Sitting of 5 February 1880

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

NEW WRITS DURING THE RECESS.
Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House,—that he had issued Warrants for New Writs, for Elgin and Nairn Counties, v. Honble. Alexander William Duff, commonly called viscount Macduff, now
62
Earl of Fife, called up to the House of Peers; for Sheffield Borough, v. Eight honble. John Arthur Roebuck, deceased; for Liverpool Borough, v. John Torr, esquire, deceased; for Donegal County, v. William Wilson, esquire, deceased.

Ordered,That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.
OUTLAWRIES BILL.
Bill "for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read the first time; to be read a second time.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Sir George Macpherson Grant, baronet,for Elgin and Nairn Counties; Thomas Lea, esquire,for Donegal County.
NEW WRITS ISSUED.
For Barnstaple Borough,v.Samuel Danks Waddy, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds;for Southwark Borough,v.John Locke, esquire, deceased.
THE QUEEN'S SPEECH FROM THE THRONE.
Mr. SPEAKER reported Her Majesty's Speech, made by Her Chancellor, and read it to the House.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
COLONEL DRUMMOND-MORAY,in rising to move the Address in reply to Her Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne, said.: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I feel that in undertaking so onerous and yet so honourable a task as the one before me, I must appeal to the House to grant me, to the fullest extent, that generous forbearance which it has always shown to those in a similar position. Sir, when we contrast the present state of the Eastern Question with its condition at this time last year, I venture to think it bears a very favourable comparison. The Treaty of Berlin has been successfully carried out. Russian troops no longer occupy Turkish territory. Russia is no longer at the gates of Adrianople, as she probably would have been if the original Bulgaria, as defined by the Treaty of San Stefano, had been allowed to remain as a Province. And Bulgaria itself, reduced to half the size proposed

63
by Russia, has been pushed back behind the Balkans—the passes of which mountains the Turks have a right to seize and occupy in the event of Russian aggression. Besides this, Austria holds a position not only of great military but of great administrative importance in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was said at first that success would never attend the efforts of Austria to administer these Turkish Provinces on the principles of Western civilization, and that Bosnia would always resist her troops; yet what is the state of affairs there now? We see now that perfect tranquillity reigns in that country, and that religious equality has been established. Farming of the tithes has been abolished, and this, together with all taxes, are collected regularly and at stated times. The result is that the burden of taxation is not nearly so much felt as formerly, and it is the belief of persons well qualified to form an opinion that before long that Province will be able to pay its own way. I admit that Turkey has been slow to begin any reforms; but we must remember that the habits of a country are not to be changed at once, that the official class is naturally against all reforms, and that it is only within the last year or two that the necessity for reform has been insisted upon. Besides, Turkey has only just emerged from a long and disastrous war, she has no available money, and she has no longer that credit amongst other nations which she once had, and which she has so unfortunately wasted. But as Austria has been successful in Bosnia, we may hope that Turkey, with such an example before her, may yet see that security for property, justice in taxation, and improved means in communication, would be the basis for a lasting and prosperous future. The closing act of last Session was a discussion on the Treaty recently concluded by this country with the Ameer of Afghanistan. At that time Sir Louis Cavagnari, appointed under the provisions of that Treaty to be Her Majesty's Representative at the capital of that country, at the express desire and under the especial guarantee of the Ameer, had arrived at Cabul, and had been received with all the honour due to his position. Within a month, we received the lamentable tidings that he and all his Staff had been treacherously massacred. Whatever may be our
64
opinion as to the policy of that Treaty, and of the war, we must, I am sure, all join in lamenting the death of one of the most distinguished and able of our Indian officials; and we must all feel that another act of gallantry has been added to the already long list that the history of our Indian Empire contains when we recall to our memories the brave defence made by our Envoy and his devoted followers against an overwhelming crowd of treacherous Afghans. I may even go further and say, with universal assent, that when an Envoy of Great Britain and his Staff has been cruelly and treacherously murdered, the only course that could possibly be adopted was that of vindicating the dignity of this country and dealing prompt justice for the crime that had been committed. Fortunately for us, the arrangements that had been made under the Treaty of Gandamak greatly facilitated our action, for, whilst hopeful as to the permanence of our relations with Yakoob Khan, the Government of India had rendered its position substantially independent against all accident by securing the permanent command of the main roads and passes from India into Afghanistan. When, therefore, it became necessary to move upon Candahar and Cabul the advanced positions which we held on the Frontier proved of the most material assistance, and fully justified the selection which had been made. Since then, Sir Frederick Roberts has had to contend with difficulties which have required all his skill as a general to meet, and I venture to think that this House must feel that it was fully justified in the eulogium which it has already passed upon him, showing its high appreciation of the manner in which his duty has been discharged, and of the valour and devotion displayed by all his troops, both British and Native, who have been engaged in that campaign. Nor should we fail to acknowledge the peaceful conduct of affairs in South Afghanistan under the guidance of Sir Donald Stewart, who has shown himself to be not only a gallant soldier but also an able administrator. Sir, Her Majesty, in Her Gracious Speech, informs us that the military occupation of the country still continues to be a necessity; but we must all hope that the time will soon arrive when further military operations may be suspended, and that the

65
people of Afghanistan will be satisfied that we have no desire to annex their country or to unduly interfere with them; but, whilst securing our Frontier and our own legitimate influence, our desire is to live on friendly terms with them in future. There is no part of our recent proceedings which, I think, we may all agree in looking upon with more satisfaction than the system of Frontier railways, which has been commenced. Not only will they be of inestimable advantage from a military point of view, by improving our means of communication, but they will also, it may be hoped, at no distant period, lead to the development of commercial intercourse, which will, of itself, be the best means of extending our influence and the blessings of peace and civilization. The Zulu War is, we may trust, both now and for ever a thing of the past. We none of us can forget the news of a year ago of the melancholy catastrophe of Isand lana, and the gallant defence of Rorke's Drift. We cannot forget how the Government, although the war was in no way begun by their direction or with their consent, sent out large re-in-forcements with such praiseworthy celerity that in a few short months the campaign was brought to a close by the decisive victory of Ulundi—a victory most glorious in itself, for our foes, although termed naked savages, were greatly superior to us in point of numbers, and wore probably the bravest enemy that had ever fought against the troops of Great Britain. There must naturally be some difficulty for a time with the Transvaal and with the Confederation of all the South African States; but we may indulge in the hope that now South Africa, as a whole, is relieved from its imminent danger of aggression from an artificially great, but most dangerous military State, she may be enabled to carry out her undoubted future of defending herself without aid from this country. With respect to Home affairs, much as we may regret, yet we cannot hide the fact from ourselves, that a great and widespread depression is now felt throughout the agricultural community of Great Britain. In some districts it may be more deeply felt than in others; but through the length and breadth of the country, from the largest and most experienced farmers to the smallest holders of land, all have
66
suffered more or less severely. I venture to think that it is not very difficult to trace the causes of this depression. We know what the harvests of the last few years have been. In 1879, owing to the long-continued wet and cold, the harvest was deficient both in quality and quantity, and in some districts it is no exaggeration to say that there was no harvest at all. In 1878, the harvest, although not so deficient in quantity, was far from what it ought to have been in quality. In 1877, in 1876, and in 1875, we find that the harvest was in each year more or less deficient. But it has not only been against bad harvests that the British farmer has had to contend. He has had also to contend against bad prices, prices the lowness of which has been brought about by the stagnation in trade, coupled with an almost unlimited importation of grain and cattle from abroad—prices which have made it well-nigh impossible for our farmers to work their land at anything but a loss to themselves. During last Session a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the whole cause of Agricultural Distress, and to see how far it might be possible for us to try and prevent such a catastrophe from again occurring. That this Commission could in itself alleviate the distress, I am sure that neither my hon. Friend who moved that it should be appointed (Mr. Chaplin), or any of his warmest supporters, ever for a moment supposed; but when, as at the present time, all sorts of reasons for this distress are given and all sorts of remedies are proposed, the Commission, by inquiring fully into the matter, may prove most useful as a means to an end whereby, if it lies in our power, we may discover how to guard ourselves in the future. But, Sir, besides the reasons which I have given for the present state of agricultural affairs, many, I know, lay the blame upon the Land Laws, and maintain that if they were in some cases abolished, and in other cases greatly altered or modified, we should never again be liable to a crisis such as that which we are now passing through. They say all our distress is due to the Laws of Entail and Primogeniture—to the large size of estates, to the restrictions of cropping; and they maintain that so long as the and is not their own farmers will not be able to farm for their own profit. Others,

67
again, contend that peasant proprietorship is the real panacea for all our evils—in short, that our land system has practically broken down. I am not here either to condemn or defend our Land Laws. If it be clearly and conclusively proved that they are a stumbling-block and a hindrance to the progress of agriculture, doing harm alike to landlord and tenant, then I feel sure that no sensible man would, for one moment, object to such alterations being made in them as might seem best. And it is upon matters like these that I believe a Commission, such as that which has been appointed, may make a most useful and instructive Report, from the powers that it possesses of collecting evidence from all parts of the United Kingdom and from men of all shades of opinion. Regrets have been expressed that there are not a greater number of small proprietors, and that the number of yeomen, or, as they are called in Cumberland, statesmen, is rapidly diminishing. I think all will agree with me that it is a great pity such should be the case; but with respect to the former class, if we take Scotland—and I suppose in England it is much the same—if we make an investigation, we shall find that there are many lairds owning properties of fair size as to average, but poor in the quality of the soil—with all the surroundings to make home charming, yet without the means of keeping it up, who have found it be more profitable to sell their properties, yielding only 3 per cent with a large yearly expenditure, to some wealthy man from Edinburgh or Glasgow, and to invest the money thus obtained in securities which, without any annual expense, will bring them in a return of 4 per cent or more. In the same way, we shall find that the yeomen or statesmen prefer to sell their land, and with the proceeds of the sale rent a farm from some large proprietor. Although the classes I have mentioned are not so numerous as formerly, yet there is in England a district in which, at the present time, a large proportion of small freeholders exist. I refer to that part of Lincolnshire which lies between the banks of the Humber and the sea coast. These freeholders have bought their land, partly with their own savings and partly with money which they have borrowed. They inhabit a large and fertile tract of country—there are no
68
resident landlords, no woods, and no game. Now, if it can be shown that these freeholders are in bad times better off than the surrounding tenant farmers, then, doubtless, there is good ground for saying that there is something wrong in our system of landlords and tenants. But if, on the other hand, it can be shown that in bad times many of these freeholders, farming for their own profit, cannot improve their land—paying no rent cannot pay the interest on the money they have borrowed—cropping their land as seems to them best yet growing less than formerly—if it is shown that, holding their own small holdings, unfettered by any laws of entail or primogeniture, they are not only worse off than the tenant farmers, but are not even so well off, in many cases, as the hired labourer, although they both work and fare harder than he does—then I think we may fairly assume that there are other causes to account for the prevalence of agricultural distress besides the Land Laws, and that a system of peasant proprietors will not meet the case. For my own part, whilst I quite recognize the fact that there may be some useful alterations made in the Land Laws, yet I trust that in the course of this and the following years we shall find the real remedy for the agricultural distress in the shape of good harvests and revived trade. But, Sir, much as we may regret the distress that exists in England and Scotland, our sympathies must be still more deeply roused by the sad state of things in the West of Ireland. There the farmer seldom knows prosperity even in fair seasons, and his usual struggle to obtain a livelihood becomes, after a season like the last, a struggle against absolute famine. We can only hope that, by means of the liberal contributions now being raised in this and in the countries, by the exertions of the re dent landlords, by the issue of food and fuel as ordered by the Government wherever it may be necessary, and by the loans offered by it at a nominal rate of interest, this lamentable calamity may yet be averted. Her Majesty has announced in Her Gracious Speech that two measures of great importance—namely, the Criminal Code Bill and the Bankruptcy Bill, will be submitted to our notice. I trust that the House will give its fullest consideration to these measures,

69
and assist Her Majesty's Government in passing them during the course of this Session. Now, Sir, at the conclusion of my task, which I feel that I have but ill-fulfilled, I beg to thank the House for the extreme kindness with which it has listened to my remarks. I beg to move—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to thank Her Majesty for the Most Gracious Speech which Her Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her relations with all the Powers continue to be friendly, and that the course of events since the prorogation of Parliament has tended to furnish additional security for the maintenance of European Peace on the principles laid down by the Treaty of Berlin, although much remains to be done to repair the disorder with which the late "War has affected many parts of the Turkish Empire:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that a Convention for the Suppression of the Slave Trade has been concluded between Her Majesty's Government and that of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us of the hope expressed by Her Majesty at the close of last Session that the Treaty of Gundamak had happily terminated the War in Afghanistan; and that, in conformity with its provisions, Her Majesty's Envoy, with his retinue, was honourably received and entertained by the Ameer of Cabul:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that, while engaged in the exercise of then-duty, Her Majesty's Envoy and those connected with the Embassy were treacherously attacked by overwhelming numbers, and, after an heroic defence, almost all massacred:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that so intolerable an outrage called for condign chastisement, and that Her Majesty's Troops, who, pursuant to the stipulations of the Treaty, had withdrawn or were withdrawing from the territories governed by the Ameer, were ordered to retrace their steps:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us of the skill exhibited by the officers and men of Her Majesty's British and Native Forces in the rapid march upon Cabul, and on other lines of action, and of the high credit thereby reflected upon those Forces whose bravery has shone with its wonted lustre in every collision with the enemy:
70
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the abdication of the Ameer and the unsettled condition of the Country render the recall of Her Troops impossible for the present; but that the principle on which Her Majesty's Government has hitherto acted remains unchanged, and that, whilst determined to make the frontiers of Her Indian Empire strong, Her Majesty desires to entertain friendly relations alike with those who may rule in Afghanistan and with the People of that Country:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her anticipations as to the early establishment of peace in South Africa have been fulfilled, and that the capture and deposition of the Zulu King, and the breaking up of the military organization on which his dynasty was based, have relieved Her Majesty's possessions in that part of the world from a danger which seriously impeded their advancement and consolidation:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that a native outbreak in Basutoland of considerable importance has been effectually quelled by Her Colonial Forces, while the Transvaal has been freed from the depredations of a powerful Chief, who, having successfully resisted the former Government of that Country, had persistently rejected all attempts at conciliation:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her Majesty has reason to hope that the time is now approaching when an important advance may be made towards the establishment of an Union or Confederation under which the powers of self-government, already enjoyed by the inhabitants of the Cape Colony, may be extended to Her Subjects in other parts of South Africa: and to thank Her Majesty for informing us that Papers on these and other matters will be laid before us:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for directing the Estimates of the year to be prepared and presented to us without delay:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the Commission issued at the close of the Session to inquire into the causes of Agricultural Depression throughout the United Kingdom is pursuing its labours:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us of the special precautions which Her Majesty's Government have deemed it necessary to take in view of the threatened distress in Ireland, and of the measures which the course they have adopted will render necessary:

71
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that our careful consideration shall he given to such measures as may he submitted to us, and that we earnestly trust that the blessing of the Almighty may attend and direct our labours."
MR. J. P. CORRY: Sir, I rise to second the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perthshire (Colonel Drummond-Moray), and in doing so, I feel that it is not necessary for me to ask the indulgence of the House if, as an Irishman and one who has the honour of being one of the Representatives of the largest and most self-reliant constituency in Ireland, that I should first of all refer specially to that part of Her Majesty's most gracious Speech which relates to the present state of matters in that country, and what is to be submitted to Parliament in reference thereto. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already given Notice that he will ask leave to-morrow to bring in a Bill to give effect to the views of the Government, which, I think, shows that they are not indifferent to the matter. When my hon. Friend the Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) in 1876 occupied the position I have now the honour of filling, he congratulated the House on the omission from Her Majesty's Speech of any reference to the affairs of Ireland, and he did so on the ground that the country was so peaceable and prosperous that it was not requisite in any reference to the state of the country to separate it from the other parts of the United Kingdom. I am sure no one regrets more deeply than Her Majesty that the same state of matters does not exist at present. Sir, there are not many subjects about which we can all agree; but I think I may safely venture the statement, that few will be found to dispute, that we have in these countries, for the past four or five years, been passing through a period of great—I would almost say exceptionally great—commercial and agricultural depression, and that Ireland being the poorest country it has been more seriously felt there than in either England or Scotland. But even at the risk of giving offence to some of my countrymen, and of even being contradicted, I feel bound to tell the House and the country that, in my opinion, the distress in Ireland is not so general as one would be led to expect from the way it is being written
72
and spoken about in some quarters. I admit to the fullest extent, and deeply deplore, that in some districts of the country, especially that lying along the Atlantic Ocean, there is very great distress, and, as far as I can learn, and I have taken some trouble to inquire, I believe that in some parts it arises quite as much from a scarcity of fuel as it does from a scarcity of food. But, Sir, what is the history of these very localities, even in the most prosperous times? Why, that there is a considerable amount of poverty and hand-to-mouth existence amongst the people, and one of the causes which gives rise to that state of matters is over-population. What is it that has happened? It is this. A farm was originally let to a tenant, by-and-bye his family increases and it becomes divided between him and one or two of his sons, and in order that the sub-division may not come under the notice of the landlord or his agent, the rent continues to be paid by one, whilst it is made up by two or three, and hence the farm that could have supported one family has two or three living on its production. What is more, the seed, especially of the potato, has not been changed for 30 years. The only remedy for such a state of matters is emigration. This, however, is a cure which I am aware is not popular in some quarters. This is so for many obvious reasons. One, no doubt, is that agitators find it better to have a multitude of half-starved ignorant people who will be led by them, and through whose clamour they may get up an excitement, and, if possible, goad whatever Government may be in power to pass measures which are not for the welfare or prosperity of the entire community. With regard to the Province of Ulster, I can speak confidently; and I assert, without fear of contradiction, that at present, with the exception of the coast line of Donegal, that the state of matters are on the whole better than they were this time last year, and in those districts where manufacturing industries are carried on they are very much better indeed. As to the staple trade of Ulster, I venture to say it has not been for years in so prosperous a condition as at present, and that there is every hope of its continuance. Our mills and looms are in full operation, and everyone knows that when that is the case employment is plentiful. There

