although the conclusions of the Congress were, at the instance of Lord Beaconsfield, to be treated as mere declarations of advice on the part of the Powers to Turkey, yet, after his return from Berlin, he spoke in the House of Lords of those conclusions as if they were faits accomplis. He was, therefore, rather surprised to hear that the feelings and convictions of the Government on this subject were now what they always had been, because it occurred to him that their policy had undergone three changes; and he thought it would be satisfactory if the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would, before the debate closed, tell the House and the country which of the various phases of feeling and conviction animated Her Majesty's Government now. As to Crete, it was quite true that terms were agreed upon between the Cretans and the Turkish Government—he believed through the intervention of Her Majesty's Consul at Crete—which conceded to the Cretans for the first time some important changes for which they had long asked, although they would infinitely prefer, he believed, union with Greece. They obtained first a proportional representation of Christians in their local Assembly. In the second place, it was conceded to them that they should have a Christian Governor for a definite period of years; and, thirdly,

  563
  that in the local Militia there should be Christians in proportion to the Christian population. How were those three provisions carried out? Christians had been elected to the local Assembly by a very large majority, and the Assembly had proceeded to make very important changes in the law; but those changes had not been admitted as valid by the Governor of Crete, who had referred to the Government at Constantinople. Months and months had passed without a ratification of the changes made by the Assembly. With regard to the second point, although a Christian Governor had been appointed to Crete, the arrangement that he should continue in that office for a definite period of years had not been carried out, for he had been promoted to the office of Foreign Minister of Turkey. As to the third important question—the local Militia—he was told the arrangement had not been carried out, and that they were still Mussulmans, the only change being that an English officer had been put at the head of the gendarmes. He was sorry to say, from all the accounts he had received, that the state of Crete at this moment was as bad as ever it had been. Turning now to Thessaly and Epirus, he would ask what had been going on there since the Congress at Berlin? He was informed that the Turkish Government had poured a very large number of troops into these Provinces, had armed the Mussulman population, and induced the Mussulman Albanians to go there, so that if the Great Powers were to force Turkey to give the Provinces to Greece, there might be an insurrection of the Mahomed an population. He had quoted these facts to show that time was an important element in the matter, that there should be no longer any delay, and that the Government should not be satisfied with mere words, but should proceed to action. Unless the Government, in concert with the other Great Powers, undertook to impose the will of Europe on Turkey, nothing could or would be done. It might be asked what right had Europe to impose her will upon Turkey? The answer was, the same right that Europe had to impose any of her wishes upon Turkey. When the question of giving up Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria arose in the Congress, Prince Bismark said that the Congress had met, not for
  564
  the purpose of securing to Turkey certain geographical positions, for the maintenance of which the Porte might be anxious, but in order to preserve the peace of Europe; and he went on to say that, as Turkey had secured by the action of the Congress the beautiful Province of Eastern Roumelia, it was only fair she should concede to Europe the Provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was the right and privilege of Europe to insist that justice should be done to Greece in this matter. And not only was it necessary that these two Provinces should be added to Greece, but, in his opinion, all the Greek Provinces and the Greek Islands should follow in the same direction.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he wished exceedingly that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had found it in his power to make a more satisfactory reply to the very moderate and persuasive appeal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich. He did not think it was possible that an appeal could have been made in a manner more likely to have met with acceptance than in the language employed by the right hon. Gentleman. But no answer had been given which the House or the country could understand, or to which Europe could attach any meaning whatever. The view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very singular one. The right hon. Gentleman thought that discussion in the House was desirable; but he did not think it desirable that the Government should say anything. But what was the use of the House discussing the question except to obtain an expression of opinion from Her Majesty's Government? Everyone knew what the opinion of the House was. The expression of opinion to-night had come exclusively from the Liberal Benches; but they had heard nothing, not even a word of dissent, from the Conservative Benches. What was really wanted by the House, the country, and by Europe, was to know what Her Majesty's Government had done or were doing, or what they intended to do in regard to this question? On that subject not one word had they been able to extract from the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that they adhered to their convictions. But it was impossible to ascertain what the convictions of Her Majesty's Ministers were, for they re-

  565
  fused Papers, and when asked for explanations, gave none. The nearest approach to a definite statement was when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government were in favour of a rectification of Frontier. Of course they were; so were the Turks; but the question was what rectification of Frontier were the Government in favour of? They would continue to ask the question until they got some answer. When Lord Beaconsfield returned from Berlin, he said he was for the plan of the Congress; that it was our plan; that it was proposed by the English Plenipotentiaries, and adopted by the Congress; and that it secured to Greece an opportunity of obtaining a larger accession of territory than any of the rebellious Provinces had got. Everybody knew what the French Government thought of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and what the French Government papers were saying about it, and that Europe was complaining that England was acting under the influence of Turkey to stave off the settlement of the question. What was the question which was at issue between Turkey and Greece? It was whether Turkey was to give up Epirus or not. Turkey was ready to give up Thessaly, but would not give up Epirus. What he wanted to ask Her Majesty's Government was—Whether it was their opinion that Turkey ought to give up Epirus, and if so, what were they doing to bring it about? That was a definite question to which a definite answer could be given. It was said the plan of England was the plan of the Congress. Yes; but what was the way in which England cut down the proposals of France? France proposed to give a much larger territory to Greece; but it was through the influence of England that the territory was cut down. It was in that sense that the plan of England was the plan of the Congress. That was the minimum, and now England was minimizing that minimum. After Lord Beaconsfield had delivered the speech to which reference had been made, he said that the English plan was a suggestion of the French Plenipotentiary, and that it was one which bound nobody. That meant that Turkey would have the encouragement of England in saying that she would not be bound by the Congress. The language of the Chancellor of the Exche-
  566
  quer to-night, though milder, came to very much the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman said there was "something like a line" drawn in the Congress. After all, this settlement which was to give peace to Europe had been defined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night as "something like a line." Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the language of the Congress had a vagueness, and he added that, no doubt, it was an intentional vagueness. Imagine the astuteness of statesmen who, according to the right hon. Gentleman, deliberately employed language of vagueness. What could it end in but confusion and war? How could it be expected that Turkey and Greece would settle this question when language of this kind was held? He did not know where the right hon. Gentleman borrowed the theory of intentional vagueness. In the negotiations preceding the Treaty of Washington, an unhappy phrase was used which led to the setting up of the Indirect Claims, and Mr. Montague Bernard said the words employed were selected on account of their intentional vagueness. This was not thought a very fortunate tiling at the time; but the plan seemed to have been transferred by Her Majesty's Government from the Treaty of Washington to the Treaty of Berlin. On returning from Berlin the Prime Minister said Greece was going to get as large a territory as the rebellious Provinces. Those Provinces got their territory, whether it was large or small, because they rebelled; and, consequently, the English Plenipotentiaries at the Congress did not, and could not, suggest that their claims should not be made obligatory on Turkey. Greece, however, did not rebel. [Lord JOHN MANNERS: She could not rebel.] He admitted the inaccuracy of the phrase; but, at all events, Greece might have gone to war. Therefore, he did not see that the quibble of the noble Lord the Postmaster General mattered much. He (Sir William Harcourt) thought Greece must very much regret that she had taken the advice of the Government, because if she had not done so, and had taken part in the struggle, it was perfectly certain she would have been in as good a position as that of the rebellious Provinces. She would have got what the rebellious Provinces had got, with an European

  567
  guarantee binding upon Turkey. Now she was told, in a contemptuous phrase, that the plan of the Congress was only a French suggestion, binding nobody. Could it be wondered at that the people of Paris were indignant about that statement? What was that but an invitation to the Turks to persist in their obstinacy? Why did not the Government show one single step that they had taken from first to last to maintain the claims of Greece? If they had got any proof that they had been doing anything effectual for Greece, what reason was there why they should not come forward and satisfy the country and Europe that they had really been endeavouring to support, even moderately, the claims which they had put forward as having been approved of by them? It seemed to him that the Government had a most weighty responsibility for having proposed so foolish a scheme as that Turkey and Greece could settle the matter themselves. Suppose anybody recommended the Marquess of Salisbury to rectify the frontier of Hatfield with his next neighbour! Of course he would decline, and he did not wonder that Turkey declined. They had rectified the Frontiers of Servia and Montenegro, because they had the machinery for doing it; but how could they expect Turkey of her own accord to recognize a line which was "something like a line," and to observe language which was intentionally vague? The plan adopted by Her Majesty's Government was the one most calculated to lead to war. He was glad the present discussion had been raised, because, although it had extracted no satisfactory information from Her Majesty's Government, it had proved that the Party on that side of the House were not unfaithful to their traditions. They had maintained the honourable position which England held before the world as the Emancipator of Greece. Mr. Canning commenced, and Lord Palmerston continued, that great work; and although hon. Members on that side of the House did not possess the power to give effect to their traditions, they had shown by the protest entered to-night against the policy of the Government that they were not forgetful of their great inheritance.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken had concluded with an ap-
  568
  peal to the shade of Lord Palmerston; But he (Lord John Manners) ventured to doubt whether, had Lord Palmerston been alive the year before last, he would have taken the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman fancied. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made a very vivacious attack on Her Majesty's Government for their alleged reticence on the present occasion. It was no new thing, however, for Ministers charged with great responsibilities to be very reticent about negotiations that were still going on. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew that negotiations were at this moment in progress on the very subject now under consideration, and yet he taunted the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government with not giving the House the most precise details concerning these negotiations up to the present moment of time. The hon. and learned Gentleman had had some experience of public affairs, and yet he had made charges against the Government, which he would never for one moment have tolerated if made against a Government of which he was a Member. The hon. and learned Gentleman must know that for the Government to give this minute information would not only be a departure from their duty, but that it would imperil the success of these negotiations themselves, and do an ill-service to that country of which the hon. and learned Gentleman now appeared as the advocate, if not the organ. Again, he would say not only would declarations of that sort have a very prejudicial effect on the negotiations which were pending and on the interests of Greece, but also on the spirit and temper of Turkey. It was all very well for the hon. and learned Member to put Turkey entirely out of the question, and to say that England had nothing to do but to impose her will on Turkey. But that was not the view of Her Majesty's Government. That was not the view of the House of Commons, and he ventured to say it was not the view of the people of England. And when the hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that the conduct of the Government was censured and denounced in Paris, and opposed by the feeling of the whole of the Governments of Europe, he ventured to tell him, with all due respect to him personally, that he was speaking of subjects of which he showed