73
is no doubt that the improvement of the trade in the North of Ireland has arisen from the undoubted improvement which began to show itself in the United States in the beginning of last year, and which reached us in October. One of the greatest wants in the other Provinces of Ireland is manufacturing industries; but can it be wondered that no one has confidence enough to start anything of the kind? Unless there is security, no sane man would risk his capital in a country where it would be liable to be rendered worthless at any moment by such an agitation as has been sweeping over the greater part of Ireland for the repudiation of just liabilities. Why, Sir, it is the old story. Agitation is the curse of my unfortunate country. To the question, Why is capital not attracted to Ireland, when so much of it is seeking investment?—the answer is undoubtedly what I have given. One bubble has scarcely time to burst until another of greater dimensions, and possibly, as I believe in the present case, of more dangerous materials, is being blown. It is difficult for an Irishman, who has a deep and, perhaps, a much deeper interest in the welfare of his country than the so-called patriots, to read with any degree of patience the inflammatory, and I will say in many cases disloyal, language which is addressed to his excitable and possibly uneducated countrymen. We are being constantly told that the chief cause of all the distress and discontent which exists in Ireland arises from the want of having an Irish Parliament meeting in College Green. Why, Sir, the prosperity of Ulster since the Union has been as great as that of almost any other part of the United Kingdom, and we, Sir, who live there most certainly do not want to go backwards. In Ulster we understand Home Rule to mean Repeal of the Union, and I am satisfied that 99 out of every 100 who call themselves Home Rulers mean by it nothing short of that. Most of us, no doubt, have read the letter of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition (the Marquess of Hartington) to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), who sits behind him, with reference to the pledge which the noble Lord who is at present contesting that borough in the Liberal interest has given to the Home Rulers to secure their support. I think we in this House, and the country ge-
74
nerally, would be glad to learn from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition mesa definitely than is expressed in that letter what his views are on the Home Rule Question, which, I say, means Repeal of the Union. No doubt, the noble Lord does say that he could not see his way to give the pledge Lord Ramsay has done; but, at the same time, he goes on to say that he has no pretension to dictate to an independent candidate, and that the noble Lord has his warmest sympathy and cordial wishes for his success. Is the language of the noble Lord to be interpreted by Liberal candidates for Parliamentary seats to mean that they may give similar pledges to that Lord Ramsay has given whenever there is a considerable Home Rule vote? If so, and a number of the noble Lord's supporters in the next Parliament come in pledged to vote for this very innocent inquiry, I wonder what Lobby he will find himself in? We all remember what happened last Session on the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. The noble Lord expressed very strong views as to the flogging clauses; but owing to the pressure of the hon. Member for Birmingham who sits below the Gangway, and those who were acting with him, the noble Lord felt himself compelled to change his front; and I believe I am correct in saying that he actually moved a Resolution to abolish flogging in the Army. On that occasion it looked to me as if the noble Lord was being driven instead of leading, and what has happened before may happen again. I therefore think we should have from the noble Lord a declaration more explicit than he has yet given with reference to the whole matter. Perhaps I may here be allowed to say that I read with great interest a letter which the hon. Member for York wrote to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I hope the suggestions contained in it will receive the earnest attention of the Government, as I am satisfied that a further extension of the Provisional Order system would be found in many local matters of great advantage to England and Scotland as well as to Ireland. Ulster, in many respects, is not so favourably situated as the other Provinces, and yet everyone who visits Ireland is struck with the difference which is observable in the thrift and comfort of its inhabitants from the other parts of

75
Ireland. The borough which my respected Colleague and myself have the honour of representing comprises about the 24th part of the entire population, and if all Ireland were to follow its example the Government would not have much trouble in providing for exceptional times of distress. I recollect very well the Famine of 1847, and how in many parts of Ulster the distress that did exist over and above that which was provided for by the Poor Law was locally met, and, in addition, large contributions were given to help the distress in other parts of the country. Sir, those who have been taking the lead in the recent and present agitation boast that the result of it has been a general reduction of rents; and had it not been for them no effort would have been made, either by the Government or private individuals, to meet the exceptional state of matters which I have already admitted exists chiefly on the sea-coast. That I most emphatically deny. I am aware that the noble Duke who so worthily represents Her Majesty in Ireland, and those associated with him in its government, did not wait for any pressure to be put upon them; for so soon as it was feared, from the unfavourable state of the weather, that there might be a deficient harvest, instructions were at once given for accurate and reliable information to be collected and supplied to them, especially from those localities which were likely to suffer most; and it is well known that early in November the Local Government of Ireland issued a Circular offering loans for drainage and other works, which would enable landlords and town commissions to give employment; but for some reason very few availed themselves of the offer. The cry of the agitators was, and still is, that the Government undertake reproductive works. Yes, Sir, another of our great curses in Ireland is the want of self-reliance. So soon as any pressure comes, the Government is called on to do what you in England and Scotland do for yourselves, and also what we in Ulster do. What has been done by the Government since November? Of course they acted as wise men, with the facts of the case before them, and knowing what took place after the famine of 1847, when money was wasted to an enormous extent. They have been acting through the
76
constitutional and legitimate channels; and I have no doubt, from the reports of the action of landlords, town and harbour commissions, and others, that there will be a larger expenditure of money in useful, and, I hope, in most cases, of reproductive improvements. As we have been informed by Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, in making such arrangements the Government has exceeded its powers, and Parliament will be asked to pass a Bill of Indemnity, which I cannot imagine will occupy much time or give rise to any difference of opinion. In speaking on the question of land, I feel that I can do so without the prejudices of either a landlord—as in the ordinary acceptation of the term I am not one, owning no agricultural land—or that of a tenant farmer. Everyone is aware that after the Famine of 1847 the Encumbered Estates Court was established, which brought into the market very largo estates, which were broken up or sold to parties who had the money, not only to invest in the land, but also to spend on its improvement. That is what has been going on ever since—now under the Landed Estates Court to a greater or less extent, and more recently under the Church Temporalities Commissions; so that it is idle to say that land in Ireland has not been accessible to all who had the desire to acquire and money to invest in it. I am free to say that I am one of those who consider that the transfer of land might be made less tedious and less expensive; and, for myself, I can see no objection to an extension to the Landed Estates Court, or the same system of sales as has been adopted by the Church Temporalities Commissions. At the same time, I would have it most strictly and safely guarded, so as to prevent abuses. I am told on very good authority that of some of the properties which were held by the Church Commission, and which have been sold to the tenants, only the good farms have been sold, and that the inferior ones are still on their hands, and that the probability is that what is called the Church Surplus will be greatly reduced by a much lower price having to be taken for the unsold lots. Besides, I believe there is no doubt but that, in not a few instances, those who have purchased are in arrear of their annual payments; indeed, very reliable authority has been furnished on that point by the

77
Secretary to the Church Commission, who states that, out of a total sum of £ 182,800 receivable in 1879 for land instalments and interest of mortgages, the arrears on the 31st December last was £7,450. I would ask, what is the amount likely to be on the 31st December, 1880? From another source we learn that out of 41 parties who purchased holdings, or rather seemed to do so, in 28 cases the conveyances were made out in the name of another person. These facts do not point with any great satisfaction to the great panacea which has been insisted on for all the evils of Ireland—namely, that of getting rid of the landlords and the establishment of peasant proprietors. I have no objection to see an increase of peasant proprietors; but it must be carried out without any compulsion or violent changes. I hold the opinion that a very long time would not elapse before there would be large proprietors again. I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without expressing my high appreciation of the praiseworthy and disinterested work which that noble lady the Duchess of Marlborough, who has all the instincts of her noble family, which we in the North of Ireland are so proud of, undertook in starting a Relief Fund to aid those special cases of distress which employment nor any other means of assistance was likely to reach, and the hearty response which has been given to her appeal by the Lord Mayor and citizens of London and other places in England and Scotland. So soon as the anti-rent agitation was started, bankers and those who had money lent in the country got frightened, and at once an order went forth to stop all further advances and collect as much as possible of outstanding debts. Especially as soon as the passing of the Land Act of 1870, all over the country a class of money lenders has started into existence who have been lending money on most usurious terms. What takes place is—a farmer wants £10 or £20 for a month to make up his rent. He obtains it from the money lender to whom he is to refund £21 for the £20 borrowed, and if it is not forthcoming at the end of the month he pays £1 and the loan continues on the same terms, so that if it runs over 12 months the moderate rate of 60 per cent would be paid for the loan. No one knows better than my hon. Friend the Member for county Cork (Mr.
78
Shaw), who is chairman of a prosperous and well-managed bank whose business is chiefly in the South and West of Ireland, that what I am stating is correct. I was told on very good authority that a bank in Ireland, which has a large business amongst the farming class, had lately as many as 100 processes at one quarter sessions; and I must say I was more than astonished when I read a speech of my hon. Friend the Member for county Cork, in which he is reported to have said that there was in Ireland a national antipathy to a bailiff and process-server; that he felt it himself when he saw one of those fellows prowling about the country—he felt inclined to take the linchpin out of the wheel of the car. When I read it, I looked back to see if it was not the utterance of some less responsible person, knowing the usual moderation of the hon. Member, and the way in which he addresses himself to any question he undertakes to bring before this House; and I cannot think how he can allow his name to be associated with such teaching. His words will be treasured up by those who will not scruple to use them in a literal sense, and by others who will find it convenient to repudiate all sorts of contracts. It was not from the landlords that the pressure first came, but from those parties I have been referring to. The poor deluded people have been told in the most emphatic way to pay the shopkeepers, and those whom they want again. The most prominent, no doubt, are the money lenders; but the landlords are either not to be paid at all, or, if so, only what the tenant considers a fair rent. I have no doubt but amongst those who have been active in denouncing the landlords and landlordism are those very money lenders, and who will not be amongst those who will make any abatement in their demands. I ask, can it be wondered at that, after such teaching as that we are all now familiar with, there should be an outbreak of lawlessness? And I greatly fear we have not seen the end of what has been smouldering for some time. Sir, after what has been said, and so well said, by my hon. and gallant Friend on the other topics referred to in Her Majesty's Speech, it is not my intention to dwell at any length on them. But I cannot allow the opportunity to pass without saying that, when it is insisted

79
on by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and their friends outside, that the Government are responsible for the South African War, which has been successfully terminated, and which I hope will be the last this country will ever be engaged in, in my judgment nothing could be farther from the truth. The Government has given abundant proof in the Papers which have been submitted to Parliament that they did everything they could to prevent such a calamity; but when it was forced on them they acted with that decision which is characteristic of Englishmen, and of Irishmen, too, as in the settlement which has taken place a distinguished Irishman played an important part. I, of course, refer to Sir Garnet Wolseley. I wonder what right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have done had they boon in Office? Would they have recalled the troops that were already in the country, or would they have sent out additional ones? I am sure that they would have acted precisely as the Government did, and in that they would have been sustained by the Conservative Party. But how has the great Liberal Party acted during all this anxious time? Why, everything that possibly could be said and done to weaken the hands of the Government; but with what effect they know best themselves. With reference to what has taken place in Afghanistan, can it be possible, no matter how blind some people wish to be, that anyone can doubt but that Russia had been for some time intriguing with Shere Ali, and that the time had arrived when it was necessary for the Indian Government to see that it did not go too far? And as soon as it was decided to test the matter, and the Embassy which we were sending was turned back, the cry of the Liberal Party was—"What else could be expected, seeing that there was such a display of force accompanying the Embassy?" And then, recently, it was—"That the Government are greatly to blame for having such an insufficient force in Cabul to protect the late lamented Sir Louis Cavagnari." No matter what is done, we are told on very high authority that it is done in a stupid and blundering manner; and until the present Government is displaced, and the enlightened Government who occupy the front Opposition Bench—or as many of them as will remain after the next
80
General Election are in their places—nothing will be right; not even the weather. Sir, I do not hesitate to put the question—How was the honour and interests of this great Empire upheld during the late Administration, and how have they been under the present one? Why, it was then said that the British Lion was asleep, and that the country occupied the position of a second-rate Power, if even that. Is that the language that is held now either in this country or abroad? This House has over and over again given the answer, reflecting, as I believe, the voice of the country. I must say that I cannot see the policy of the Liberal Party placing in the fore-front of their attack the question of the foreign policy of the Government. It is, however, an issue which I am sure Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House, and also our friends outside, are quite ready to meet them on. We cannot object to their plan of reuniting the divided sections of their Party, and they have my best wishes for the failure of this experiment. Recently, a storm of words swept over a section of Scotland, and I believe that the country which my hon. and gallant Friend the Mover of this Address represents came in for a share of it. At the moment the noise was so terrific, that all outside the charmed circle who had been instrumental in raising it expected that everything which in any shape stood in its way would be uprooted and never be heard of again; but, greatly to their surprise, when it passed over, and the atmosphere cleared, there was no damage done, but instead, everything was more staple and secure than before. I believe, Sir, that when matters are settled in Afghanistan, as indicated in the Queen's Speech, we will have a North-West Frontier to our Indian Empire so impregnable that the peace and prosperity of the country will be secured for a very long time. Those who have listened to or read the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford during the Recess must have been amazed at his coolness and powers of assertion; and when we consider, and that on his own authority, that to his other unquestionably great gifts he has added that of being a prophet, and not even content with that, but also that he claims to have the only true interpretation of his own prophecies, it must be gratifying to his

81
friends. In my humble judgment, it would be strange if the interpretation did not fit into the prophecy; but I think it will be found, now that the hon. and learned Member has come to the place where his statements can be challenged, that it will turn out that his prophecies will prove to be the creation of a strongly imaginative brain, and that if the hon. and learned Member wished hereafter to be remembered as the Prophet of Oxford, it would be with the epithet which I leave others to supply. I had intended, as a mercantile man, to have said something on the financial question, but I have already detained the House too long; and being a subject which will engage the attention of those much more competent to deal with it, I will only say now that as the tide of improved trade has undoubtedly set in the hopes of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may revive also, and that if not this year, when next year's Financial Statement comes to be made—as I fully expect that he will occupy the same seat after the General Election—he will be able to say that the Revenue has again begun its leaps and bounds, and that it is not the case, as our opponents have been telling us and the country, that only during the period of a Liberal Administration being in power is there prosperity in the country. Certainly, during the late Government's lease of power, the progress and prosperity of the country were very great; but, as is the case after every such period of excitement, there comes a time of depression, and it fell to the lot of the present Government to come into Office just as the wave of prosperity which had been flowing over the country began to recede. I conclude by thanking the House for the very great patience with which it has listened to me, and I certainly would not have undertaken the duty which I have so imperfectly discharged had I not felt that, in being selected to perform it, the honour was as much owing to the constituency I have the honour of representing as to any merits of my own.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, &c." [Seep. 69.]
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is usually the duty, and a very agreeable duty it is, of a Member of the Opposition to rise at the conclusion of the speeches of the Mover and the Seconder
82
of the Address to pay a tribute, if he be able to do so, to the manner in which the task of moving and seconding the Address has been discharged by those who have undertaken it.
MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I rise at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) to a point of Order, and to inquire whether, Notice of an Amendment to the Address having been given at an early stage of the proceedings, he is not entitled, according to the usual practice of this House, to move his Amendment before the noble Lord, or anyone else, shall have the opportunity of speaking.
MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord rose in his place and caught my eye, and I accordingly called upon him to address the House. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), no doubt, at an earlier part of the evening, did give Notice of his intention to move an Amendment to the Address; but no Amendment stands upon the Notice Paper in his name, and, even if it did, that would not give him a right of precedence over the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OE HARTINGTON: I was saying that it was with the greatest pleasure that I rose on this occasion to discharge that usual duty as far as regards the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Address, who did so with perfect tact and temper, and with great ability. But I must say that I do feel called upon to make some protest against the manner in which the hon. Member who seconded the Address considered it proper to discharge the duty he had undertaken. On an occasion when it is usually considered that topics of difference should be avoided as much as possible, and when it is the desire of a great portion of the House that we should join together in an unanimous Address to Her Majesty, it does not seem calculated to promote harmony in our proceedings, or to improve the temper and spirit with which we are entering upon our labours of the Session, if the hon. Member who is charged with the important duty of seconding the Address takes the opportunity of delivering a carefully prepared—I may say a carefully written—speech in which he attacks everyone who has been unfortunate enough during the past few months to fall under his displeasure. The Members of the late Government,

83
especially the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. Shaw), and many other persons, have been referred to by the hon. Member in terms of considerable severity, although I am not aware that the conduct either of myself or of any of the hon. Members whom I have mentioned was referred to in Her Majesty's Speech. The hon. Member, therefore, seems to me to have travelled somewhat beyond the usual bounds in making these attacks upon so many persons whose conduct does not appear to be immediately in question at this moment. To revert, however, to the main subject before us, I think that a great many Members of this House must have felt somewhat surprised to find that we were summoned to assist Her Majesty's Government in the conduct of affairs during the present Session. This Parliament has existed for a time which exceeds the ordinary duration of Parliaments, and if its existence continues for two or three months longer it will have existed for a longer time than any other Parliament is recorded to have existed during the present century. I think that there is good reason why the ordinary practice, which is that Parliaments should not continue to transact public business up to the very extreme limit of their existence, should have been allowed to prevail on the present occasion. As long as a seat in this House is, and I hope it will long continue to be, an object of ambition and desire, it is extremely natural and inevitable that as the end of Parliament approaches some of the discussions and proceedings will be more or less biassed by the wish of Members to do that which is agreeable to their constituents, and not in all cases what is for the best interests of the nation. I think that is an influence which cannot be, under any circumstances, without some effect. I do not say that there may not be circumstances in which this consideration may be disregarded; but I do think that, in the present instance, any special circumstances which exist would rather be in favour of making an earlier appeal to the country than in favour of prolonging the existence of Parliament. It cannot be denied that since the election of this Parliament events of the greatest importance have taken place. It cannot be denied that those events were entirely
84
unforeseen by the electors at the time that this Parliament assembled. The course which the Government has taken in regard to these events—I am not now saying whether that course was right or wrong—was a course which elicited great difference of opinion in the country. It was repeatedly challenged in this House, and it is a matter of fact that the course which has been taken does not command the approval of what is, at all events, a considerable part of the constituencies. Under these circumstances, and considering that Parliament is throughout supposed to act upon the authority derived from the immediate sanction of the constituencies of the country, there exists a strong reason in favour of an earlier appeal to the country in order to ascertain whether the policy which the Government has pursued, and which we have so frequently attacked, really commands the sympathy of the country. It would have given greater authority to the decisions of the Government and Parliament. Our deliberations, whatever may be done by the Government and Parliament in this Session, must be done in a certain sense of uncertainty as to the opinions of the country; and I do not hesitate to express my opinion that the interests of the country had been better served had Her Majesty's Advisers recommended a dissolution of Parliament this Session. I am not going to enter at length upon a discussion of foreign policy. As time goes on the day must inevitably come when the appeal must be made to the country. We, and those acting with us, will be ready, and claim the right, and feel ourselves bound to put before the country many of those protests we have ineffectually made in this House. We shall claim the right of once more examining the foreign policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government. We shall endeavour to examine it as to its reasons and results, as to its justice and morality, the consequences which resulted from it, as they affect the honour and best interests of the country. I shall not on this occasion travel beyond the limit of those questions which appear to be naturally appropriate; and therefore I shall only ask Her Majesty's Government for some information upon those transactions which they have recently I been engaged in, and which appear to affect the interests of the country. First I would ask the Government whether

85
they are able to give the House any information as the position of the negotiations with regard to the rectification of the Greek Frontier? We believe that, in consequence of the action of the Turkish Government, those negotiations have been completely broken off. It? would not be very easy to overrate the importance to the people of Europe of the vexed question between the Greek and Turkish States. The Greeks are an active and ambitious people. They command, to a great extent, the sympathy of the Powers of Western Europe, although, perhaps, they have not found any protector so powerful or zealous as that which championed the cause of the Slav people. It may be asked, what has Greece done to entitle her to make any such claims? We are reminded that if the Kingdom of Greece had not observed the neutrality recommended to her by the Powers of Europe, Turkey, hard pressed on land, but powerful on sea, would have been able to inflict severe punishment on her. That may be so; nevertheless, I believe that the sympathy which Greece commands in a very large part of Europe is so strong that European public opinion would not have allowed that chastisement should have been inflicted by Turkey on Greece. I believe, further, that if the Greek Question again breaks forth—as it inevitably will, if these questions are not settled, and before long—the sympathy of Europe will not permit the Turks to inflict punishment upon Greece. I believe—although we do not hear so much of it now as of matters going on in other places—this Greek Question is a sore in the side of Turkey as dangerous to her as any other wounds inflicted on her lately. I believe it is for the interest of the Turkish Government itself that this question in which Europe has expressed a strong desire should be settled. A few weeks ago the usual assurance could scarcely have been given us that Her Majesty's Government was "on friendly terms with all the other Powers." We were informed a few months ago that, in consequence of the persistent refusal of the Turkish Government to initiate any of those reforms which had been promised, and in consequence of its disregarding the remonstrances of our Ambassador, the British Elect was about to be sent to Constantinople, for the purpose of extort-
86
ing from the Sultan an acquiescence to our demands. And, still later, in consequence of a dispute between the British Ambassador and the Turkish Government, in reference to a missionary and a Turkish subject, and the alleged neglect by the Turkish Government of promises made as to religious toleration, we were informed that diplomatic relations with the Porte had been suspended. I presume that on this subject Her Majesty's Government will lay Papers before us, and until we have those Papers I have no desire to go into the details of the business. What I now want broadly to point out is, that I feel some doubt as to whether acts of single interference like these are likely to be productive of any useful result. There is no doubt bitter disappointment existing in the Turkish capital as to the small amount of sympathy and support which the Government of this country accorded to Turkey during the war, and bitter disappointment at the policy of withholding any material assistance since the war. The English alliance is openly disparaged by men of power and influence in Constantinople; I am not aware that it is very greatly supported by any. There are not wanting Powers ready to suggest that it would be more to the interest of the Turkish Government to look to other quarters than England for advice and support, or, at any rate, to prevent vexatious interference. Indeed, it seems to me extremely possible that separate and single interference in the affairs of Turkey may, without being productive of any good, lead us into very awkward complications. But I only wish to point out now that these complications seem to be the inevitable result of the Convention we entered into with Turkey a year or two ago. The fruits of that Convention are now becoming evident. They are partially recorded in a Blue Book presented to Parliament during the Recess. What do we find in that Book? We find Reports from Consuls and Vice Consuls, and some from Her Majesty's Ambassador, all telling us the same story of the misgovernment in the Asiatic Provinces of Turkey—the misgovernment, or want of government at best, to secure to its subjects the blessings of peace, liberty, and security. Constant remonstrances, we find, are made upon these subjects by the Consuls and Ambassador. The answer

87
is always the same, and that is to the effect that the allegations are admitted, that reforms cost money, that the Turks have no money, and that it was impossible, therefore, to comply with the demands of Her Majesty's Government. There are one or two extracts from that document which appear to me to bear out the statement I make. The first is an extract from a verbal Note presented to the Porte by Sir Henry Layard—
"It would unhappily appear that the only authority now existing in those districts to which Her Majesty's Ambassador has referred is that of Turkish Agas and Beys, who exercise it in plundering, outraging, and oppressing the unfortunate Christians under their rule."
The next extract is the following:—
"His Excellency added that he was scarcely surprised to hear of the excesses committed by the Circassians, as these people, having been hunted out of Europe, and having been deprived of all they possessed, had been sent into Asia without any provision having been made for their maintenance and support. The consequence naturally was that they were compelled to starve or to rob, and they not unnaturally chose the latter alternative."
Another account is very much to the same effect. On the 23rd of June, Sir Henry Layard wrote—
"I must do both Kaireddin Pasha and Carathéodory Pasha the justice to say that they fully admitted that my complaints were well founded. His Highness said that he was prepared to commence at once with the special reforms to which I had referred, not in one, but in three of the Asiatic vilayets. He had already made them a matter of study. There was still the same want of money, which was a most serious obstacle to the introduction of some essential reforms, such as the organization of the gendarmerie; but he was engaged in studying a financial scheme which, if carried out as he hoped it would be, would afford the necessary means to the Porte."
Well, these extracts might easily be multiplied from the Blue Book. They disclose a sad state of things in any circumstances; but there would, in ordinary circumstances, be no reason why such a state of things should reflect any discredit on this country or impose any special responsibility upon us. But, unfortunately, since the Convention of the 4th of June the case is otherwise. We have by that instrument undertaken a serious responsibility in these matters. Had we been free from that engagement our duty might have been very well discharged by the constant remonstrances which Sir Henry Layard made; our responsibility might, perhaps, have been
88
discharged by the emphatic protest which the Blue Book shows Sir Henry Layard to have made. Sir Henry Layard said—
"Unless the Porte takes care and acts with wisdom and foresight it will some day have an Armenian question in Asia similar to the Bulgarian question in Europe, which led to the late war. The same intrigues are now being carried on in Asia Minor to establish an Armenian nationality, and to bring about a state of things which may give rise to a Christian outcry and European interference. I have warned the Turkish Ministers over and over again that unless they hasten to carry out the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin with respect to the Armenians and the Convention of the 4th of June, and to take the measures which are absolutely required for the protection of the Christians and for the better government of the Asiatic Provinces of Turkey, they will find out, when it is too late, that the Sultan may be in danger of losing some of them altogether."
But the state of things is this—that that inevitable result which Sir Henry Layard predicts cannot now come to pass until after either the resistance of England has been overcome, or until England has abandoned the solemn guarantee which she gave. We have guaranteed to Turkey the possession of those ill-governed and distressed Provinces, and we have accepted a consideration for that guarantee. We have accepted, not the reforms made by the Turkish Government, but the promise of reform; and the worthlessness of that promise, the incapacity of the Turks to fulfil it, does not relieve us in honour from the obligation of the guarantee we have undertaken. We have accepted, under the Anglo-Turkish Agreement, another consideration, which is equally worthless with that Turkish promise. We have accepted the occupation and the garrisoning of Cyprus; and we cannot repudiate our engagement without restoring that island to its rightful owner. That is a specimen of the results of the foreign policy which, I cannot help thinking, has been framed more for Party purposes and for home consumption. We have not increased by one iota our power of interference or of action for any good end, if we thought it necessary, and we have incurred the discredit of a partnership such as I have described, and we have incurred that discredit for the present wretched state of things which we desire to remedy, and which we are bound to remedy. Perhaps the Government will inform us what has been the result of the inter-

89
ference to which I have alluded? What was the result of the negotiations which, as we understand, led to the appointment of Baker Pasha to supervise re-' forms in Asia Minor? Will the Government inform us whether Baker Pasha has any authority not only to supervise reforms, but to institute them? Will they inform us what are the means which he has at his disposal for instituting reforms? Well, we were informed a short time ago, in a manner somewhat strange, that an alliance of the greatest importance to the interests of this country had been concluded. The German and Austrian Alliance was announced at a Party meeting by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, not as a matter of which he had any positive knowledge—he had heard of it by common report—but it was, he said, a message of "glad tidings for peace." We are entitled to ask now whether these glad tidings are true or not? Has the noble Lord discovered whether this Alliance has been concluded? What is its nature; for what object has it been concluded? And does he still believe that it promises all these inestimable blessings which he seemed to expect from it while it was in a hypothetical state? In my opinion, it is very easy to exaggerate the importance of that Alliance, as I think it was easy to exaggerate the importance of the Triple and Imperial Alliance of which we heard so much. For myself, I am far from disparaging its value, and, certainly, if it can calm the susceptible nerves of Her Majesty's Government—if it leads them to believe, as we always have endeavoured to contend, that the duty of maintaining the independence of Europe, of preserving the balance of power in the Mediterranean, and of repressing the ambitious advances of Russia in South-Eastern Europe, does not solely and entirely rest on their shoulders—if it induces the Government to adopt that which I think is a more reasonable view of the case, then it is of great importance. No doubt Alliances and understandings between Sovereigns and statesmen—the Triple Alliance to which I have referred, and the more recent Alliance—may have a great effect in influencing and guiding policy; but no Alliance, however close, can have more than a temporary effect, if it is not based on the true and permanent inte-
90
rests of the countries concerned. I believe that even the Governments of Russia, of Germany, and of Austria, autocratic as they are, cannot afford to disregard the material interests or the wishes and feelings of the people of their respective countries. But if we desire to know what are the interests and the wishes of those countries, we must look to the feelings of the people as well as to the words and promises of their Sovereigns and Ministers. It is not the interest of those countries to permit Russian aggrandizement in Europe at the expense of Turkey. That is the view that we have always maintained. And I believe that, however much it may suit our vanity to imagine that the Treaty of Berlin was entirely our work, other Powers more closely interested and more directly concerned had more to do with that settlement than has been supposed. The noble Lord seemed to think the agreement of Germany and Austria was to a great extent directed at the repression of the independent Nationalities on the Danube; but that would be a short-sighted policy for us to follow. For myself, I do not know whether or not Austria may feel that she has a temporary interest in repressing their growth; but Germany has no interest in repressing them, nor do I believe that her policy will be directed to that end. I think it would also be very short-sighted on our part if we committed ourselves to any Alliance or to any policy which would prevent us from giving our free and full support to the independence—the growing independence—of those Nationalities. They are the heirs—and I believe they will be the heirs—of the Turkish Empire in that part of the world; and I do not know of any duty or other consideration which calls upon us to join in any proceeding directed against their independence. The message of peace to which I have referred has had, it must be acknowledged, a somewhat singular inauguration. One of the Powers—parties to that Treaty—has recently thought it necessary to prepare for a very great augmentation of her ordinary enormous military establishment. It is often said that we on this side of the House are indifferent to European politics. It appears to me that it is Her Majesty's Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite who are sometimes indifferent to

91
what is passing in the world excepting in a certain quarter of Europe, and in the deserts and among the mountains of Central Asia. How can any statesman look at the present condition of Europe as a whole without alarm? At no time have we ever seen Europe so completely armed as at the present moment. At no time were the military forces of the great European States so fully organized as they are now. At no time has so large a proportion of the proceeds of industry been diverted from peaceful objects. It is impossible not to see that it is this state of things which is the chief cause of the anxiety that prevails everywhere throughout all Europe. In Russia the strain is almost greater than it is possible for her to bear, and the condition of affairs is such that not a few statesmen think and believe it is impossible that Russia can escape either domestic convulsion or a European war. Germany has followed on the same lines. The measures she has been compelled to take against social disturbance nave been the effect of her enormous military force. France has borne the burden, apparently, with less strain than other Powers; but things change rapidly in France, and it would be unwise to count upon the continuance of the present state of things in that country. Under such circumstances, it seems to me it would be prudent to look well to our own security. I do not think it is necessary, I do not believe it is desirable, that we should join in this race of enormous armaments. But in such a state of things as this, when a storm is hanging over Europe—and no one can tell where or when it may burst—if the Government were to come down and say that, in their opinion, the naval power and superiority of this nation ought to be maintained, I, for one, should hesitate in criticizing such a statement and opposing those demands. I say that our position is this, and the state of Europe is this, that we ought to concentrate our resources, and limit, instead of extending, our responsibilities. But this is not the course we have pursued. In every quarter of the world we have undertaken fresh responsibilities. Her Majesty's Speech refers to the conclusion of the war in South Africa; but it ignores the chief subject of difficulty in that part of the world. We have, no doubt, deposed the Zulu
92
King and broken the military power of the Zulu nation. I do not now discuss the settlement of Zululand or consider whether it is hopeful for the maintenance of peace or not; but, undoubtedly, the chief difficulty in South Africa is the condition of the Transvaal, to which no reference has been made in Her Majesty's Speech. I believe that Papers on this subject are promised. I am not going to state at this time my opinion as to the policy which ought to be pursued there. I will only say that it is perfectly clear now that the annexation of the Transvaal was a measure adopted by the Government and sanctioned by the House under wrong impressions and under incorrect information. We were informed that a large majority of the European settlers and inhabitants of the Transvaal were in favour of that annexation. It is now proved conclusively that a large majority, at all events, of the Boers are bitterly against it. We are now told that the annexation was rendered necessary because we could not permit the foreign policy of the Government of the Transvaal in their dealings with the Natives; but we have been ourselves compelled, to adopt almost precisely the same line of policy which was adopted by the Boers; and, under these two circumstances, I say it ought not to be considered a settled question, simply from the fact that the annexation had taken place. If it had been necessary for the peace of the community of South Africa that the Transvaal should devolve upon us, by all means let that be proved; but if, on the other hand, we find it would be more honourable to restore the Government, I say that no false sense of our dignity being involved in the question ought to stand in the way. Our true dignity would be best consulted by acknowledging that we have made a mistake, if, indeed, it is found that a mistake has been made, and restoring the Government of the Transvaal. As to Afghanistan, Her Majesty's Speech contains no statement of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. It contains some references to what has taken place; but it does not contain that which every Party in the country is now looking for, and men of all shades of opinion are asking for—a clear and distinct declaration from the Government of what their future policy in Afghanistan is to be. I will not pretend for a moment that any

93
explanation which the Government can give can be satisfactory to us, because I do not believe they can announce any future policy which will not leave our relations with Afghanistan in a far worse condition than they were before the war. I will not now go into the question we debated last Session, as to the justice of the war. I want only to look at the policy which dictated the war, and at that alone. I do not suppose the Government will deny that the war was the result of a settled policy. It can hardly be maintained that it was the result of an unforeseen disagreement between ourselves and the Ameer, of circumstances over which we had no control, and which left us no alternative but to fight for our honour and interest. The Government scarcely concealed, although they used the usual phrases of regret at having to resort to arms, their satisfaction at the course of events which had given an opportunity of placing our relations with Afghanistan on what they considered a footing so much more satisfactory, and, indeed, the only satisfactory basis. They exulted in the acquisitions gained at the conclusion of the Treaty of Gandamak. They exulted at the influence that Treaty had enabled them to obtain over the foreign relations of Afghanistan. They laughed at the apprehensions which had been expressed. They pointed to the realization of their anticipations. They did not conceal their triumph over Russian intrigue, and referred to the despatches which announced the conclusion of the Treaty of Gandamak as not only the record of military operations conducted to a successful conclusion and an honourable peace, but as the record of a successful and triumphant policy. What was that policy? I will set aside the acquisition of territory, the military value of which I will not discuss now, but as to which I imagine there must be considerable doubt. Having acquired some portion of Afghan territory, the idea of that policy was that Afghanistan, as a more or less perfectly organized State, would be placed, with regard to its foreign relations, on the same footing as other organized States, and that these relations would be so influenced by us that, as was expressly said, "our enemies should be their enemies, and our friends their friends." That was the policy supposed to be brought to successful conclusion by the Treaty of Gandamak.
94
And what remains of it? As soon as it was put to the test, as soon as we used the first privilege we had acquired under that Treaty, we found the Sovereign with whom we had concluded it a fugitive in our camp, and everything in the form of government in the country utterly disappeared. We found that, so far from having the acquiescence of the people in our influence, we were confronted by an enormous mass of the armed population, and were driven for several days to defend ourselves in our encampment. At this moment we have another campaign to undertake before we can even begin to consider what is to be done in the future. Well, we are now told that it is impossible to withdraw the troops from Afghanistan under present circumstances; but the House and the country will expect to be informed as to the policy Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt when those military operations have been brought to a successful conclusion. It is useless to go on helplessly repeating, as it appears to me the Government are disposed to do, that they adhere to their old policy. I have endeavoured to show that that policy is gone. The State of Afghanistan does not exist; our old policy was formed on the basis that such a State did exist, and before it is possible to say you adhere to the lines of the old policy, you have to undertake the task of re-constituting the State of Afghanistan, of reforming its government, and of placing a Ruler upon its throne. Our former experience is not in favour of adopting the task of placing and supporting a Ruler over the Kingdom of Afghanistan. We have had experience of that, and it is an experience that Parliament will not, I think, be desirous of repeating. But if we refrain from that undertaking, what then? We shall leave Afghanistan in a state of utter anarchy. Even if the idea be adopted of breaking up the country into various provinces, under the command of more or less independent Chiefs, it leaves the country to the certainty of intestine warfare; and what possible foreign policy is there in a State organized in that manner, or what influence can we have? There is another question upon which this House will be desirous of having some information as early as possible. This House and the country have seen with very great re-