  569
  that he knew nothing. He far was that from being the case, that in the matter of Greece Her Majesty's Government were acting in cordial concurrence and concert with the Great Powers of Europe; and the vision which the hon. and learned Gentleman had conjured up of an indignant Europe reprobating the insane conduct of England was one of those chimeras with which audiences out-of-doors might occasionally be amused, but which was unfit for the severer atmosphere of the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred—and referred with great propriety—to the moderate and statesmanlike speech of the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), a speech certainly in marked contrast with the hon. and learned Gentleman's own; and the hon. and learned Gentleman said to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—"How, after hearing such a temperate, moderate, and statesmanlike speech from the right hon. Member for Greenwich, could you fail to give an equally moderate and statesmanlike answer?" Well, he thought that the House and the country would be of opinion that the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was couched in precisely the same tone and spirit as those which had animated the right hon. Member for Greenwich. He did not venture to draw any decided conclusion from the absence of the right hon. Member for Greenwich at the present moment; but, as that right hon. Member had not been in the House since the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke, it was not altogether unfair to assume that he did not view his right hon. Friend's speech with the same marked disfavour as it had pleased the hon. and learned Gentleman to bestow on it. He did not pretend to speak with the same authority as the hon. and learned Gentleman for the Governments of France and of united Europe; but, notwithstanding the hon. and learned Gentleman's taunts, he believed that the people of England would not be disposed to regard with dissatisfaction the statement of his right hon. Friend—namely, that the suggestions made with respect to Greece and embodied in the 13th Protocol of the Congress of Berlin now formed, as they had for some time past been forming, the subject of negotiations between this country and those who were most inti-
  570
  mately interested in it, and that Her Majesty's Government hoped that they would be brought to a successful and permanent issue.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 47: Majority 16.—(Div. List, No. 64.)
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GROUNDS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, that in order to criticize the items of expenditure charged for the management of the Royal or Public Parks or Pleasure Grounds, it was necessary that the particulars should be included in the Account furnished annually to Parliament, instead of their being hid away in the Revenue Accounts of the Department of Woods and Forests. He was of opinion that Public Expenditure, so far as it related to the present subject, should be dealt with in the same manner as the expenditure relating to the estates of individuals. Supposing a nobleman or gentleman were to set aside any portion of his estate for the purposes of amusement, either for himself or others, the charge for maintaining that unproductive portion of the estate would all be put down to personal expenses, while, with regard to the remaining portion, from which income was expected to be derived, a land agent would be employed who would simply charge; a commission for management. Now, he (Mr. Dillwyn) ventured to think that if it was found that the particular part of the property from which income was expected to be derived was, from year to year, bringing only loss, and costing instead of producing money, the owner would very soon make a change in the management of that Department; he would either not put it down as a source of income, or he would change his agent, or else change his mode of managing that part of the estate. If, on looking into the matter, he found that the estate was unproductive because he wished to retain it for amusement, he would certainly not class it as a source of income, but as a personal expense. That was exactly what he (Mr. Dillwyn) thought should be done in the management of

  571
  Public Revenues. To a certain extent our Parks and Public Buildings were estimated for, and when the money was voted lion. Members had an opportunity of criticizing details, and of seeing why the money had to be expended. We had placed certain portions of the National Estate under the Department of Woods and Forests, which might be considered our land agency for collecting the rents and handing over the balance due to us; but their Accounts, instead of giving the items and particulars, gave little more than the gross receipts and payments. It appeared that the balance of the land revenue, returned by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, amounted, in rough figures, to the large sum of £500,000 a-year. The management of the Parks and Forests was under two heads, and he thought that the latter Department—namely, that of the Royal Woods and Forests, could, if we chose, be made productive property, returning a large revenue. It appeared, by a Return of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, relating to the New Forest, Forest of Dean, &c, that the gross sum received for these properties amounted to £28,352, while the cost of management was £20,302, and that the balance which was therefore left to our credit amounted to £8,050—a very small amount of credit for all that property, which might be made to return a much greater amount. He did not, however, wish this property to be thus utilized, as he was in favour of retaining them in their present state; but he could not understand why these estates should be placed under the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, for it was a matter of importance to know how the great outlay for their management arose. He therefore thought that these items of expenditure should be brought under the cognizance of the House, and charged annually among the Estimates for the maintenance of Parks, by which an opportunity would be afforded of knowing whether the amounts were rightly and properly charged. He wished particularly to direct the attention of the House to the management of Windsor Park and Woods, which was placed under a separate head, and which resulted in a yearly loss of £20,990; the receipts for last year being £5,977, while the expenditure amounted to £26,968—an enormous sum of money to spend upon
  572
  one Park. He did not at all mean to say that the money was improperly applied, nor did he wish that Windsor Park any more than the Public Forests should be utilized and made the most of in a business point of view, still less did he wish to see the Royal pleasure or convenience interfered with; but he did say that the Park and Forests should be economically managed, and that hon. Members had a right, to know whether such was the case. He could not help thinking that there must be some waste in the management of Windsor Park, which, though a large acreage, cost the large sum of £21,000 a-year. He wanted to know how that money was spent, and maintained that the charge ought no longer to remain in the Accounts of the land agents, as he might call the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, but that it ought to be brought before the House every year in the Estimates. This was his contention, and he urged it most respectfully upon the House and the Government. It was not his intention to take a Division on the Motion, because it was quite impossible at that time of the Session to alter the Account in the manner proposed; but he hoped the Government would see the propriety and necessity of what he had suggested, and frame future Estimates accordingly. He could never see way Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, and Regent's Park should be put into the Estimates, while Windsor Park was excluded. He had asked for a Committee to investigate the annual Estimates before their consideration by the House; but it had been declined. There was, therefore, all the more reason that care should be taken to have the Estimates laid before the House in a business-like and proper manner. If Her Majesty's Government could give any good or sufficient reason why Windsor Park should be dealt with differently to the others, he should be satisfied; but if not, he trusted that some assurance would be given that an alteration would be made next year. As he was precluded by the Forms of the House from dividing upon his Amendment, he would only read the terms of his Motion—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, any Royal or public park or pleasure Ground which is unremunerative by reason of its being used for purposes of recreation or ornament should be placed under the control of the First com-

  573
  missioner of Works, and the amount required for its maintenance included in the annual Estimates for Parks and Pleasure Grounds, instead of (as in the case of Windsor Great Park) being placed under the Revenue Department of Woods and Forests."
  He concluded by emphatically repeating that he had no wish to curtail anything relating to the Parks that were used for Her Majesty's pleasure or convenience, or in any way to encroach upon what was retained for the public enjoyment.

  CUSTOMS REORGANIZATION.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that as the Secretary to the Treasury could but speak once, it would be for his convenience that he (Mr. Ritchie) should, in the terms of his Notice, call attention to the delay which had taken place in the issue of the scheme for the reorganization of the Customs. The officers in that Department entered the Public Service on exactly the same conditions as the officers in the other Departments; but, for some reason or other, their salaries were 30 per cent loss. Since 1873 they had sent in Memorial after Memorial, praying to be in that respect put upon an equal footing with the others, and they had been told that their claims should receive the consideration of Government; but, owing to the changes which had taken place in the Treasury, and owing to the death of the late Chairman of the Customs, the scheme for carrying out the recommendations of the Playfair Commission had been delayed. Hopes were held out last year that a settlement of the matter was at hand. This Session, on the 27th of March, when he questioned the Secretary to the Treasury upon the subject, that hon. Gentleman told him that the principle of the scheme had been agreed to, but that some little time must elapse before the details could be settled. On the 3rd of April he again questioned the hon. Gentleman on the subject, when he was told by him that not only did those details remain unsettled, but that larger details had since arisen which required further consideration, and he now urged upon him to tell the House what those greater details were, and why they had not been considered and settled.
    MR. ANDERSONjoined in the complaint of the hon. Member for the Tower
    574
    Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), and pointed out that there was at Glasgow a large Customs establishment in which great complaint was made of the delay that had taken place, the members of that establishment being perpetually waiting for a scheme which never seemed to come to a head. He privately asked the Secretary to the Treasury on several occasions what was going to be done, and he had received promises and assurances that there should be very little longer delay. Those assurances he had communicated over and over again to the gentlemen who were connected with the Customs in Glasgow, until at last they seemed to regard anything he told them as simply absurd, because they had been deceived so often and for so long in what appeared to be their reasonable expectations. He hoped the Government would give some attention to the matter, and allow no further delay to take place.
    SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would, in the first place, reply to the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). The question was one that had been raised before. He would remind the House that at the time of the settlement of the Crown Lands, in the reign of George IV., provision was made for passing all the surplus revenues to the Exchequer after the payment of expenses. But by a later Act (14 & 15 Vict.) a certain number of the Parks were passed from the control of the Woods and Forests to that of the Board of Works. No such provision, however, was made with regard to Windsor Park, the reason being that Windsor Park was looked upon, to a certain extent, as apart of the Royal residence. Although the expenditure referred to had been in excess of the receipts, it should be borne in mind that this case was exceptional, and that in all others the receipts exceeded the expenditure. It should also be remembered that a very large proportion of the expense complained of was incurred in the interests of the public, and out of the £26,000, £11,500 was really incurred in the maintenance of the public roads in Windsor Park. The amount was not so excessive. Under the good management of the Woods and Forests, the revenue had increased so as to be far in excess of the Civil List, and had, in fact, amounted to more than £410,000. The change advocated by the hon. Member might possibly re-

    575
    duce the cost somewhat; but it would be at the expense of the interests, not of the Crown, but of the public. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) as to the reorganization of the Customs, he quite admitted that this question could not be much longer delayed. It was one' which had been under the careful consideration of his Predecessors; but the delay was not entirely the fault of the Treasury. It was long before a good basis for reorganization was found; but a scheme had now been suggested by the Customs themselves, which was receiving the full attention of the Government. It could not, however, be settled in a moment, because each branch of the Department had to make a Report stating the number of clerks required in different grades, and the reason for requiring them. They had not yet received all those Reports; but he believed that it could not be long now before the scheme was completed and inaugurated to the satisfaction of the Service.
    MR. RYLANDS: The remarks which my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has offered relate, for the most part, to matters not at the present under discussion. I daresay it would be a very interesting discussion to go into the whole subject of Woods and Forests, and their management. There was a very strong impression that the Woods and Forests do not produce as large a revenue as they might produce under still more efficient management than that which prevails at the present moment. But that is not the point. The point is this:—My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) called the attention of the House to this fact, that we are paying for Windsor Park a balance of £21,000 a-year in charge. Now, it is no answer that, under the settlement of the Civil List, the Crown had surrendered the full amount which previous Sovereigns had, because that is not disputed. We admit at once that the arrangements under which Woods and Forests are administered are entirely legal, and we admit that the Act of Parliament to which the Secretary to the Treasury has alluded, by which certain Parks were transferred to the Board of Works, did not include Windsor Park—we all admit that. This is quite a sufficient justification of the Secretary to the Treasury not inserting in the Esti-
    576
    mates the expenditure for this Park. But what the hon. Member for Swansea urges, and what we urge, is that Windsor Park ought to be put in exactly the same position as the other Parks for which the expenditure is voted from year to year under the Estimates. Now, there is another matter on which there seems to be misapprehension. I did not gather for a moment that it was the wish of the hon. Member for Swansea that there should be any steps taken to make Windsor Park a mere place for profit. He does not wish to interfere with it as a place of recreation. Let that be understood. We are not in any way urging upon the Government that they should treat Windsor Park as a means of raising revenue. That is not the point at all. We do not want the beauty or the recreative aspect of Windsor Park to be interfered with. We do not press upon the Government that they should take some means to increase the revenue, which amounts to £5,977. That we do not want to interfere with. What my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea says is this—that, inasmuch as we pay £26,968 a-year—at least, we did last year—on account of the Park, the proper course would be that the amount should be placed in the Estimates, and that we should, therefore, in Committee of Supply, have an opportunity given us of going over that expenditure with as great accuracy and with as great a sifting as can be attained in regard to any of the other Parks which are placed under the Board of Works. I observe as to the Royal Parks, that not only are the general expenditures of these Parks detailed under different heads, but that, whenever there is an extraordinary service in these Parks, those extraordinary services are noted. Now, if the expenditure as to this Park was placed in charge of the Board of Works, and if the various items of expenditure were laid before Parliament for its sanction, and if, in addition, any proposal of extraordinary work recommended was laid before Parliament for its sanction, I have a strong opinion that the effect of that would be to promote economy, and that, I understand, would be the object of my hon. Friend. I suppose that some day the whole question connected with Woods and Parks will be gone into; but that is not the point at present. It is a much narrower