95
gret reports of military executions on a very large scale at the time of the occupation of Cabul by our troops. I should be the last to desire to impute any needless cruelty or severity to any British officer, believing, as I do, that the feeling of every officer in the British Army is entirely opposed to anything of that nature. I do not wish, therefore, to express any opinion whatever upon these reports until the receipt of further information. But I think that some information should be given as early as possible as to the number of persons who have been executed, and as to their offences. The earliest information should also be given as to the Proclamation that was issued threatening to treat and punish as rebels all persons who opposed the advance of the British troops on the march to Cabul, and incited the people to rebellion. I think it would be a most strange thing to stigmatize as a rebel any Afghan in arms against Yakoob Khan, whose authority had never been firmly established. But even if he had been more ade facto Sovereign than he was ever proved to be, I do not know upon what ground the English troops were to be made the executioners of those who might dispute his authority. Nor do I know what object of policy was served by that Proclamation. I do not at present, as I observed before, want to express any opinion upon this subject; but I hold that the Government of India were far more responsible for this Proclamation, and the action taken upon it, than the military authorities. Those authorities were in constant telegraphic communication; and whatever may be the facts as to what was committed in Cabul, I shall be disposed to hold that it is the Indian Government, and not the military authorities, whom this House ought to hold responsible for what has taken place. I regret very much that the time of Parliament must be so fully occupied during the present Session with this and kindred questions, for it is well known that this protracted Parliament has left to its concluding Session very large arrears of legislation, and not only are there these large arrears of legislation, but the state of affairs at home is one which will call for very careful and full consideration. We all see with pleasure and satisfaction the long-hoped-for revival of trade and industry; but, unfortunately, the
96
Revenue, which suffered last year from the depressed state of trade, has not answered the expectations of the Government, who based their calculations upon an earlier revival of trade than we have experienced. I am afraid, therefore, that the financial proposals of the Government are not likely to be very satisfactory, and that they are likely to occupy a good deal of the time of Parliament. The Government's financial policy has been one of postponement—a policy which could only be justified by a hope of better times. It will be a severe disappointment to many industries in this country if, at this moment, the hopes of revived prosperity should be checked in consequence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer calling upon the country to make additional sacrifices to meet the additional responsibilities thrown upon him. But, Sir, I am afraid that from, the lists of reviving interests must be excepted the agricultural interest. I am afraid a heavier depression than that from which it suffered last year still weighs it down. I do not suppose that in a Parliament, which contains so many Representatives of the agricultural interest, such confidence will be felt in the Royal Commission that has been appointed, that we shall not be called upon from time to time to discuss the causes of the depression. In fact, Notice has already been given tonight by an hon. Member that the attention of Parliament will be called to the subject. I may, therefore, reserve any observations which I may have to make upon the condition of the agricultural interest to another opportunity. Before I sit down, I cannot help saving a few words upon the position of Ireland. As Notice has been given of a formal Amendment to the Address on the subject of Ireland, there will be full opportunity for discussion, and it will not be necessary that I should say as much as I otherwise would. I fear that the present distressed state of the agricultural interest has caused much suffering, inconvenience, and loss of comfort in England; but I fear that in some districts in Ireland it has reached such a point that the actual means of subsistence are, I am afraid, wanting to a large number of the population. The Government, I am sure, will be anxious to take the earliest opportunity of stating what steps they have taken for the

97
purpose of meeting the present state of things. The Government have had ample warning from a very early period of the autumn. They were warned by many Members of Parliament, representing Irish constituencies, as to what might be anticipated. The Government in Ireland have every source of information at their disposal. The have the whole organization of the Local Government Board to refer to, and they can also obtain information from registrars, magistrates, the Royal Constabulary, and other Government officials. They have, in fact, every means for ascertaining with the greatest possible accuracy the condition of Ireland at any moment. They have, no doubt, received Reports from all those sources; and what the House will desire to know is, what action has been taken upon the Reports that have been made, and, above all, whether that action has been taken in time? As far as we are aware, the chief steps hitherto taken by the Government have been an extension of the system under which the Board of Works is authorized to make loans to the landed proprietary for works of improvement. I do not deny that this may be the best means of meeting the present state of things where the system is applicable; but a doubt arises whether it is applicable everywhere. When a famine was apprehended in the cotton districts of Lancashire some years ago, for the purpose of providing employment for the people, it was determined that advance should be made not only to private individuals, but also to local municipal bodies. I have not heard that any such provision has been made by the Irish Government for enabling local bodies to obtain loans with which to undertaken works. If this step has been taken it has, at all events, been taken very recently. What I say the Government will have to do is to show that such steps have been taken, and in time. I think that everything depends upon the time at which the measures were, taken for works of this sort cannot be undertaken immediately, or they may turn out unwise. There is another point upon which the House will probably desire have some information. The regulating the relief of the poor in Ireland are much more severe than those which regulate the same subject in England. In ordinary times I believe the practice of
98
the Poor Law relief in Ireland is admirable, and that it is administered at least as well as in most parts of England, if not better; but I think it becomes a question whether, in times of exceptional depression, some power ought not to be given to the Local Government Board to moderate the stringency of the Poor Law relief rules. With regard to out-door relief, it seems hard that when the crops almost entirely fail the people should be driven to surrender, not only their present holdings, but have to go into the workhouse. I shall be glad to know what measures have been taken by the Government, or what measures they contemplate taking, for alleviating this state of things. I need not say I have seen with very great regret and pain the agitation taking place in Ireland last autumn. It was one not for the protection of the smaller occupiers, who were unable on account of the pressure of the times to pay their rent, to protect them from harsh and cruel evictions, but one, it appears to me, directed to the object of establishing different relations from those existing at present between landlord and occupier. It was an agitation which advocated as a means to that end what was, practically, repudiation of contract. This was the advice given by the leaders of that agitation. It appears to me that our minds ought not to be distracted from the question of the distress in Ireland by any feeling which may be raised in our minds by that agitation. Looking to the character of the advice given, I think that it has been a subject of astonishment, not that that advice has been taken to the extent to which it has been taken, but that as not been taken to a very much larger extent. I know very well that there still many matters affecting the prosperity of Ireland which this Parliament will and ought to be called upon to deal with. We have endeavoured, generally in vain, on many occasions during this Parliament to alter laws which, in our opinion, press hardly and unjustly upon the people of Ireland We have endeavoured to assist them in obtaining perfect equality of laws and institutions as cornered with this country, and I do not think we ought to be diverted by anything that has happened, by any agitation that has arisen, from that endeavour. But I cannot help feeling that one of the greatest causes

99
which depress and weigh against the prosperity of Ireland is the absence of that capital, to be expended either in agricultural or other industrial enter-prizes, which has so greatly tended to the development of the resources of this country. I cannot help thinking that the very greatest evil that could be inflicted upon Ireland would be the adoption by the people of the advice to repudiate contracts which they have entered into. I will not refer to any of the subjects of legislation which have been mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech. But these are, no doubt, extremely important and practical, if not very exciting and inviting. This Parliament, however, whatever may be its merits, has never shown itself particularly anxious to engage with vigour in any work of legislation. In fact, in my opinion, this Parliament has been guided by two principles. It has given to Her Majesty's Government an unhesitating and undeviating support, and it has also shown a marked and steady aversion to work, and especially the work of legislation. No doubt, many measures which Her Majesty's Government have introduced have been met and opposed in a manner which has been most regrettable, and I think there has been during the present Parliament a great waste of time, and methods of opposition have been resorted to which are deeply to be deplored. I feel strongly that, unless some effort be made to restore the authority and the efficiency of Parliament, what has occurred during the existence of this Parliament may not only tend to its own discredit, but may exercise the most baneful influence on Parliaments yet to come. It is hardly, in my opinion open to Her Majesty's Government to complain, as they have complained in the country, of the nature of the opposition which they have most. They have never made any determined attempt to repress that opposition. They never brought forward any measure, or suggested any action, for enabling the House to maintain and exercise its authority over a small minority. On the other hand, they have given the most convincing proof in their Power that these short comings, if, indeed, they were in their opinion short comings at all, were short comings a venial character, by announcing their determination to prolong to the very verge of its possible
100
existence a Parliament which has been distinguished by a steady refusal to pass the measures which the Government have brought forward. The Government have proved that this shortcoming, whatever it may amount to on the part of this Parliament, may be compensated by the fidelity with which they have maintained an Administration and a Party in office and power.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, although the noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) commenced his speech by mutilating the common form of expressions of congratulation to the Mover and Seconder of the Address, and confined his congratulations to my hon. and gallant Friend the Mover (Colonel Drummond-Moray), I must not follow the example which he has endeavoured to set. I cordially agree with the noble Lord in saying that we have never listened to a better and more promising speech than that in which the Address was moved; but I must take exception to the criticisms which the noble Lord passed upon the able and, as it seemed to me, very telling speech of the Seconder (Mr. J. P. Corry). I can quite understand that there may have been parts of that speech which were not altogether agreeable to the noble Lord, for, it seemed to me, my hon. Friend put one or two home questions which the noble Lord has very carefully abstained from noticing. I will not expose myself more than I can help to the reprimands of the noble Lord by introducing into the discussion of the Address more contentious matter than I can help; but the noble Lord himself has not altogether followed the precept he has endeavoured to impress upon us, for he has contrived to introduce a good deal of contentious matter into the observations to which we have listened, and I could have wished that he had been good enough to reply to the one particular question of my hon. Friend's, which is that we should like to know something about the attitude which he and the Liberal Party are taking towards the question which my hon. Friend called the Repeal of the Union. We should certainly like to know whether, for the future, it is to be an open question, like the Permissive Bill, the vaccination measure, or any other matter of that sort, or whether it is to be a question of cardinal and vital import-

101
ance upon which there ought to be unanimity on the part of those who aspire to guide the country. But I do not desire to press this matter now. At the present moment it is my duty to offer, as far as I can, an answer to the observations which the noble Lord has made. Now, with regard to what was the beginning and the end of the noble Lord's speech, it seems to mo that he is in a very unhappy state at having to meet the Friends whom he sees around him so often. He had hoped to get rid of us; he does not altogether like our company—but that, perhaps, is due to the point of view from which the noble Lord regards the House. But, certainly, he has made remarks upon the continuance of this Parliament which I think were altogether uncalled for, and, I would almost venture to say, somewhat unconstitutional. We know that by the law Parliaments may continue for seven years; and we know that by custom and Prerogative there is no privilege of a Minister which is more completely acknowledged than that of advising the Crown when and at what time to dissolve Parliament. That privilege has been exercised, and sometimes in a rather strange and unexpected manner, by Ministers of whom the noble Lord has a bettor opinion than he has of the present Prime Minister; but we claim for ourselves the same liberty which has been accorded to all our Predecessors; and I venture to think there is nothing in the history of this Parliament, in the condition of the country, or the state of the world at large, that can throw any doubt upon the wisdom and propriety of the course which the Prime Minister has pursued in abstaining from offering any advice to Her Majesty which would have dissolved Parliament before its full time had run. Why, with regard to the great bulk of the questions affecting our foreign policy generally, what has the noble Lord told us? He said that with many of these matters he did not intend to trouble the House, because they were, in fact, closed transactions. Well, they are closed transactions; and it is happy they are so. But would they have been closed transactions if, in the middle of the settlement of the most delicate and important questions affecting and exciting populations far removed from our own country, we had been thrown into all the turmoil of a General Election? The
102
result would have been that all those matters which were gradually settling down in Europe would have been disturbed by the agitation which would have been caused at homo. I think that is a point which must have escaped the notice of some of those who criticize the conduct of the Government in not hastening forward the dissolution of the British Parliament. We know that that is always a time of great excitement, and that at a moment when foreign affairs were settling down it was exactly the time when it was not desirable that that excitement should be produced. But the noble lord tolls us that this is a very bad House, that it is a House which has got into a way of obstructing Public Business, and he marvels, considering the character we have established for it, that we keep it in existence, and then he is good enough to say that he lays all the blame of this obstruction not so much upon those who obstruct as upon the Members of Her Majesty's Government. Well, we are accustomed now to hear everything that goes wrong laid to the charge of the Government. I, however, hardly expected to hear this particular charge brought against us; but I am quite prepared to expect that, amongst the number of sins which are brought against us, this should be included. But I must be allowed to say that if the noble Lord means to say that the proceedings which have caused so many remarks, and which he very justly says have somewhat detracted from the character of this House, are to be charged upon those who have failed to take adequate means of repressing them, he and his Friends must bear their full share of the responsibility. I altogether repudiate his statement that no proposals have been made with the view of preventing the difficulties which have arisen, and I say that when we have made proposals we have not been met by the noble Lord, and still less by those who sit about him and enjoy his confidence, with that support and that cordiality which we had a right to expect; and, further, I will say that if in this Session we are to conduct our business, as I trust it will be conducted, in a manner in accordance with the high character of the House of Commons it can only be on the condition that those who sit on this side of the House shall receive the entire and honest support of those who,

103
sitting on the other side, take a leading part in our discussions. I am sorry to have been led into these controversial remarks, which the noble Lord so justly deprecates; but I was placed in a position in which I really could not help myself. I shall now endeavour to say as briefly as I can a few words on some of the points to which the noble Lord has referred in his commentary upon the Speech. The noble Lord asks us what is the present position of the negotiations with regard to the Turko-Greek Frontier. Well, that is, undoubtedly, a question of very considerable delicacy. Her Majesty's Government feel entirely with the noble Lord that it is a question which affects the interests of Turkey herself quite as much as it affects the interests of Greece. Her Majesty's Government have more than once impressed upon the Turkish Government and people that the interests of Turkey are largely involved in the settlement of the question as regards defining her Frontier on that side, and as far as it has been in our power we have impressed upon both parties the importance of being reasonable, and endeavouring to bring those negotiations to a satisfactory settlement. But there have been difficulties in the way—there have been, I think, great mistakes made on both sides. There have been unreasonable propositions on the one side, met by unreasonable counter-propositions on th.6 other side; and it has been exceedingly difficult to bring the two parties to anything which offered the prospect of a settlement. I believe there has been some doubt as to the time when certain proposals were made; and, therefore, I will trouble the House with a few dates. The matter has been lately under the discussion of the, Greek and Turkish Commissioners at Constantinople, and the details will be contained in the Papers which will very soon be presented to the House. But, to put the case shortly, be first meeting was held on the 17th of November. Other meetings were from time to time suggested, but were put off until the 29th of December, at which time, the Conference seemed to have come to an end; but in the meanwhile, on the 19th of December, M. Waddington communicated to Her Majesty's Government the proposal of a line of Frontier which he recommended, and the proposal was submitted to the other Great Powers. On the
104
21st of December, however, the French Ministry resigned, and it was not until the 7th of January that M. de Freycinet, the new French Minister of Foreign Affairs, informed Lord Lyons that he adhered to M. Waddington's proposal, and was anxious to have the opinion of Her Majesty's Government upon it. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Marquess of Salisbury) has since discussed the matter with the French Ambassador, and the result will be found in one of the Papers which will be communicated to the House, in which Lord Salisbury expressed himself in favour of proceeding by an International European Commission. The matter will be more clearly shown by the Papers which will be laid upon the Table, and I will only say again that it is a matter to which we attach great importance in the interests of both parties and in the interests of European peace. Well, Sir, I hope I need not go into all the details of all the questions to which the noble Lord has referred. There is no doubt that the state of Turkey is one which causes the greatest difficulty, and I am glad to see that the noble Lord perceives that there is a difficulty in this matter. The country has been instructed, and I believe a large number of people are under the impression that if it had not been for some extraordinary and entirely gratuitous action on the part of Her Majesty's Government everything would have been perfectly comfortable in the Turkish Empire, and that the state of affairs would have been such as to cause no anxiety; that, at all events, if there were difficulties, they could very easily have been removed. We have never taken that view; we have always known that the position was one of the greatest possible difficulty. We have known that the reform of the Turkish Empire was not a matter which could be accomplished by a despatch written from our Foreign Office, even if it were written by a Liberal Foreign Secretary—for they are very good at writing despatches and giving good advice which never seems to come to anything. We have always felt that if anything was to be done it could not be done by a few despatches, but that it must be done by patience and perseverence, by representations continually renewed; by the taking of every opportunity, good, bad,

105
or indifferent, which might present itself of impressing not only on the Government, but on the populations of the Turkish Empire, how needful and desirable those reforms were. And that, I venture to say, has been the course taken by our distinguished Representative, Sir Henry Layard. He has been constant, in season and out of season, in endeavouring to give effect to those remedial measures; and it is a little mortifying to him, whether he speaks or whether he does not speak, to find that he is equally the subject of abuse and found fault with for meddling in those matters. These difficulties are of the greatest possible magnitude, and that subject to which the noble Lord referred, rather, I think, in a contemptuous tone—namely, that arising from the financial embarrassments of the Porte—adds enormously to the task. In this case, Turkey is in a condition which is very unsatisfactory—embarrassed by the consequences of a very great war and by enormous financial losses, yet in that position she is called upon at once to make reforms such as might well be the work of many years. All I can say is, that the Government do not shrink from the task they have undertaken—that they will not shrink from it; but are doing, and will continue to do, the best they can to bring about a better state of things in Turkey. As I have said, Papers on the subject will be presented, and I think I must prepare the House to see in those Papers very strong fresh evidence of the unfortunate condition of parts of Asiatic Turkey; but that is not a lesser, it is a greater, and the more reason why we should not shrink from the task we have undertaken. The noble Lord has referred to other European questions—the question of the relations between Germany and Austria, the increase of the German Army, and the general condition of Europe, and he tells us that he never knew a time more alarming than the present—alarming, on account of the attitude which different nations are taking up with respect to each other, alarming on account of the political and social condition of those nations. And what is the inference which the noble Lord draws from this? It is that England ought to limit her responsibilities, for that then she could look on all those things with an eye of calmness. Sir, there is the difference
106
between us. I come to an exactly opposite conclusion. I say that if Europe is in this condition, if there are those dangers to be apprehended, we cannot afford to abrogate our position in the Councils of Europe, and that it would be ill for the peace and prosperity of Europe that we should do so. I do not know that it would be altogether in accordance with the practice of Parliament if I were to discuss the relations between Germany and Austria. I can only say that there is no matter which gives us greater pleasure than to see cordial relations existing between those two Empires, such as I believe do exist. I believe they are relations which are acceptable to the peoples of those two great Empires, and such as must tend to their advantage, and to the preservation of the peace of Europe. Then the noble Lord speaks of an alliance for the purpose of repressing the Danubian Principalities. Well, that is only another of those mares' nests which the Liberal Party are always finding for us. East Roumelia and Bulgaria and the other Principalities are making fair progress; they are working out problems which I hope will be satisfactorily solved, and they are making great advances in constitutional government and in the development of their own States. What they chiefly require is to be let alone, and not to be too much patronized and hampered by meddlesome assistance from without from other Powers. Well, Sir, I will say nothing more at present as to those foreign questions. I think the terms in which Her Majesty has been pleased to address us represents correctly the present state of affairs. The general course of events has been such as to give additional security for the maintenance of European peace, and that has been the leading principle of the Treaty of Berlin. The noble Lord has spoken upon other questions, and has touched one which, of course, is of the highest interest and importance. He has referred to our relations with Afghanistan, and laments that there is no declaration in Her Majesty's gracious Speech of our policy. The noble Lord has given us his own version of what that policy is, and, at the same time, has made some remarks upon questions which undoubtedly excite the interest of the House and of the country. We have already presented a Blue Book on the subject, and further