    577
    point, and I must say the answer of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has not met the position taken by the hon. Member for Swansea; and I still hope that, on consideration, the Government will see that it will be to the interest of the Public Service that this expenditure should be brought duly under the notice and control of the Committee of Supply in the House of Commons.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURobserved, that as the annual expenditure on Buckingham Palace, which was in occupation by the Crown, was brought before the Committee by being included in the Civil Service Estimates, and the funds required for maintenance voted by Parliament, he did not see why the expenditure incurred in respect of Windsor Park should not be subject to the control of Parliament. At all events, it was inconsistent to allow two modes to be now followed in obtaining funds for the keep of Palaces and Parks in direct use with the Crown. The line to be drawn was that Palaces and Parks not in use with the Crown should be upheld by monies annually voted by the House of Commons, and a clear understanding arrived at as to how Palaces and Parks exclusively in use with the Crown are to be provided for.

  IRISH UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. O'DONNELL, who had a Notice of Motion on the Paper, which, owing to the Forms of the House, he was unable to move, to the effect—
    "That the practical exclusion of the Catholic element from the entire Professoriate of the Faculty of Arts in the three Colleges of the Queen's University in Ireland renders the compulsory maintenance of these institutions at the public expense an additional and offensive grievance to a Catholic people,"
    said, that in connection with this matter it had been again and again remarked that there was an advantage in the mingling of youths of different creeds during the period of life when prejudices were not strong, and when habits were formed which would be likely to have the effect of implanting in their young minds the seeds of mutual kindness and respect. It had been said that the meeting of young men of different religious persuasions in the same Colleges and Univer-
    578
    sities must have the effect of rendering them tolerant citizens afterwards. It might be objected to these statements that they implied the less religion people were troubled with the better. But it was altogether a misrepresentation of the position which Catholics took up upon this question to say that they objected either solely or mainly to the mingling of young men of different religions in the same lecture-halls. What they complained of was the refusal of any permission to them selves to have in the institutions of which he was speaking Professors who would instruct the children of Catholic parents in those principles of religion which the parents desired to be taught to their children. They saw no objection whatever to Protestant parents sending their children to a Catholic University should they consider it right to do so; but they thought it would be unjust, unfair, injurious, and tyrannical so to dispose the public education of the country that Protestant parents should have no alternative but to send their children to the halls of a Catholic University, or vice versâ. The Queen's Colleges in Ireland had been represented in the House and in the country as institutions in which Catholic and Protestant students had equally fair play; but, so far from that being the case, they were in their teaching and in their Professorial staff practically non-Catholic institutions. They were to all intents and purposes Protestant institutions of various kinds and shades. If the Queen's Colleges were officered by Catholic Professors, if the examinations were con-ducted by Catholic Examiners, if Government tutors of the highest standing assisted the students in their studies, those for whom he spoke would not object to the presence of Protestant students in the halls; but they did object to being obliged to send the Catholic youth of Ireland to such institutions as the Queen's Colleges, which were officered by an almost exclusively Protestant Professoriate. It was a mockery—it was a thorough mis-statement—to say that those institutions offered the same advantages to Catholic as to Protestant students, and that they were equally fair to both. How could this be so, when the various Chairs were found to be in the possession of men of one set or sect of religious opinions? In dealing with this matter, he was influenced in no way by any

    579
    bigotry or religious prejudice. It was a matter of perfect indifference to him whether a man was a Catholic or a Protestant, so long as he was of personal worth as a citizen. But this was a question of parental right and of fair dealing as between different denominations, and it was a question which it behoved the House very seriously to consider. Take the case of the Queen's College, Belfast. That College was practically a Protestant institution, and enjoyed the entire confidence of the Presbyterian and Protestant population of Ulster, and they found the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland approving of the manner in which the Chairs in that professedly un-sectarian College had been filled. But what was the fact? That after all that had happened, after all the criticism which had been brought to bear upon the subject, he believed there was not in the list of Professors of Queen's College, Belfast, a single member of the Catholic Church to be found in the Professorial Chairs of the entire Faculty of Arts. The result was that nearly 200 Presbyterian and Evangelical students attended there, while, although half the population of Ulster was Catholic, there were only about a dozen of Catholic students to be found there altogether. If they went from Queen's College, Belfast, to Queen's College, Cork, they would find that for all practical purposes the Professoriate was again non-Catholic. There was one single Arts Chair out of 10 which was held by a Catholic; but all the other Chairs were occupied by Protestants of various denominations. There was, indeed, a sort of Catholic ornament who had been lately added to the College—an ex-Professor of a Catholic University had been induced to accept the handsome post of President of the institution, but he did not teach. He exercised no function of the kind; and practically the entire teaching of Queen's College, Cork, was in the hands of non-Catholic Professors. Passing on to Gal-way, the same tale repeated itself. Out of some 10 Professors in the Arts Faculty, there was only to be found a single Catholic Professor. And yet this was the system which, although it was so manifestly unfair, and had in its numerical results proved a failure, they were taxed for and asked to sanction and to approve. There were, besides those Pro-
    580
    fessors, a few Professors in the Queen's University who were Catholic, and he would not be guilty of the subterfuge of holding back that fact. Both in Cork and in Galway there were a couple of so-called medical Professors who were Catholics. In Galway there was, to his own knowledge, a Professor of the practice of medicine who was a Catholic, and a Professor of Materia Medica who was a Catholic, while the Professor of anatomy and physiology was also a Catholic. But the House would, of course, observe that these were purely Professional Chairs, and in no way entered into general education; and he believed that it was very rare indeed that the religious bias of a Professor would become visible in a lecture on Materia Medica, on the practice of medicine or anatomy and physiology. Besides, those Catholic gentlemen who were appointed to medical Professorships in the Queen's University in Ireland were almost invariably local medical gentlemen. If they went into the history of the matter, they would see that under the acknowledged distinction of these local gentlemen and their reputation in the different branches in which they were selected to teach there was also the fact that those gentlemen also represented local influences; and again and again had it happened, as in Galway, that the entry of a Queen's College student into a hospital under the control of a local Catholic Board of Guardians, &c, would not be very easy if the local medical gentlemen were strictly tabooed by the College authorities. Thus, there were three Catholic medical Professors in Galway, and two in Cork; but, of course, medical education had nothing at all to do with the general University education of the people. Before the Queen's Colleges were established there was a medical school in Cork, and another in Belfast; and although a medical school had been nominally established in Galway since the foundation of the Queen's Colleges there, to all practical ends and purposes there was still no real medical school. The lectures were still given, but for all the practical purposes of their business the medical students had to attend the Dublin hospitals. The fact remained that out of 30 Chairs 28 were in the hands of non-Catholics, and yet these were the institutions which Ireland was asked to pay for and support. He left it to the