107
information down to the latest period will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning. I think I heard a Notice given this evening, by an hon. Member who takes a great interest in Indian affairs, of a Motion of his own which will give an opportunity for a full discussion of the question; and therefore it may not be necessary for me to detain the House at any length with reference to it. At the same time it is right for me, in answer to the observation of the noble Lord with respect to Sir Frederick Roberts, to say one or two words, because we cannot too soon vindicate, as far as the information in our possession at present enables us to vindicate, the character of that distinguished officer, who, I am sure, deserves the highest admiration. All through the transactions in which we have been engaged he has played a leading part, and has distinguished himself by his conduct as a military commander, in which capacity he has shown characteristics which have called forth the warmest commendation; and he is certainly a man to whom, in the difficult position in which he has been placed, we ought to be very chary of imputing motives which can derogate from the character of a British officer. The noble Lord attempted to throw blame upon Sir Frederick Roberts, and he asked, what were the instructions given to him by the Indian Government, remarking with great truth that, as to responsibility, very much depended upon the nature of those instructions. The Papers will be in the hands of hon. Members in a very few days, and I will quote a very short paragraph from the Instructions which were sent to Sir Frederick Roberts on the 29th of September, 1879. He was told, among other things, that—
"In regard to the punishment of individuals it should be swift, stern, and impressive, without being indiscriminate or immoderate Its infliction must not be delegated to subordinate officers of minor responsibility, acting independently of your instructions or supervision, and you cannot too vigilantly maintain the discipline of the troops under your orders, or superintend their treatment of the unarmed population so long as your orders are obeyed and your authority is unresisted, You will deal summarily in the majority of cases with persons whose share in the murder of anyone belonging to the British Embassy shall have been proved by your investigations; but while the execution of justice should be as public and striking as possible, it should be completed with
108
all practicable expedition, since the indefinite prolongation of your proceedings might spread abroad unfounded alarm."—[Afghanistan(1880), No. 1, p. 98.]
Sir Frederick Roberts, in acknowledging and replying to these Instructions, which he did on the 16th of October, said—
"For the thorough investigation of the causes and circumstances of the late outbreak, and the collection of all possible evidence regarding the conduct of individuals since the arrival of the British Embassy in Cabul, I have nominated a commission, consisting of the members marginally named—President, Colonel C. M. Macgregor, C.B., C.S.I., C.I.E.; members, Surgeon-Major Bellew, C.S.I., and Mahomed Hyat Khan, C.S.I. Their duties will be comprehensive, and will include the submission of representations regarding the punishment to be inflicted on all persons whom they may find guilty of participation, direct or indirect, active or passive, in the attack on the Residency, or of other connected offences calling for notice. Every such recommendation will be carefully considered by me, and his Excellency the Viceroy and Governor General in Council may rely upon my carrying out most strictly the instructions conveyed in Paragraph 8 of your letter under reply."
Since that Correspondence has passed, statements have been made in reference to the course taken by Sir Frederick Roberts which have caused Her Majesty's Government to call upon Sir Frederick for a complete account of the number of persons executed; and we have been informed by telegraph that a full account is on the way. Such full account is on the way, and will be laid before Parliament when received. I hope, therefore, the House will perceive that we have not neglected or delayed inquiry into these matters, and shall not say more now than to ask the House to do Sir Frederick Roberts the common justice of waiting for his reply before condemning the action he has taken. It is impossible to pass from this question without the House knowing that it is since August last the terrible catastrophe occurred in Cabul, and saying that at the time the last Session closed Her Majesty's Government had no reason to believe that the position of our gallant Envoy Sir Louis Cavagnari and his colleagues was one of anxiety or danger. He had been specially invited to Cabul by the Ameer, on the ground that it was in the capital the most secure protection could be afforded him, and he had proceeded to the city with a small escort purposely to show that his visit was of a friendly character, and that it had no

109
concealed design of violence or force behind it. The suddenness of and the circumstances of the attack which was subsequently made upon the Embassy, and the gallant way in which Sir Louis Cavagnari and his comrades defended it against overwhelming numbers, are all well known, and I would venture to say that no day in the history of the Indian Empire of the Queen will shine more brightly, as far as the gallantry of her servants is concerned, than that on which her Envoy at Cabul and his fellows fell fighting in defence of the Embassy. The noble Lord has asked us to pronounce a policy in regard to foreign and colonial matters, and in answer to him I can only repeat that our policy is in those respects unchanged. The principle of our policy with regard to Afghanistan and our North-Western Frontier has always been this—that we have not desired to annex territory or to extend our Empire, but simply to secure a sufficiently strong Frontier to our Indian Empire to inspire our subjects within it with confidence, and to put an end to all anxieties and suspicions which may have existed in their minds from fear of possible invasion in consequence of a weak Frontier. In carrying out this plan, the other policy which we have always had in view was that beyond that Frontier, so made strong, we should have a State, or, if you please, a number of States, in such relations with us that they could not be made the base of hostile operations against us. For that purpose it has always been the policy of former Governments, as well as of ours, to maintain friendly relations with the Ameer and the people of Afghanistan, so as to keep them out of the influence of foreign Powers; but the result has been that which the House so well and so sorrowfully knows. That has been our policy, and it was only when we found ourselves unable to trust to the fidelity of Shere Ali to the engagements he had entered into, when we found it impossible to view with indifference his reception of a Russian Mission, while he refused a Mission from us, that we felt ourselves obliged to take other steps which have led to the present position. But our policy and our views are the same as they have ever been. We still desire to maintain and strengthen our Frontier. We still desire to maintain an independent State or an independent cluster
110
of States outside or around us. It is a matter of comparative indifference to us whether we have to deal with one or several States; but it is impossible for me to enter into a consideration of these questions at the present moment. The organization that Afghanistan may hereafter assume must be treated as a whole, and we are unable to give explanations now because events have not yet developed themselves, and we have not yet obtained that position that would enable us to withdraw from the positions we occupy. As at present advised, our position is the one which we have always held in regard to this question. As for the other questions to which the noble Lord referred, I can simply say that it is at this moment out of my power to give him information concerning the Budget, and that on the subject of the Boers and the annexation of the Transvaal, as to which the noble Lord commented on the omission from Her Majesty's Speech of any reference to those subjects, Papers will speedily be laid before the House which will include some relating to the condition of the Transvaal, and will also show what the view of Her Majesty's Government is with reference to its future government. When the noble Lord says we were led to annex the Transvaal under a false representation, and that it was not true that a majority of the people assented to that annexation, I would remind him that the annexation was effected by a single British officer, Sir Theophilus Shepstone, with a handful of policemen, and that no opposition was then offered to his proceedings. It is a most important matter that will require full consideration; and it is a matter of great congratulation to us that Her Majesty is able to declare that we have now better hopes than we ever had before of bringing about that great scheme of the Confederation of our South African possessions which has been so long an object of desire. The noble Lord made some observations on the unfortunate condition of the country, and on the unfortunate condition of agriculture, which all must admit for the moment is greatly depressed. At the same time, it is a matter for congratulation that there appears to be a real and substantial revival in many branches of industry and trade in this country, and it cannot but be that the revival must benefit the great

111
interests of agriculture. Undoubtedly, however, we are very far as yet from being in a condition to congratulate ourselves. The noble Lord concluded with some remarks on the condition of Ireland. As far as that subject is concerned, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) has given Notice of an Amendment to the Address, which will raise a discussion with regard to Irish distress, and upon that I shall have something to say; but I may now observe that I shall to-morrow, in asking leave to introduce a Bill to indemnify Her Majesty's Government for what they have already done, and to make some further provision, say something at length on the subject. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friends will not think me at all treating Ireland with indifference if I say less now than I should otherwise have been disposed to do. But I do say that we have from the beginning of the autumn watched with the greatest interest and with warm sympathy the condition and suffering of certain parts of Ireland. The noble Lord has said that Her Majesty's Government has at hand sufficient machinery to enable it to get every kind and amount of information concerning the condition of Ireland to enable it to deal with the distressed condition of the country which we all deplore. That is perfectly true, and when the hon. Members see the Papers which have been presented to-day, and which will be in their hands to-morrow, they will find that the Irish and the English Governments have not been remiss in making use of that machinery. They will find that from September—for the first document among the Papers in question is a Circular issued by the Local Government Board on the 5th of September—down to the present day, the Irish Local Government Board have been engaged in collecting the fullest and most reliable information with regard to the condition of every part of Ireland, and making recommendations with regard to such parts as seem to call for special aid. I think that is a matter of great importance, because I need not remind the noble Lord, with his experience of Irish affairs, nor those who can remember the circumstances of the great Famine of 1846, 1847, and 1848, of this—that if we are to make provision against a great calamity of that kind, for the relief of existing dis-
112
tress, and for the prevention of future suffering, we must exercise the greatest care in what we do. It does not do merely to put our hands into our pockets and to throw about as much money as we can indiscriminately; but we have to look not only to the immediate but to the future results of what we are doing. "When we are told that we ought to have spent money upon this or that particular class of works, one must not forget the experience which we had, and which forms part of the history of the Famine of 1846—namely, that men preferred to work upon the public works rather than to pursue their ordinary work of tilling the land. We have to beware lest, by taking too much upon ourselves, the idea that the Government should provide work might make the people or the local authorities careless of making proper exertions for themselves. It should be clearly kept in view that what the Government can do must merely be supplemental to local exertion, and in order to make their aid supplemental, they must take care that the aid they offer does not become the principal source to which the people look for relief. When I introduce to-morrow the Bill to which I have referred, I shall think it right to make some further observations on this subject, and to go more into detail. With regard to the particular questions which the noble Lord has raised, I think that he will find, on referring to the Papers I have mentioned, that we have not confined ourselves to offering loans to landlords. We have offered them, on favourable terms, to the sanitary authorities, and we have done more—we have made provision for calling together, in case of necessity, the baronial sessions, and for inviting them to make presentments, and have made the terms very easy upon which loans can be obtained on such presentments being made. We have also directed our attention to another matter of great importance—that of out-door relief. The very first thing, indeed, that we thought of was to tell the Boards of Guardians to take care, whatever happened, to prevent anybody dying from starvation. At a very early stage we warned those bodies to provide stores of food and fuel, and to take care that they should be distributed in case of necessity, encouraging them to understand that there would be some latitude given in the distribution. In the

113
Bill which I shall have the honour to present to the House to-morrow, we propose to give greater powers, subject to the supervision of the Local Government Board, to the Boards of Guardians, and to enable them to afford such relief to the holders of land, suspending that provision which limits the power of receiving it to persons who have not any land at all. I mention this fact to show that we have gone into the details of this subject, and that we have not overlooked the points to which the noble Lord referred. Without doubt, however, we shall be criticized both for what we have done and for what we have not done. That is always the fate of those who stand in the position of the Government, and who are obliged to enforce prudence, although doing the best and wisest thing for the interests of their patients, if I may call them so. When we do so enforce prudence, we must expect to be very much abused and to be called hard-hearted. I trust, however, that what we have shown has not been hard-heartedness, but hard-headedness. I cannot sit down without acknowledging the charitable spirit that has manifested itself on this occasion in both countries. We know perfectly well that there are various committees and agencies formed for the relief of the distress in Ireland, and that persons are ready to devote not only their money, but their work and their time to the assistance of these poor people, and I am satisfied that the stream of charity which has so freely flowed on other occasions will not fail us in the present case. I hope I may be excused for speaking personally of the efforts of one noble Lady who has taken a part in this good work. I know she does not require any words of mine, and does not desire any praise for what she is doing. She is acting on the impulse of her own heart, and is doing all in her power to fulfil the high duty which she believes is cast upon her by her position in Ireland. She and all others are working with the sincere desire of doing good; and if we, the Government, are bound to show a little more prudence and apparent hard-heartedness, it is not because our sympathies are less, but because we feel that our responsibilities are greater. I will not enter now into the other topics that have been raised, and I hope that on this subject I have
114
said sufficient to induce the noble Lord to think better of what we have done. I oven hope that the hon. Member for the County of Cork will be reasonable and fair enough not to carry out his proposal to move an Amendment to the Address, but that he will wait to hear what the Government have really done, and are doing, towards the relief of the distress in his country before proceeding to condemn us. Perhaps, however, he will think that it will be easier to condemn us before than after he hears us, and that he will be more unfettered in making his attack if he does so in comparative ignorance of what we have done than he will be if he waits until he has received full information on the subject, and finds that we are blameless in the matter.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he had to refer to certain questions of home affairs which were mentioned in the Address, but were not referred to either by the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) or the Leader of the House, and other matters of domestic legislation, the omission of which was still more remarkable. For instance, at the end of last Session a promise was renewed, which had frequently before been made, that the Corrupt Practices Bill should be in the first rank of the Government measures of the present Session. He was sorry not to see it mentioned in the Speech. As dissolution was certain within a year, the importance which it undoubtedly demanded ought to be given to the Corrupt Practices Bill, and they ought this Session thoroughly to consider the law of corrupt practices. It was admitted that the law on the subject needed reform. Then there was the subject of the Ballot Act. That Act, as they knew, would shortly expire, and would require to be renewed in a way that would enable the House to discuss questions of scrutiny and other matters. Of course, it could be renewed by a Continuance Bill in the last week of the Session; but he ventured to say that would be a most unsatisfactory mode of dealing with a matter of that kind. There was a Select Committee in 1876, which thoroughly considered the working of the Ballot Act, and which made many recommendations as to its amendment. There were questions which were not dealt with by that Committee, but

115
which were discussed the year before when the Ballot Bill became law, such as the terrorism exercised on many tenants by their landlords. Again, he wished to know whether the Government had abandoned the Employers and Workmen Bill or not? He trusted they had not. Their County Government Bill and their Valuation Bill had now, it seemed, finally disappeared. For all practical purposes they might be looked upon as dead. No subject was more worthy the attention of the House than that of county government; but it was evidently one with which a Conservative Ministry was unable to deal. He did not know whether the Copyright Bill of last year would be re-introduced; but, if it were brought in again, he hoped it would assume an amended form, for artists of all kinds were much opposed to the measure as it stood last year. Then the Home Secretary had promised last Session to deal completely with the Metropolitan Water Supply. He had seen Notices which led him to suppose that the Government were going on with a scheme; but the question was so important that he thought it should have now been mentioned by the Government. Turning to the Irish paragraphs of the Queen's Speech, he remarked that they contained no reference to any amendment of the Irish Land Laws. There were many not connected with Ireland who believed most firmly that giving money would not remedy the evils without going to the root of the matter by dealing with the Irish Land Laws; and they ought to be told whether the Government intended to bring in any measure relating to them this year. He had heard with great satisfaction what had fallen that night from the Leader of the House with regard to the claims of Greece; and it would be the determination of hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House to keep the Government up to what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, and to see that the arrangements which his language suggested were carried out. There was no allusion in the Speech to the affairs of Egypt. Never had this country been committed to so large a scheme fraught with dangerous complications for the future without the knowledge of Parliament as was now the case with respect to Egypt. The Papers on the subject
116
were last year kept back till they were too late to be of use; and the documents issued showed that the European controllers were really to exercise almost the whole powers of government. With regard to the Treaty of Gandamak, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that there was no reason to suppose that the position of our Envoy at Cabul was one of peculiar danger. What had occurred within the walls of that House sufficed to refute that statement. The hon. Members for Elgin (Mr. Grant Duff) and Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and other hon. Members of the House, had over and over again pointed out that that would happen which actually had happened. As to the retribution for the massacre, the right hon. Gentleman had read the instructions given on the 29th of September by the Government to Sir Frederick Roberts; but he had not mentioned the Proclamation issued by Sir Frederick Roberts upon which the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) had based his animadversions. It was clear to anyone who read that Proclamation that General Roberts went far beyond his instructions; and the Indian Government, who were in daily communication with him by telegraph, must have been perfectly cognizant of what he did. General Roberts was instructed to punish for acts connected with the attack on the Residency; but in his Proclamation he expressed his intention to punish persons who had not been concerned in that attack, but were Afghan soldiers who had fought against us while we had Yakoob Khan in our camp. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted the words "direct or indirect assistance," and "active or passive assistance in the attack on the Residency." Perhaps they might hereafter be told that the words were so wide that they would cover the execution of men who belonged to regiments members of which were also concerned in the attack on the Residency. They might have subtle casuistical arguments raised about the matter. With regard to the number of men we hanged and otherwise executed, he thought that as the Government had sent over for the information it would not be well to press them. He desired further to ask the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies to a statement in the para-

117
graph of the Speech referring to South Africa. The capture and deposition of the Zulu King were referred to with approval; but no reason had ever been given for his capture and deposition. Although they could not debate the subject, he thought it might be advantageous to the defence of the Government themselves that they should continue the story of the Zulu War by indicating their general opinion upon it. They had previously obtained a very clear statement from the Colonial Secretary as to the reason why Sir Garnet Wolseley was sent out. They had no reason to suppose that the instructions to Sir Garnet had been changed, although he had been told to accept any reasonable terms of peace. He did not do so; and the House should take notice of the fact that the Opposition altogether denied the necessity for avoiding making that peace which was promised it in May. With regard to the Transvaal, they had certainly expected to find in the paragraph of the Speech relating to it some expression of sorrow as to what had happened there. Arrests were being made there for high treason, and the bitter feeling against us was beginning to spread. They were told that matters wore progressing towards Confederation. But, so far as they knew at the present moment, affairs were progressing backwards towards Federation, for there was less prospect of such a thing than ever. They had been informed that there was no objection made at the time of the annexation; but although only one officer made the declaration, it was to be remembered that the 24th Regiment was stationed on the Frontier. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not go so far as to say that our rule was popular among the Boers; and although matters in South Africa were progressing but little, he thought it would be hardly possible to reach a good settlement with them without a Federation of some sort. The paragraph in the Speech gave a far too optimist view of the situation. Confederation was impossible as long as we continued to govern the Transvaal against its will, and the Government had only succeeded in making the South African paragraph satisfactory by omitting all reference to these facts.
MR. E. JENKINSdesired to offer a few observations on one subject only referred to in Her Majesty's most gracious
118
Speech, and, before doing so, because he happened to differ from the line taken by the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) and by the hon. Baronet who had just spoken (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in regard to the position of affairs in the Transvaal, he wished simply to say that the references made to that subject were rather unfortunate, and with regard to the Transvaal he could not but think that the Opposition had so far committed themselves that it was hardly fair to treat it now as an open question. If the maxim of Talleyrand was to be accepted, that speech was given us to conceal thought, a happier exposition of it could not be found than in Her Majesty's Speech. One looked at these paragraphs with wonder, for there were clever men in the Ministry, men of literary ability and an appreciation of the value of words; but, looking at these paragraphs, which were gravely presented to the Houses of Parliament, and regarded by the country as the result of the advice given by the Cabinet to the Sovereign, one must feel they had reached a very low standard indeed in politics and literature if that was the best that could be produced by such a Cabinet. For a moment he asked the House to look at the Afghanistan paragraph of the Speech. In an endeavour to interpret that passage one met with considerable difficulty. What was the principle that remained unchanged? So far as he knew the history of our operations in Afghanistan it was a history of a change of principles from day to day—a change of policy and of operations brought about by changes in conditions and circumstances. There was an assurance from the Ministry that their principle was unchanged; but he would defy anyone to say on what principle the Government had acted in Afghanistan. The truth was, it was a "happy-go-lucky" policy throughout—an awaiting for events or a drifting along that had drifted the country into new perils and complications. But there was a sort of admonition in the other portion of the paragraph, which read—
"While determined to make the frontiers of My Indian Empire strong, I desire to be on friendly relations alike with those who may rule in Afghanistan and with the people of that Country."
The methods by which we endeavoured to establish friendly relations there were

119
only too conspicuously before the world, and our extreme friendship might he judged by the number of executions which our General now in hostile possession of the country found it necessary to make. Never was paragraph more ridiculous presented to men of sense to interpret, and it was the best comment upon the Government's Afghan policy that they were unable to produce anything better than this memorable paragraph. But a question had been raised on which he had from time to time endeavoured to obtain information from Her Majesty's Government, so far as he could keep the Government up to the professions made in the House. He alluded to the Turkish Convention, and he was induced to ask the attention of the House to that, because last night the noble Lord, who was stumping Liverpool as an electioneering agent in the interest of the Government (Viscount Sandon), made it a subject of a part of a speech. It would be observed that the Convention was only feebly, distantly alluded to in the Speech from the Throne. After the reference to the friendly relations with foreign Powers, the Speech continued—
"The course of events since the prorogation of Parliament has tended to furnish additional security to the maintenance of European peace on the principles laid down by the Treaty of Berlin."
But the principles of the Treaty of Berlin were not general principles. They were simply propositions in reference to the relations between Turkey and the Powers, and here were Her Majesty's Ministers endeavouring to induce the House to believe there were great principles laid down in the Berlin Treaty, which, in fact, did not exist therein. Then Her Majesty's Ministers ventured to refer to the condition of affairs in Turkey in these terms—
"Much, however, still remains to he done to repair the disorder with which the late War has affected many parts of the Turkish Empire."
He wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that in this way the Government were utterly ignoring the enormous responsibility they had incurred in Asiatic Turkey. The noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) in a few chosen sentences had already criticized that portion of the Government's
120
action; but when he (Mr. Jenkins) looked at Her Majesty's Speech he was rather startled to find that all we had at the end of two years for the responsibility we had incurred in Asia Minor—after all the promises repeatedly made in both Houses of Parliament, and to the country outside the House, with regard to what the Government were going to do—all he could find in 1880 was that the Government were able to say "much remains to be done." The truth of the case was, everything remained to be done. It would have been more correct to say nothing had been done—nothing at all—after obtaining the Turkish Convention, occupying Cyprus, and promising to defend Turkey against attack from Russia. Not long ago—at the end of last Session—Her Majesty's Speech alluded to the reforms promised by the Ottoman Government and the manner in which Her Majesty's Government would urge their adoption. Her Majesty's Government had continued to urge, but in vain; and he ventured to say if the present Government were in power for another seven years their representations would be equally in vain. It was right to hold Ministers who called for the confidence of the country on the grounds of certain things they had done to the words they had used, and he reminded the House of his repeated challenges to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show the bona fides of their promises to enforce reforms under the Convention; and now he hoped it was not saying an improper thing when he said he believed it was a mere sham devised for election and Party purposes. In August, 1878, he had called, the attention of the House to the position of the Turkish Convention and the pledges we had given, and at that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Wait and see how results will expose the fallacy of the anticipations." But for nearly two years he had waited, and still not a glimmer or sign of these Turkish reforms. Of course, the Government had had difficulties, and had to deal with a Government slippery as an eel and as difficult to skin; but were the Government ever really in earnest in their programme of reform? Did they ever prepare a programme of reform which they were willing to accept? It was humiliating to consider how we had been overreached by this weak Power,

121
on whose behalf our Fleet had assumed such a migratory character. The noble Lord the Leader of the Government in "another place" on the 13th February, 1879, had complained of the harsh measures dealt out to the Sultan. His sincerity and ability to carry out reforms in Asia Minor having been questioned, the noble Lord stated, at that time, that communications between Her Majesty's Government and that of the Sublime Porte had been of a satisfactory character. Subsequently the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made similar statements and gave similar assurances. Lord Beaconsfield stated that he had heard what he stated by telegraph; but it turned out that his information was absolutely incorrect. There never was a symptom of anything like even a just acknowledgment of the responsibility incurred by the Sultan. If this was not an important matter for the consideration of Parliament he did not know what was. How was it that instead of being in a position to dictate as to reforms to the Government at Constantinople, Her Majesty's Government had the least influence, and England was the weakest Power in Europe in controlling the action of the Sublime Porte? This he could prove if he cared now to detain the House; but he wished to take notice of a speech made last night at Liverpool by a noble Lord, who was certainly not one of the most influential Members of Her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. Jenkins) could not help saying that Viscount Sandon had been sent down to Liverpool to deceive by his statements the people of England. He stated that in the affairs of Turkey the Government had achieved a magnificent triumph, and found fault with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) for having entered into a criticism of the Turkish Convention. The noble Lord said that the Government were not going to bolster up the bad Government of the Porte, but that they should try and reform it, and then he complained of people like the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, who had criticized the action of the Government in the affairs of Turkey. Then the noble Lord said that Her Majesty's Government would bring back prosperity to Syria. He (Mr. Jenkins) thought the noble Lord could only carry back prosperity to Syria in a hand-cart, and the pic-
122
ture of the noble Lord doing so would be very effective. Although the Russian troops had left Turkish soil for two years they were now told that the English Consuls and Vice Consuls were taking note of everything that the Turkish officers were doing, the consequence being that the latter were trembling. Now, that was the result of our action two years after the Russians had evacuated Turkish territory. He had there a letter written by a gentleman well known to, and respected by, hon. Members of that House on both sides, and what he stated might be absolutely relied upon. He wrote that the English interest in Turkey was at the lowest ebb. Every suggestion made by Englishmen was resisted, because it came from an English source. Before the Turkish resistance to anything English was passive; but now the Turks were determined to show by their acts that they were not disposed to be dictated to by us. The promised reforms of Lord Beaconsfield had never been carried out, and the large schemes of reforms to which he referred never had a chance of success. Not even the shreds and fragments of the reforms suggested by us were carried out, and no proof was forthcoming that England's influence had been successful in bringing any reform to the front. The writer concluded by saying that the great mistake made from the first was in supposing that the Turkish Government was capable of any reform. Therefore, he (Mr. Jenkins) contended that what our Government proposed to do in the way of forcing reforms upon Turkey turned out to be sham, and had had no practical result. Hon. Members opposite were in the habit of saying that those hon. Members who sat below the Gangway were craven at heart, and not public-spirited enough in support of English interests. Well, as one of that body, he wished to say that he was always opposed to Russian aggression against the interests of this country, and he and they regretted to see English influence thrown over in Turkey. He contended now, as he had often contended before, that Her Majesty's Government had by their policy played into the hands of Russia, after engaging in the solemn undertaking of a Convention with Turkey. The effect of that Convention had been absolutely valueless. It had not been productive of a shadow of a reform,

123
and, that being so, he thought he was justified in calling upon Her Majesty's Government to explain to the House why it was that at this moment England was the weakest Power as regarded her influence with Turkey.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, he did not rise with any intention of continuing the debate upon the general issues which had been raised; but he would desire to refer to an extraordinary omission which was observable throughout the debate. They had been told that they had entered upon a great Imperial policy. He did not wish to enter upon any controversial topic; but the question he desired to ask was with respect to the cost of the war which had been undertaken. Was the cost to be borne by India or by England, or was it to be borne by both; and, if the latter, what were to be the proportions? India had contributed £2,600,000, and, so far, £320,000, or one-seventh of that sum, was all that England had been called upon and asked to contribute. Now that hostilities had re-commenced, he trusted the Government would not propose to apportion the additional expenditure between England and India on the same unjust principle. If they did so, it was a course, he believed, which would meet with the greatest disapprobation on the part of the English people. The question had not been referred to either by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he hoped the Government would give them some distinct assurance on the subject; but he had carefully abstained from giving Notice of any Motion, in order not to embarrass the Government. Another omission from Her Majesty's most gracious Speech was the matter of the water supply of London; and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intended to redeem the promise he had made last Session?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite prepared to state the views of the Government upon the question of the Afghan expenditure. The present occasion, however, was scarcely a favourable one; it would be better to wait until the Papers which had been promised were before the House. With regard to the water supply
124
of London, he (Mr. Cross) had no doubt a great improvement would be effected by placing the works of the eight existing Companies under one management; and he might say that, following up the promise he gave last Session, he had been in communication with the various Water Companies on the subject. He was not at present prepared to state the result of his negotiations with them; but he hoped to do so in the course of a week or ten days at the outside, and to bring forward certain proposals in the form of a Bill. It would be a Public Bill, and, considering the difficulty of making a bargain as between the consumers of water and the ratepayers on the one hand, and the several Water Companies on the other, the course pursued would be this—the Government would lay before Parliament such terms as they had been able to induce the Companies to assent to, and which they thought advantageous for the public to accept, and submit them to Parliament in the form of a Bill; and that Bill on its Second Reading would be sent to a Hybrid Committee, in order that all parties interested in it might have a fair opportunity of considering whether the bargain so proposed was one which would be advantageous, on the whole, to the Metropolis. Of course, all the Committee would have to decide would be whether it was a bargain which ought to be carried into effect or not. It would certainly not be competent for them to alter the terms of the bargain.
MR. DILLWYNhoped the Government would fulfil their oft-repeated promise of passing a Bill for the amendment of the Lunacy Laws. He himself would bring forward a Bill on the subject this Session in the hope that the Government would aid him in carrying it through. As, however, the views of the Government on the subject seemed to be very much in accord with his own, he would not press it for the present. With regard to the obstruction of Business, he thought the Government themselves were the chief culprits. They did not seem to be aware that in carrying Bills forward a stage or two, and then dropping them every Session, they wasted much valuable time, and were, in fact, the greatest obstructives in the House. With regard to the debate of that evening, he did not hold with the doctrine that it was inexpedient to move Amendments on the Address. When statements were made

125
in Her Majesty's Speech with which any section of hon. Members did not agree, he held that it was the duty of those hon. Members to express their views in an Amendment, otherwise the proceedings of that House in relation to the Address would partake of the nature of a sham. It was, moreover, in accordance with ancient custom that Amendments on the Address should be moved. Bearing in mind the criticisms expressed on the Government during the Recess by many Members of the Opposition, he did not think the debate of that evening would be a reality if they agreed to the Motion unanimously. He regretted that an Amendment was not to be moved by the Opposition, if it were only to give the House an opportunity of protesting against the alleged atrocity with which the war in Afghanistan was being conducted. In that country our troops were engaged in a war which was calculated to rouse the most vindictive feelings in the hearts of a people of whom it was our true policy to make friends, and to maintain in a state of independence; and even though an Amendment were not moved in reference to any other point in the Address, the House ought, he thought, at all events to be asked to record its condemnation of that portion of the Proclamation of Sir Frederick Roberts in which it was declared that all the Natives of Afghanistan who took up arms to resist would be executed as felons. No more atrocious proclamation had ever emanated from Russia or Austria against people whom they were oppressing. He agreed with every word of the manly speech of his noble Leader; but regretted that the noble Lord had not had the courage to move an Amendment to the Address.
MR. SHAW MR. SHAW moved the adjournment of the debate.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Shaw.)
MR. FAWCETThoped that, before the House rose, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (seeing that he was in his place) would give some distinct assurance that an early opportunity would be given for discussing the apportionment of the expenses of the Afghan War, and contended that
126
that question was one which could not be conveniently discussed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), which related to the policy of the war. The right hon. Gentleman might, perhaps, even that evening make a statement to the House as to the payment of those expenses. If he could not make such a statement now, would he say when he could make it?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought it was rather unreasonable on the part of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) to ask him to make a statement on that subject. He entirely appreciated the spirit in which the hon. Member took up this matter. He honoured the way in which he had always looked after the financial interests of India, and he quite admitted that this was one of those questions which the hon. Member had a right to have information upon; but he must decline, at the present moment, to go into a discussion of the question which the hon. Member invited him to discuss, and he had no statement just now to make on that subject. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) that the debate be now adjourned, he confessed he was very much at a loss to understand what the meaning of the Motion could be. At an early hour of the evening the hon. Member gave Notice that it was his intention to move an Amendment to the Address, making a Vote of Censure upon Her Majesty's Government for not having taken the proper measures for the relief of Irish distress, and, if he recollected rightly, the hon. Member proposed to invite them to discuss certain questions as to the general and landed system of Ireland. If that was the object of the hon. Member, he had ample time to proceed with his observations, as it was only 10 o'clock. After the House had heard what he had to say, they would be able to judge whether it was a matter which could be finished to-night, or whether an adjournment was necessary. The Irish Members did not know what the Government proposed to do, yet they were prepared to take measures which would result in the postponement for one or two days of the introduction of the Government Bill setting forth remedies, such as they might be, which Her Majesty's Government proposed. He should have thought that was a serious

127
responsibility for Irish Members to take. The Government had taken upon themselves the responsibility to advise the authorities to go beyond the law to meet the distress which unhappily prevailed in Ireland, and they were bound at once to come to Parliament to ask for an indemnity for what they had done. They were anxious to do that at the earliest possible moment, and to state at the same time what further measures they proposed, when they were met with this Motion for an adjournment of the debate, which must interfere with the Business for to-morrow. There would be ample opportunity to express an opinion to-morrow; but if the Representatives from Ireland thought it was more desirable to pass censure on the Government and to air their political speeches than to pass measures of relief, then upon them must rest the responsibility. He should oppose the adjournment.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the question of the action of the Government was one to which it was impossible to do justice at so late an hour. Within the last few minutes official Correspondence of great importance on the subject of Irish distress had been placed in the hands of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw). On those Papers rested the question of the action or inaction of the Government during the last three months. From them Irish Members now had for the first time the opportunity of seeing how far the Government were culpable. As for the insinuation that the Irish Members were postponing measures of relief to Ireland, there might be a little loss of time by the adjournment; but he thought it could be made up in another way. It was perfectly plain, from the inaction which had characterized the Government during the last three months, that neither they nor their administrators had any idea of the responsibility which rested on them, and of the danger which they had created. It was better that they should learn from the Irish Members, after they had contrasted their experience with that now disclosed, what the opinion of the great body of the Irish people was on this important matter, Before they proposed a perhaps much too limited measure. For his part, he regarded the proposal to force on the debate as one of the coolest he had ever
128
heard, considering that those who should take part in the discussion were ignorant of the information which had been just placed in their hands, but which they had not had time to make themselves acquainted with. They were, therefore, entitled to ask the House to consent to the adjournment of the debate. He protested against the conduct of the Government, and hoped his brother Representatives would insist that the debate should not be a sham. When the debate did occur it would not be for the purpose of airing speeches, it would not be a sham, it would be something real.
DR. WARDurged the Government to respond to the appeal made to them to adjourn. He believed that benefit would arise if the matter stood over until to-morrow.
MAJOR NOLANsaid, it would be perfectly ridiculous for them to go on. He had looked at the Papers which had been placed into the hands of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), and he found them to contain most important matter. Seeing that there was much correspondence in them detailing the amount of distress and the manner in which the Government proposed to deal with it, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not oppose any longer.
MR. P. MARTINsaid, it was admitted that the official Correspondence and Papers which within the last half hour the Government had placed in the hands of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) would be used to justify the actions of the Government, and explain the delay on this point complained of in the Amendment. It was, then, a plain matter of justice Irish Members should be enabled to read and consider those documents. Let the Government, then, listen to reason. It was not fitting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should taunt the Irish Members as being desirous of speaking for speaking sake, and then refuse the adjournment. If those Papers were of value and to be used, it was surely right Irish Members should have the opportunity of reading them. It was absurd that the House should be now called on to discuss questions in respect to a matter of such grave interest as the distress in Ireland without the aid of those Papers. It was apparent, from the dates, that this Correspondence had been some time printed. Why was it only now given to the hon.