    581
    advocates of the system to say whether the Catholics were deliberately and purposely kept out of the Queen's Colleges' Chairs on account of their religion or not; and however his objections might be answered, he did not expect more than a few general observations which would leave the House about as well informed as before on the subject. He had no doubt the Chief Secretary for Ireland would reply with his usual courtesy, but also with his usual vagueness. What he (Mr. O'Donnell) desired to show was that the so-called undenominational education was in the hands of one denomination—namely, the Protestants; and that the Catholics, who were the representatives of the great majority of the people in Ireland, were to all intents and purposes excluded from this University, which was intended for the benefit of the people of Ireland. It was impossible under these circumstances to accept such an institution; and the Government might be perfectly satisfied that the Irish Members would give this and similar institutions every resistance in their power. In fact, he thought there was no extremity of resistance recognized within the procedure of this House which ought not to be resorted to in order to prevent the imposition on the people of Ireland of a system of this nature—a system which in its theory was unworkable, and in its practice was distinctly an anti-Catholic institution, falsely forced upon the people of Ireland under the pretence that it was one which deserved their support. He declared this system was false in inception, tyrannical in working, and in its results a base hypocrisy imposed upon an honest people.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he looked upon this question as a very important one, and there was no mistake as to what the opinion of Catholic Ireland was with regard to it. Last year they had before the House the subject of a general revision of University education in Ireland, and 57 Irish Members voted for a change, while not more than 10 Irish Members—and those Representatives of Protestant constituencies—voted for the present state of things. An analysis of the votes of the 10 Irish Members who voted showed that they came from Fermanagh, Tyrone, Belfast, Carlow, Dublin County, City, and University. Taking, therefore, the constituencies re-
    582
    presented by the 57 other Members, it was evident the present system was not favoured by the Irish constituencies. In fact, the whole of Catholic Ireland was against the present system, and the Government were actually taxing the people of Ireland in order that they might carry out a system of education which they disliked. They were forcing upon Ireland a system which she abhorred; and yet they expected her to be as contented as the people of England were with a system which was in accordance with the feelings of a majority of the people. In England they had the School Board system, in which Manchester, Birmingham, and other places, might determine what the system of education should be, and they might introduce what amount of denominationalism they thought proper; but in Ireland there was a rigid system, and a totally different state of things existed. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government not to be annoyed at the attempts which were made to bring this question under the notice of the House. The Eastern Question was brought before them in many different ways. First, in regard to Cyprus, then as to Afghanistan, and, then, in other ways; and equally as the people of England were interested in the different phases of the Eastern Question, so were the people of Ireland interested in the different phases of the University Education Question in that country. Many amongst the Irish people had entertained the hope that the present Government would appreciate the fact that the majority of the Irish nation wished for a different system of education. None of them objected to Protestants or Secularists—if there were any in Ireland—having Colleges of their own; but, all they asked was that they should consider the feelings of three-fourths of the population, and afford them due means by which they might obtain a Catholic education. Nine-tenths of the Professoriate in the Qeeen's Colleges did not belong to the religion of the country; and although he did not mean to say that the Protestant Professors attempted to convert or pervert the Catholic youths in their charge, yet he believed that when Professors found themselves of a different religion from the majority of students, they would eschew religious topics altogether; and the House would admit that few things were mere dangerous

    583
    than to talk of certain scientific subjects with all reference to religion omitted. The system was one which, so far as it had any influence at all, was calculated to sap the foundations of all Christianity. He believed the hon. Member for Dun-garvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had done right in bringing this matter forward, because if the Government were left for a fortnight or a month without being reminded of this crying grievance, they would begin to think there was no grievance at all. It was by hammering away at the question that they would convince Irish constituencies of the necessity of returning Members pledged to see justice done in this matter; and he, therefore, believed they were doing good service to their country in pressing this matter forward. He hoped the Catholic electors, both in England and Ireland, would be sufficiently strong to compel the Government to give proper consideration to the subject.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) had drawn a comparison between the subject brought forward by the hon. Member for Dungarvan and the Eastern Question; but he (Mr. J. Lowther) was at a loss to understand what analogy there was between the two subjects. He presumed, however, that it was to be found in this—that the hon. Member for Dungarvan, following an illustrious example, wished to drive the Professoriate of the Queen's College "bag and baggage" out of Ireland, and that he considered that to be a proposition which he was justified in season—he would not say out of season—in bringing continuously before the House. He (Mr. J. Lowther), however, was not sure that the example to which he had alluded, illustrious though it might be, was one to be cultivated by those who wished to obtain success. He should rather have thought it was one to be avoided. He did not wish the question of Irish education to be relegated to the category of the "bag and baggage" question, as it would then become one which could never be mentioned without exciting a legitimate want of sympathy in the mind of the great mass of the community. The Irish Education Question was a great question; and although, no doubt, they had some very influential Representatives of the Irish nation present to-night, the matter was one which he was disposed
    584
    to believe would require an expression of opinion from a greater number of Members than had addressed, or were likely to address, the House on this occasion. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had spoken of the Queen's Colleges as having attained no practical result. [Mr. O'DONNELL: I did not refer to the subject.] He (Mr. J. Lowther) knew that the hon. Member had carefully avoided the subject; but he certainly understood him to say the Queen's Colleges had not succeeded in obtaining the results for which they were originally founded. The hon. Member in making that statement had displayed great moderation and modesty, for he might have reminded the House that they were indebted to a Queen's University education for the able speech which had occupied the time of the House for upwards of half-an-hour. There had, therefore, been instances in which the money expended by the country in providing Professors for these Colleges had not been entirely thrown away. But the subject was one which required handling in a manner that could hardly be attempted that evening. The hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) had said that the question would come continually before the House, sometimes in one form and sometimes in another; but he (Mr. J. Lowther) did not think that, although they might have the pleasure of listening to one or two, or perhaps even three speeches, the subject was likely to be broached that evening from a point of view that would exhaust all the arguments which could be raised upon the question of Irish education. He did not see at that moment any of the opponents of the hon. Member who probably would require their opinions to be heard. As the subject was one which the House of Commons must be prepared to discuss at a future time, and the hon. and gallant Member had promised them that many opportunities for discussion would be afforded, he (Mr. J. Lowther) thought he should be studying the convenience of the House by reserving the opinion of Her Majesty's Government for another occasion.
    MR. O'CLERYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) had given the House no information whatever. He (Mr. O'Clery) would be very glad if the Irish Members would initiate a cru-

    585
    sade against the present system of education in Ireland, which would have for its ultimate object the "bag and baggage" policy referred to by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was pleased to be facetious with regard to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) upon the Eastern Question. The Irish people had to pay, unfortunately, for the dealings of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Eastern Question, as also for the system of mixed education imposed by Her Majesty's Government upon Ireland, and that constituted a very legitimate reason for their Representatives bringing those matters before the House of Commons. It had been stated that the Irish voters resident in England would have something to say about Irish education at the next General Election. He (Mr. O'Clery) had reason to know that they would insist that any candidate who wished to have their support should make it clearly understood that he was in favour of denominational education, not only in England but also in Ireland. Now the Government, and the Party which the Government led, had won for itself a position in England by affording denominational education in English Schools; but it had never occurred to them that perhaps two-thirds of the Members of the Conservative Party returned by England would at the next General Election be called upon to be consistent, and give to Ireland a system of denominational education which they were willing to accord to England. There were to his own knowledge many constituencies in England where the Irish vote would turn the scale. It had been said the other day that the natural Conservative majority stood at 47, and it would be a question at the next General Election whether that natural majority could be maintained. He submitted that the right hon. Gentleman, as the champion of the Conservative Party, should have been prepared to make some statements of the views of the Government upon the subject of Irish education, for the information of Irish Members, and not indulge in vague generalities. They could only appeal to him to do this by forcing upon his notice, and the notice of his Colleagues, the fact that the Catholic priests of Ireland were determined—and the right hon. Gentle-
    586
    man would know by his official position that they possessed some influence—to make the question of denominational education in Ireland a test word. The hon. and gallant Member for New Ross (Colonel Tottenham) would have now no chance of being re-elected for that borough, if he were at all hesitating or vague on that question; and he need hardly point out to the right hon. Gentleman that scarcely one in three of the members of his Party in Ireland would have any chance of being re-elected unless they were clear and outspoken on the subject of University education. Now, there were many constituents who could afford to dispense with representation in an Irish Parliament, but could not afford to dispense with the question of University education. It was the primary duty of Irish Members to consider the wishes of the Irish people on every great question in which they were interested, and this one vitally interested them. There were other questions also—namely, those relating to the land and the Irish Parliament, which, as well as some of great Imperial importance, naturally demanded the attention of Irish Members; but he would be wanting in his duty if he did not press this particular question on every occasion upon the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to consider it also, so that he might, when the matter was again brought forward, be able to give Irish Members some definite answer.
    Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Supply—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £29,540, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces."
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, at that hour—12.15—it would not be fair to ask the House to go into the question of the Estimates, and he would,

    587
    therefore, move that Progress be reported.
    Motion agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  LICENSING LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Staveley Hill, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Rodwell.)
  LICENSING LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.