129
Member for Cork, and not issued in the ordinary way for the general benefit of Members in the House. That was a bad omen. If Government persisted in their refusal to listen to reasonable remonstrance, they would but waste the time of the House, as it was too much wasted last Session from time to time by similar conduct on the part of the Government. When hon. Members showed themselves anxious to conduct the Business of the House in a fair and proper spirit, he said that was the way they were met. They were told they could get up and make speeches to the constituencies. This question was not to be thus treated. Everyone knew the distress was deep and widespread in Ireland. A most strange precedent was about to be set. An Irish debate was hurried on without full information being given. He did press the subject upon the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers, and hoped they would give them reasonable time to consider these important Papers.
MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I think I can give the House a very good reason why this debate should be adjourned, and not carried on as suggested, by the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to-night announced to us that to-morrow he will bring forward a measure which the Government consider will cope with the distress in Ireland, and, possibly, if the measure is satisfactory, the Amendment may not be moved at all; but of all absurd positions for a Legislative Assembly to place itself in, I can conceive none more so than that Notice of an Amendment should be pushed on without Members having the opportunity of judging what steps the Government have taken, or intend to take, on the subject. Common sense shows that the debate should be adjourned. If we had not been told that Papers were to be placed before us which would give us information on the subject, then the debate might very well have gone on; but as circumstances are at present, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that a more absurd position than that of the House going on with the debate at the present time, when we have only half the information before us, cannot well be conceived.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Employers
130
and Workmen Bill would be again introduced that Session, and, if so, whether it would be the same as last year? He also wished to know whether the Copyright Bill would be brought forward, and, if so, whether the proposals of the artists who had signed the Memorial would be embodied in it? He would like also to be informed whether the Corrupt Practices Bill would be brought forward, and to know, further, something about the renewal of the Ballot Act?
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, it was unfortunate that his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) had not caught the Speaker's eye when he rose early in the evening. If he had, an important debate on the condition of Ireland would have taken place, and the House would have been saved long speeches on foreign policy similar to those they had heard a hundred times before. It would reflect on the conduct of the Irish Representatives if they did not make a protest against the treatment they received in this country. If the House declined the Motion for adjournment, they would be in this position—that the Gentleman who is particularly qualified for speaking on the matter would be precluded from taking part in the debate. He would be unable to speak, because his Motion would be outvoted. These were considerations applying only to the Irish aspect of the question. There were other aspects. They had been engaged since 2 o'clock, and, so far as he could recollect, it was not the practice of the House on the opening night to sit to any protracted period. This, therefore, was a reasonable demand. He was sorry, speaking as one of the Irish Members of the House, that they could not rely upon the co-operation of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in bringing Irish questions forward. If they had that co-operation, they would not be in. the ridiculous position in which they found themselves at the present moment. He was of opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not pursue the obstructive tactics which he had announced.
MR. BIGGARsaid, the result of the continuance that evening of the debate would be that, instead of one debate to settle the question/they would have half-a-dozen of small debates. Hon.

131
Members would recollect that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) was unfortunately precluded from speaking at the hour when an important question of this sort should have gone on, and when it would have received attention in the House and in the Press. The result would be that in any case an adjournment must take place, because there were so many Members from Ireland who had a large knowledge of the state of affairs, and who would speak. The question really was, whether they should adjourn at half-past 10 or half-past 12. He thought the Government had better adjourn now and have the matter properly considered to-morrow.
MR. MELDONsaid, he would have been glad had the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) given way earlier in the evening, that they might have heard the hon. Member for Cork's (Mr. Shaw's) views on the subject. He thought now that was a time when the Motion of his hon. Friend should be agreed to. Some little sympathy ought to be shown the people of Ireland; and on that question his experience was that it was not the custom of the House to take the debate the same evening the Address was proposed, but that it should be postponed one or two nights. It had been suggested that the question of Irish Members was not a question of substance, and he admitted the Government would have something to say in defence of their policy of the last six months as one not only of exasperation but of cruelty. He thought it was too late, at 11 o'clock, to commence a debate on the matter. He was sorry that some hon. Members who had taken great interest in the affairs of Ireland were not present to press their views, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would not attempt to force the matter that evening on that account.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he understood the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) as a Vote of Censure upon the Government; and he was, therefore, surprised that any attempt should be made to proceed with it until the facts were in the possession of hon. Members. He would suggest that the House should vote the Address and postpone the discussion. He thought they should hear what the Government had to say before they proposed a Vote of Censure upon them.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that the attention of every foreign country was directed to the action that Government intended to pursue in relation to the distress in Ireland. He would imagine that the Government ought to be the very first persons to afford facilities to his hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw) to bring forward his case—a case, which, he said, he would be able to make with convincing proof. Instead of doing that, they, for the sake of some two hours' talk, said "No, go on and debate this momentous question in the dark." He scarcely knew words strong enough to use to express his disapproval of the conduct of the Government in reference to this matter. Why should the Government withhold their consent to adjournment? What could be done in respect of discussing the important matters that had been brought forward in the few hours they had at their disposal? Either the Government had, or they had not, a complete and thorough answer, which would show that they had done everything that could be expected of them. If they had, and had brought to bear every engine possible to ameliorate the distress in Ireland, he would be but too rejoiced.
MR. O'CLERYsaid, at that hour of the night it was not proper to discuss this matter. Surely, the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) would bear the light of day, seeing that it was not intended as a Censure on the Government. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) that it was absurd to proceed with the discussion in the absence of important Papers bearing on the subject which the Government possessed. He could not understand the silence of the front Opposition Bench on this subject. Liberals at that moment were only too anxious to catch the Irish vote, and why none of them should come forward now and aid them in their attempt to get a free consideration of this subject he could not imagine. For them to do so would be the best way to show their good feeling towards Ireland. He sincerely trusted the Government would consider the matter, in order that they might have a full discussion on the subject, and so adjourn the debate.
MR. REDMONDsaid, it was only proper that something should be said in reply to the arguments which had been

133
used from that side of the House. He supposed, however, the Government were determined to carry their will by mere numbers, and to give no satisfaction whatever to the Irish Members in their endeavours to do their duty to their constituencies. Their object was an important and solemn one. They were endeavouring to do their duty towards their country by pressing for an adjournment of the debate, not for the sake of popularity, but to insure as far as they could the necessity of the Government fully considering this important question of the distress in Ireland, with a view to its alleviation. It was discreditable that on that, the first night of the Session, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should meet them in the way he had done.
MR. JOHN GEORGE MACCARTHYjoined in the appeal which had been made to the Government to consent to an adjournment of the debate. They had to deal with a grave crisis. There was a universal feeling in Ireland amongst men of all classes and parties of the intensest alarm, a feeling of the gravest apprehension, at the present state of affairs. From all districts in the West and South of Ireland the cry of famine was reaching their ears. The gravest alarm existed in the public mind—in the mind of all thoughtful and considerate men—and naturally and properly the Representatives of Ireland, through their Leader, virtually requested permission when they had an opportunity—for that was what it came to—to bring before the House what appeared to them to be of far more importance than any foreign affair or distant war whatever, the distressed condition of their country. They desired to bring before the notice of hon. Members the fact that, at the present moment, they ought to remember that within a few hours' journey of their own doors hundreds of their own fellow-citizens and fellow-Christians were now likely to perish of famine. When the Irish Members took the earliest opportunity, through their Leader, to submit the gravest of Imperial questions engaging the attention of this Imperial House, they were denied permission to do so. They then, at a late hour in the evening, wore asked to enter upon that subject. He ventured to say to the House that to so deal with this, the greatest of Im-
134
perial questions, was to trifle with it. They in Ireland had been trying year after year to convince those who thought otherwise that there was justice to be had from fair-minded Englishmen—that there was justice to be had from the House of Commons. They would henceforth, if so simple a request as the present were denied, then be deprived of the argument, and they would have to tell their fellow-citizens that when the lives of the people were at stake, when the question at issue was the lives of Irishmen and Irishwomen, it was cast aside for some foreign matter, or in order to consider some distant war, and that, in the next place, an attempt was made at a late hour in the evening to hurry the subject on.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I am very well aware that the question which hon. Members from Ireland wish to discuss—that of Irish distress—is by far the most important one that can come under the consideration of this House. I do not believe that there is any difference of opinion among us on that point, or that it is one which ought not to be fully discussed whenever a proper opportunity occurs. The only question, as it seems to me, is what would be a proper opportunity—what will be the best opportunity—for debating it? In my humble opinion, an unfortunate course has been taken in this matter by the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. Shaw). We learn from Her Majesty's Speech—and I hope there will be no delay in the matter—that the Government are about to make proposals to the House having reference to the measures they have taken, and are about to take, with regard to the distress in Ireland; and therefore, in my opinion, the more convenient course to take would be to wait and hear what the Government have to say upon the matter, and what proposals they intend to submit to the House. The hon. Member for Cork, however, gave Notice, almost immediately after the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of his intention to move an Amendment to the Address, and we were right in concluding from that circumstance that the hon. Member and his Friends were in a position to introduce the matter, irrespective of any further information which might be laid before the House by the Government. It appears somewhat inconsistent

135
that the hon. Member should announce his willingness to proceed at once with the Motion condemnatory of the Government proceedings, and then demand an adjournment of the debate on the ground that certain Papers are not in his hands. As to my having taken precedence of the hon. Member, and as to the course of the present discussion, it is to be remembered that Her Majesty's Speech refers to a variety of subjects, and that it is desirable and usual that the debate on the Address should be of a general character. Indeed, it is a practice that any hon. Gentleman who wishes to say anything in respect to any one of them should have an opportunity of doing so. Had the present matter been taken early in the evening the discussion on the Address would have been confined to the discussion of the Irish question. Although, as I have already admitted, the Irish question is most important, still it is not the only one referred to in the Royal Speech, and I do not think it would be desirable that the consideration of all the other subjects referred to in the Speech should have been practically put aside in order that that one question should be now debated. Having made these remarks, I can only say that I regard the demand for an adjournment as unreasonable, and I cannot, in justice to the Government, think they are bound to concede it. I cannot help thinking that the course the fairest to the Government and the best for the interests of Ireland is that this important debate should be begun at the most convenient time—that is to say, when we know what the views of the Government in relation to the question are.
MR. MACDONALDthought the proposition of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) a fair and wise one, and would vote for it. It would enable the House to have a discussion, not as to what the Government intended to do, but what they had done, and whether they had done all they could at right time. The contention of the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends was that it had not been done at the right time.
MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I think the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Macdonald) does not understand the position in which the House is placed. What are the real facts of the case? An Address has been moved in reply to the gracious Speech from the
136
Throne, and it has been stated, in the course of the discussion which has taken place, that Papers showing the course which has been adopted by the Government in Ireland will be—in fact, that they have already been—presented to Parliament, and will be in the hands of hon. Members in a few hours. That is the immediate ground for demanding that the debate should be adjourned. Some hours ago, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) rose in his place and endeavoured to catch your eye, for the purpose of stating his views and submitting an Amendment to the House. He was prepared, apparently, to adopt that course on grounds which commended themselves, to his judgment, without waiting for any information whatever, and without having the slightest idea as to the action adopted by the Government. Some hon. Members who have spoken lately, however, have admitted most candidly that they had no reliable information whatever as to that action, and have said that until they were aware of it they were not prepared to express any opinion upon it. In these circumstances, we are asked to adjourn the present debate in order that hon. Gentlemen may make themselves masters of the Papers which have been promised, and which will very shortly, in due course, find their way to hon. Members. The House is aware that on the first night of the Session Papers are promised on almost all matters which have formed the subject of consideration to the Government for many months previously—Papers on the subject of Afghanistan, on the foreign relations of this country, and on other matters. If we were to adjourn the discussion of the debate on the Address until all those Papers are in the hands of hon. Members, I should like to know where we would terminate this initial stage of our proceedings? If this were merely a question of adjourning a debate on an interesting subject for a night or two, I am not prepared to say that there would be any great reason to urge against it; but what is the course which the hon. Member for Cork asks the House of Commons to adopt? He has already been informed that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is desirous of availing himself of the earliest opportunity of introducing a measure dealing with the question of distress in

137
Ireland; hut that is a measure which the hon. Member and his Friends are desirous, apparently, of pushing far away from us. From past experience, he would be a bold man who would say when a discussion such as the hon. Gentleman wishes would terminate. How long Ireland might have to wait for that measure—a measure affording relief to distress—I certainly should not undertake to say. The position of Her Majesty's Government is this. We announced our intention of introducing a measure dealing with the question of distress in Ireland. We have promised Papers showing the course which we have hitherto adopted. We do not ask the House now to commit itself to the step which we have taken. The Address in reply to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech contains no expression of opinion whatever as to the details of our measures. It merely, so far as I remember its phraseology, thanks Her Majesty for having communicated to Parliament the facts contained in that Speech. Hon. Gentlemen who may entertain certain views as to the omissions or commissions of the Government will he in no way debarred at a future time from expressing their opinions on the subject. The stage of Report upon the Address will come up in the natural course of events to-morrow, and if any hon. Gentleman wishes to state his views, then he will have an opportunity of doing so; or perhaps he had bettor adopt the advice of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington), and wait until h is aware of what the action of the Government has been, and until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced his Bill. I think that would he the most convenient course to follow.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Lowther) had argued as if it was necessary that the measure which the Government proposed should be carried through all its stages until it received the Royal Assent and he came law, before anything could be done to relieve the great distress which existed in Ireland. It would, indeed, be a poor Executive which could do nothing to prevent the starvation of the people until a long and, perhaps, complicated measure had been passed into law. He did not think hon. Members need be alarmed at the prospect held out
138
to them that by adjourning the discussion they were interposing between the Irish people and the projected measure of relief. He thought the right hon. Gentleman himself gave the House very good reason why there should be delay in the discussion. He seemed to throw blame on the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) because he was ready, at an earlier stage of the evening, to give the House his views on the subject without waiting for the Papers promised by the Government. But his hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw) was acting with perfect consistency. The hon. Member for Cork was willing to go on with the discussion at first, because he had not then had the promised Papers, and knew nothing of their existence; but he had subsequently received them, and he saw that they might, perhaps, throw a great deal of new light on the matter; therefore, when he saw that, it was quite natural that he should wish for a little time to fully consider them. He did not think much time would be lost by the concession which the Government were about to give. The noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) had said it was usual in the House to have a general discussion on the Address in the first instance. But that was a mere piece of ceremonial which he apparently thought of more importance than a famine threatening a population. He thought the Government would act wisely, and would lose no time, by granting the concession asked to the Irish Members; and he must say he could not but join in the expressions of regret that they had not had the assistance of more English Members in their efforts to obtain the slight concession asked from a somewhat unwilling Government.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Lowther) had remarked on the fact that the Irish Members had not waited to learn from the Papers the circumstances of the case; but it was a remarkable fact that there were some 30 or 40 Representatives of Ireland who were so ignorant, having used their eyes and ears in Ireland for the past five or six months, and the Government action had been so secret—so impossible to discover—in the saving of life, that they were charged with ignorance from the Treasury Bench, and were told that in some Papers to be laid on the Table that every revelation would be made. He never heard a more

139
fallacious proposition. If the Government had dealt equitably with the famine in Ireland, then their efforts must be notorious. If their efforts had been efforts of which they knew nothing in Ireland, such efforts were a failure; and they would have Irish Members forget that they were sent there to denounce the inaction—the culpable inaction of the Government during the past six months in Ireland. He was astonished to hear the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition say the question of the adjournment of the debate was a minor matter. They knew very well what the Parliament of England would do if tomorrow an enemy were surrounding our shores, and threatening a hostile invasion. "Well, there was an enemy already invading the shores of Ireland, and one which they had historical reason to dread—an enemy that had on former occasions slain, not 10,000 of their countrymen, as in the Battle of Hastings, but an enemy that had whitened the soil of Ireland with the bones of victims to be counted, not by thousands, but by tens and hundreds of thousands; and they wanted Parliament to do in regard to that enemy what it would do if an enemy were menacing its shores with an invasion, and not allow it to waste six months in allowing that enemy to commit such ravages as it had done. They could not go to the Castle gates, and create a noise in the portals. They had to reserve for this occasion the indignation they felt, and the accusation they had against the Government. They wanted Parliament, if it was competent to deal with Irish public emergencies, to say that everything should be suspended until this crisis was adequately dealt with, and that the Minister who allowed the enemy to steal upon us should be adequately censured. He had been urged to insist upon this matter being brought forward at the earliest opportunity; and this course was the more necessary in consequence of the contemptuous indifference with which the Government had treated the representations addressed to them some months ago by three-fourths of the Representatives of the Irish people. He had a bitter recollection of what took place in Ireland in 1846 and 1847. He saw it all, and he recollected the scenes that occurred with horror and indignation. It was said that the Irish nation seemed to have forgotten the noble gene-
140
rosity of the English people in 1846–7. He had never failed to express in Ireland or in England the gratitude the Irish nation should ever remember for the individual action of many private ladies and gentlemen at that time, and had always advised his countrymen to be thankful too; but the secret why this apparent forgetfulness was general was because the Irish people saw that the wealth of the Government was withheld, and that work was thrown upon the inefficacious agency of private charity which the Government themselves should have done. In 1846–7, they saw people perish in Ireland by hundreds—and in his own parish that was so—because they then had a Government almost as inactive as that now presided over by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. In 1846 there was much circumlocution, but nothing was accomplished. They who saw the fearful slaughter then were alarmed now, as they recollected those memories, and compared what they saw then with that which was happening now before their eyes. The Government of itself stood condemned. The hon. Member for Cork desired to discuss this matter, but was not allowed to go on, for the Government told them nothing could be known of what they were doing except through the Papers on the Table. He (Mr. Sullivan) himself felt very strongly on this subject, for Irishmen had reason to feel very deeply on the matter. They did not merely wish to criticize the Government's good intentions; but they wanted to point out the failings of the Government. Last Whitsuntide he and a few other hon. Members stood up in their places in the House and warned the Government that this would occur. They knew that they were speaking to deaf ears. They were charged with exaggeration, and they were told that they were panic-mongers. And now, forewarned and forearmed, what had the Government done? Why, there was not any part of Ireland in which £10,000 or £20,000 had been expended to relieve the distress; and yet Her Majesty's Government, if many of its panegyrists were to be believed, were called the greatest Government in Europe or the world. Let them look at the prompt action of the French Government in the late case of the inundations of the Loire; let them remember the vigorous measures taken by the Austrian and Hungarian Govern-