    [BILL 25.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the hour was too late to enter into any detailed explanation of the object of the Bill. So, with the permission of the House, he would on the present occasion content himself with the Motion he had made, and reserve until the occasion of going into Committee the statement he intended to make.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Staveley Mill.)
    SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, he felt bound in the interests of free competition to give this measure all the opposition in his power, and he moved that it be read a second time that day-six months. This Bill was before the House last Session, and he was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had given a cold shoulder to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for West Staffordshire. He, however, did not know what course the right hon. Gentleman intended now to pursue. If the Motion for the second reading were pressed, he must take the opinion of the House on the Motion. The Bill, which had been introduced on several previous occasions, he had no hesitation in saying, was framed entirely in the interests of monopoly; and whatever views the hon. and learned Gentleman might have on the question of temperance, it was manifest that his Bill was of a sinister and dangerous character. He, therefore, felt it his duty to meet the Bill at this stage with a direct negative. The hour was too advanced to enter then upon a discussion of the measure; but he hoped that the Home Secretary would frankly state the views
    588
    of the Government upon the subject' and be enabled to give the coup de grace to this highly objectionable measure.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir Harcourt Johnstone.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I should not have risen on the present occasion had I not been personally appealed to by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone). I am, however, bound to express my astonishment that the hon. Baronet, having himself brought in a Bill to the same effect some years ago, has not given us the reason why he has changed his mind. I can only say now that it is rather too late to discuss a Bill of this importance to-night and I therefore hope my hon. and learned Friend will adjourn the debate to another and more opportune occasion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Thursday next.

  BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) BILL— [Bill 93.]
  (Mr. Wheelhouse, Sir Andrew Lush, Mr. Scott, Mr. Isaac, Mr. Benjamin Whitworth.)
  BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) BILL— [Bill 93.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Wheelhouse.)
    MR. DILLWYN, in moving, as an Amendment, that the House would, upon that clay six months, resolve itself into the said Committee, said, he wished to have some expression of opinion on the part of the Government with regard to this Bill, which seemed to him to require more consideration than the House could bestow upon it at that moment. The measure dealt with several important questions; amongst others, the disputed point as to whether the children should be sent to schools established for the re-

    589
    ception of children of the religion to which they belonged; it also provided that in case of any question arising as to the religion of any child the same should be determined by the Local Board, so that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be thereby constituted the sole and entire judge of that very knotty and difficult point. He (Mr. Dillwyn) desired to know whether the right lion. Gentleman accepted that responsibility, or whether the Government thought it proper that he should do so? He also wished to know why the magistrates should be empowered to purchase or provide, out of the county rate or borough rate, buildings for the care and education of these children? In his opinion, this was not one of the cases in which magistrates ought to be allowed to establish such buildings and pay for them out of the public rates, seeing that the application of the Bill was merely optional. He would move the postponement of the Committee.
    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. Dillwyn,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he could not see that the hon. Member for Swansea had stated sufficient reasons for his Motion. The greater part of the Bill was of a permissive character. His hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) would be quite within his right in endeavouring to alter Clause 3, which provided for the settlement of the religion of the children in a peculiar form, and which appeared somewhat open to objection, although the principle was not at all a new one. With regard to Clause 4, he was not sure that there was anything objectionable in the magistrates having the power proposed to be conferred upon them. He felt that the Bill was one which, although framed with benevolent intentions, was not likely to be brought into active operation, and had always been of opinion that it professed a great deal more than it would be able to accomplish. He trusted the Bill would be allowed to go into Committee.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, that after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Preamble postponed.
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Provision for children being received into schools established in connection with religion to which they belong).
    MR. DILLWYN, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 13, to leave out from the beginning of the clause to "and," in line 18, inclusive, said, he had no objection to the remainder.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, that his sole object was to get these children educated, and he was very anxious indeed to accomplish that purpose. He cared very little—indeed nothing at all—as to how the education was to be found for them; and if religious instruction was not to be disassociated from the school teaching, how it was carried out did not seem to him a matter of any importance. His only motive for inserting the clause in the Bill was to protect the religious feelings of parents. Children, he thought, should be taught some form of religion; and, in his opinion, children ought to be educated in the faith of their fathers, for if that were done, everything like an attempt at proselytizing would be avoided. With those views this clause had been inserted, and with the object of carrying them into effect he desired to retain it; but if the House thought it better that the clause should not remain in the Bill, he should not personally stand in the way. He did trust that, whatever the House did as regarded this clause, the passage of the Bill through Committee would not be imperilled.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he wished children to be educated in the religion of their fathers; but there was another element which would render this clause prejudicial. There was only to be one of these establishments in each county, and the effect of the clause would be to

    591
    prevent a great number of children being sent to the school in their county.
    MR. NEWDEGATEthought the clause was justifiable as it was originally drawn, on the ground that the general law was that every child should be brought up in the faith of its father, but that the clause was most unjustifiable as it stood amended, for it would deprive these poor children, whom the whole Bill assumed, though deprived of certain faculties, to be intelligent, of the benefit of the general law.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHagreed with the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) that this was a restrictive clause upon the operation of the Bill. The Bill provided for payment of money out of the rates for the education of these children; he could not possibly have assented to that provision if it had not been for the well-known operation of the Act passed in 1875, under which poor people were allowed to have the school fees paid for their children without being pauperized. He had, however, told his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Wheelhouse) that now that provision was passed into law, he had no longer any objection to that part of the Bill.
    MR. COURTNEYpointed out that this clause, taken in conjunction with the 1st clause, imposed upon the Guardians an obligation which they could not fulfil. By the one clause the Guardians were empowered to provide a school for these children; by this clause a restraint was placed upon the schools to which blind or deaf-mute children might be sent in particular counties.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEobserved that the restriction on the schools to which blind and deaf-mute children might be sent was permissive only. He did not think that there was any reason for saying that this was an absolute restriction, or that it was intended to be, or that it was anything more than permissive.
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    Preamble agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MOTION.

  PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Cromarty, Fortrose, Lybster, Penzance, and Torquay.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN G. TALBOT and Viscount SANDON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 125]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.