141
ments when a great flood distressed their country, and compare those instances with the inactivity of Her Majesty's Government. This great, magnificent Government had done so little in seven months, that it could only be discovered by a printed Paper pushed across the Table. He complained—or, rather, he arraigned the Government as guilty before Heaven and that House of being the cause of the misery, the crimes, and disorders in Ireland. He repeated that they were guilty of causing the crimes and disorder in Ireland by not taking the active steps which they ought to have done to meet the distress. The Government knew of the danger before it came, and they could have done seven months ago what they proposed to do next week. But it was only when the voice of passion was heard that the Government began to move. The conduct of the Government in this matter taught them again the lesson that when the Representatives of Ireland tried to urge in a reasonable manner the claims and necessities of their country on the Government they were ignored, and that it was only by the force of passion or despair that the Government could be got to do anything at all.
MR. A. MOOREsaid, there could be no doubt of the existence of a deep and generous sympathy felt by hon. Members for the distress in Ireland; but he really did think that hon. Gentlemen near him were placed in a very unpleasant position, this most important question of the condition of Ireland having been pushed on until a late hour. The whole night had been allowed to pass before they could bring the question before the House, when they really ought to have had the matter fully discussed and fully debated. They all knew what the Government could do in the case of an emergency, and they could do just as they pleased. Three years ago the Government, as part of its high-spirited foreign policy, spent £4,000,000 for the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal. There should not have been any delay in putting measures for the relief of Irish distress into execution. He hoped, therefore, that this debate would be adjourned until to-morrow night, so that immediate steps could be taken.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, it was a pity that, instead of wasting time in this discussion on the ad-
142
journment, they had not debated the Address, and continued it, if necessary, to-morrow evening. He rose to answer one or two questions which had been addressed to the Government by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in the course of the conversation as to their intentions with respect to certain Bills. He was able to state that the Employers and Workmen's Liability Bill would be introduced in the other House and referred to a Committee. It was not the intention of the Government to re-introduce the Copyright Bill this Session.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 174: Majority 112.—(Div. List, No. 1.)
MR. SHEILthen moved the adjournment of the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Sheil.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I presume that this Motion is only proposod formally with the view of again moving the adjournment of the debate. I resisted that Motion, because I thought it was rather an occasion for acting instead of talking. However, if the Motion for the adjournment of the House is withdrawn, I will consent to the adjournment of the debate.
MR. SHAW: I am sorry to say, Sir, that I think the division we have just taken is a very unfortunate commencement of the Session; but it is in no way due to the Irish Members. I intended to ask the House to adjourn this debate, and I privately asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether they would agree to that course. I left them under the impression that they would agree to the adjournment. If they had said "No" distinctly, I should not have hesitated to have moved my Amendment, with a view of partially debating it to-night. Therefore, we have to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what has occurred. The right hon. Gentleman informed us that there were some very important Papers which would be placed in our hands to-morrow morning; and, therefore, I thought that they would at once, in consequence, agree to an adjournment of the debate.

143
As for myself, I may say that I was prepared to condemn the conduct of the Government without having further information than we have, and, in fact, I took the reference to the Papers which are to be produced as an indication that the Government were anxious to have the debate adjourned. I think I may say that I am not in the habit of interfering unnecessarily in this House, and in what I have done in moving my Amendment I thought that I was discharging my duty, and acting in no other spirit. I feel that I have been placed in a very unpleasant and painful position in consequence of the absence of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. He has gone out of the House for some time, and under the circumstances I consider it very unusual. I believe that this has all arisen in eon-sequence of want of precision and decision on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the right hon. Gentleman had decided at once when I asked, I should certainly have resolved to go on with the debate to-night.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I rise, Sir, to claim the indulgence of the House. I must say I cannot understand what the hon. Member for Cork is talking about; but I suppose he refers to a few words he passed with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland and myself behind the Speaker's Chair. The hon. Member intimated his wish to adjourn the debate, and I replied that the debate could not be adjourned, but that the wished-for discussion could be entered into on the Report on the Address to-morrow, when a statement would be made as to the plans of the Government. The hon. Member did not seem to be contented with that, which was all that was said. I had certainly never said that I was in favour of the adjournment of the debate. I am sorry that any misunderstanding should have arisen, for I have always found the hon. Gentleman straightforward in his dealings with the House. But 11 think that it is highly inconvenient that those private conversations should be made the subjects of discussions in the House; because the disclosure of them will make it difficult for others to take place. What I said was, that it would be better to agree to the Address to-night and discuss the condition of Ireland on the Report. If
144
that had been done we should not have lost time, and I could have made my statement as to the intentions of the Government in moving the Report. I now consent to the adjournment of the debate, and at its close I shall make the statement which I think it my duty to make.
Motion, by leave,withdrawn.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
THE PARLIAMENT, which had been Prorogued successively from the 15th day of August, 1879, to the 1st day of November; thence to the 19th day of December; thence to the 5th day of February, 1880, met this day for the Despatch of Business.
The Session of PARLIAMENT was opened by THE QUEEN in Person.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
Her Majesty, being seated on the Throne, adorned with Her Crown and Regal Ornaments, and attended by Her Officers of State, (the Lords being in
2
their robes)—commanded the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, through the Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain, to let the Commons know "It is Her Majesty's Pleasure they attend Her immediately, in this House."
Who being come, with their Speaker;
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,taking directions from Her Majesty,delivered Her Majesty's most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, as follows:—
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"IT is with much satisfaction that I again resort to the advice and assistance of my Parliament.
"My relations with all the Powers continue to be friendly. The course of events since the prorogation of

3
Parliament has tended to furnish additional security to the maintenance of European peace, on the principles laid down by the Treaty of Berlin. Much, however, still remains to be done to repair the disorder with which the late war has affected many parts of the Turkish Empire.
"A Convention for the suppression of the Slave Trade has been concluded between my Government and that of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan.
"At the close of your last Session I expressed my hope that the Treaty of Gundamak had happily terminated the war in Afghanistan. In conformity with its provisions, my Envoy, with his retinue, was honourably received and entertained by the Ameer at Cabul. While engaged, however, in the exercise of their duty, he and those connected with the Embassy were treacherously attacked by overwhelming numbers, and, after an heroic defence, were almost all massacred. An outrage so intolerable called for condign chastisement, and my troops, which, pursuant to the stipulations of the Treaty, either had withdrawn or were withdrawing from the territories governed by the Ameer, were ordered to retrace their steps. The skill exhibited in the rapid march upon Cabul, and in the advances upon the other lines of action, reflects the highest credit upon the officers and men of my British and native forces, whose bravery has shone with its wonted lustre in every collision with the enemy.
"The abdication of the Ameer and the unsettled condition of the country render the recall of my troops impossible for the present; but the principle on which my Government has hitherto
4
acted remains unchanged, and while determined to make the frontiers of my Indian Empire strong, I desire to be in friendly relations alike with those who may rule in Afghanistan and with the people of that country.
"My anticipations as to the early establishment of peace in South Africa have been fulfilled. The capture and deposition of the Zulu King, and the breaking up of the military organization on which his dynasty was based, have relieved my possessions in that part of the world from a danger which has seriously impeded their advancement and consolidation. In Basutoland, a native outbreak of considerable importance has been effectually quelled by my Colonial forces; while the Transvaal has been freed from the depredations of a powerful Chief, who, having successfully resisted the former government of the country, had persistently rejected our attempts at conciliation. I have reason to hope that the time is now approaching when an important advance may be made towards the establishment of a Union or Confederation under which the powers of self-government, already enjoyed by the inhabitants of the Cape Colony, may be extended to my subjects in other parts of South Africa.
"Papers on these and other matters will be forthwith laid before you.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,"I have directed the Estimates of this year to be prepared and presented to you without delay.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,"
The Commission which, at the close of the Session, I informed you I had issued to inquire into the causes

5
of agricultural depression throughout the United Kingdom, is pursuing its labours. In the meantime, the serious deficiency in the usual crops in some parts of Ireland has rendered necessary special precautions on the part of my Government to guard against the calamities with which those districts were threatened.
"With this view, they have called upon the authorities charged with the duty of administering relief to make ample preparations for the distribution of food and fuel, should such a step become necessary, and they have also stimulated the employment of labour by advances on terms more liberal than those prescribed by the existing law.
"I feel assured that you will give your sanction to the course which has been adopted where it may have exceeded the power entrusted by Parliament to the Executive Government.
"A proposal will be submitted to you for providing the funds required for these exceptional advances on the security of the property administered by the Church Temporalities Commissioners.
"I trust you will be able to resume the consideration of the Criminal Code, and of the Improvement of the Law of Bankruptcy.
"Bills will be laid before you, for enlarging the powers of owners of Settled Land, for consolidating and amending the Lunacy Laws, and for simplifying the practice of Conveyancing.
"I commend to you these and other measures which may be submitted for your consideration, and I trust that
6
the blessing of the Almighty will attend and direct your labours."
And then Her Majesty retired. And the Commons withdrew.
ROLL OF THE LORDS—Garter King of Arms attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Seventh Session of the Twenty-first Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

SAT FIRST.
The Duke of Portland, after the death of his cousin.
The viscount St. Vincent, after the death of his father.
The Lord Chelmsford, after the death of his father.
The Lord Lawrence, after the death of his father.

SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro formâ, read 1ª.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH. ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
The QUEEN'S SPEECH reported by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, in rising for the first time to take part in the debates of your Lordships' House, I must confess to a feeling of great embarrassment, addressing as I do noble Lords who have had much experience in the debates of this and the other House of Parliament, and in an Assembly which has earned for itself the highest reputation for debating power; but I am encouraged to proceed when I recollect that during the few years I have had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House, I have observed that great indulgence has been afforded to those noble Lords who have been placed in the position which I now occupy, and I can only express a hope that you will not make any exception in my case. My Lords, before I proceed to discuss the topics which are to be found in the gracious Speech from the Throne, I may, perhaps, be allowed to congratulate your Lordships on the fact that Her Majesty has been again graciously pleased to open her Parlia-

7
ment in person, and I cannot but think that the lustre which is thus conferred upon our deliberations will be a material benefit to, and be greatly appreciated by, her people. During the preceding Parliament I believe that Her Majesty was only once able to open Parliament in person; but during the existence of the present Parliament there have been three several occasions upon which Her Majesty has honoured us with her presence, thus affording fresh proofs of her ability and desire personally to perform the functions of her exalted station. My Lords, Her Majesty commences by expressing her satisfaction at having again to resort to the advice and assistance of Parliament, and I feel confident that your Lordships will yourselves feel glad that there is no longer any occasion to turn to the newspapers to see that formidable heading "Parliament out of Session," which has given rise to such torrents of eloquence which, in Scotland, culminated in a Niagara. The next point in Her Majesty's Speech contains the gratifying announcement that Her Majesty's relations with all the Powers continue to be friendly. That appears to me to be a matter of unusual congratulation, when we reflect that two years ago he would have been a bold man who would have predicted that Her Majesty's Speech on the present occasion could have contained such an announcement. And, my Lords, I cannot help saying that it is mainly to the spirited conduct of Her Majesty's Government at that time that we are not now deploring a general war in Europe. Her Majesty goes on to say that the course of events since the Prorogation of Parliament has tended to furnish additional security for the maintenance of European peace on the principles laid down in the Treaty of Berlin; and when I remember the statements which have been made as to the enormous armaments of Continental Powers I read this paragraph with considerable satisfaction, because I cannot help looking back to the statements that have been made by the Chancellors of the two Empires of Germany and Austria as to the probability of maintaining the peace of Europe; and I cannot believe that either that Power which stood by us so manfully during the recent crisis, or that Power at whoso capital the Treaty of Berlin was made, and whose Chancellor presided at the Congress, will
8
either of them be the first to do anything which would be likely to do endanger the peace of Europe. My Lords, I may allude to the gratifying fact that the Bulgarian Province has elected its Prince, and that the whole of the territory which was occupied by Russian troops has been evacuated, and that during the six months which has just elapsed no disturbance whatever has taken place in that territory, a proof of the continued development of the principles laid down in the Treaty of Berlin. Before leaving this part of the subject, may I be allowed to ask your Lordships, not only as legislators, not only as Members of this or that political Party, but as Englishmen and citizens of the British Empire which extends over one-seventh of the whole world, to join with me in congratulating ourselves that England has once more resumed that position in the Councils of Nations to which she is justly entitled by her wealth, her commercial importance, and the enterprize of her people. My Lords, in a remarkable work which has recently been published, the Autobiography of Prince Metternich, that great diplomatist has reduced the principles of politics and diplomacy to these very simple terms—
"Each State, besides its separate interests, has also those which are common to it with, other States; and history teaches us that whenever the separate comes into conflict with the general interests of the State, and the latter are neglected or mistaken in the zealous and extensive prosecution of the former, this is to he regarded as an exceptional or unhealthy condition, whose development or speedy amendment ultimately decides the destiny of the State—that is, its impending decline or its recuperative prosperity."
My Lords, I do not consider it would be possible, even if it were desirable, to limit the policy of England within the narrow bounds to which some of our politicians would confine it. It has been a matter for congratulation to past generations that this Island is divided from the Continent by a single streak of sea; but I believe that that satisfaction will cease to be an inheritance of posterity, if they are reminded by it that it has been made the limit to those great opportunities which have been afforded to England of being the pioneer of humanity, civilization, and Christianity. Much remains to be done in the Turkish Empire, in consequence of the late war by which she has been ravaged. We cannot but be aware that a great war cripples even

9
the most powerful of nations; and although it must be apparent that up to the present moment Turkey has been unable to make any great movement in the way of reform, I do not think that we can say that no steps have been taken for the amelioration of the condition of her population, when we see that certain judicial reforms are to be proposed, which are thus communicated to the Ambassadors at Constantinople by the Turkish Minister—
"We can easily understand that the judicial system was faulty at the foundation, and that no amelioration whatever in Ottoman society could he hoped for, except by a radical reform of our judicial regime."
And he afterwards adds—
"To enter immediately after its disasters as courageously as it has done on the path marked out by the modern law was an act of which the significance and the consequences deserve to he highly appreciated. Unfortunately, the vicious condition amid which Ottoman society contends with an energy worthy of the sympathy of the civilized world prolongs a state of things but little suitable for the putting an end to abuses which long custom has resulted in causing to he viewed as if inscribed in the internal and international law of the Empire."
Here, at any rate, we have that which must precede any reform—an admission that the existing state of affairs is utterly bad. That Her Majesty's Government have not been unmindful of Turkey I think is shown by the paragraph in which She has congratulated her Parliament that a Convention has been made with the Sultan for the suppression of the Slave Trade, which no doubt will, with other Papers, be shortly laid upon the Table of the House. I must now refer for a moment to matters in India; and, in the first place, I will call your attention to the Treaty of Gundamak, because it is on the basis of that Treaty that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is founded. It contains two important provisions. The first is that which relates to the dealings of the Ameer of Cabul with foreign States, which were to be in accordance with the views of the British Government; and the second relates to the Khyber Pass and the district that is to remain permanently under our protection, and the other districts which, have been assigned to us temporarily and are not to remain permanently in our hands. Prom the opportunity which our Envoy had of judging of his character, I think we were per-
10
fectly justified in treating Yakoob Khan as a Prince capable of governing Afghanistan. Yakoob Khan was the son of Shere Ali. When Shere Ali left his capital, Yakoob Khan was nominated by him as his successor. My Lords, our Envoy, Sir Louis Cavagnari, had ample opportunities of judging of the disposition of Yakoob Khan. He tells us that he believed him to be sufficiently clear-sighted; and we have not only the evidence of Sir Louis Cavagnari upon the point, but in an interesting work, entitled Travels in Central Asia,the writer tells us how he visited the city of Herat, and saw Yakoob Khan, who, at the age of 16, alone of all his Court and Ministers, had sufficient acuteness to detect the European, under M. Vambiry's disguise of a Dervish. I think this shows that we, at least, were justified in dealing with Yakoob Khan as a man who was capable of taking his own part and of governing the Afghan people. The desire of the Indian Government was that Afghanistan should be erected into a friendly and independent Power; and so much was this the case that, in a despatch from the Indian Government, it was said that—
"We might have made a much more rapid advance; but we had serious cause to apprehend that, by thus precipitating the downfall of Shore Ali, we might irretrievably shake to pieces all the independent materials of government in Afghanistan, bequeathing to Shere Ali's successor no stable basis of authority, and placing ourselves in a position from which we could not afterwards retire without surrendering to anarchy and civil conflict a State which it was our object to strengthen and consolidate in the manner most conducive to peacable and friendly relations with it."
Well, my Lords, the Government have been pursued by singular misfortunes. In the first place, Shere Ali fled from his capital, and died, and we were thus pro-vented from treating him as the Ruler of the country; and, secondly, Yakoob Khan disappointed our expectations. But it cannot be said that the Indian Government were not fully prepared for the eventualities which followed upon Shere Ali's death, for they had carefully considered British interests in Afghanistan, independently of Afghan rule; and in another despatch the Indian Government say—
"Nor do we disguise from ourselves that the practical value of the Treaty mainly depends upon the character and disposition of the Ameer

11
and his successors. Relations established with Afghanistan under the present favourable conditions, and with the most promising prospects, may, of course, be again impaired either by the disloyalty of Afghan Princes or by the alienation of their unrequited confidence. In cither case complications may arise against which no present precautions on our part can completely guarantee our successors in the government of India. We have, therefore, been careful to secure for British interests and influence in Afghanistan a position substantially independent of the personal caprices of any Afghan Ruler; and for the effectual maintenance of the position the Treaty provides strong material guarantees, by the territorial conditions which place the British Power in permanent command of the main avenues from India to Cabul."
Well, what were the facts? All Englishmen were horrified to hear that most sad history of the death of Sir Louis Cavagnari. Notwithstanding the gallant defence made by him and his followers, they were overwhelmed by numbers, and almost the entire Mission was sacrificed. Orders were immediately given to Sir Frederick Roberts to commence his advance. We held the Khyber Pass and other positions which, in 1841, we had neglected to secure; and we were thus able, within six weeks, to re-occupy Cabul and to avenge that massacre. The brave conduct and the admirable disposition of our troops was the theme of universal praise. The Nawab Sir Gholam Hussein Khan, a man who, perhaps, is better able than anyone else to judge, expressed the opinion that he knew of no combination of insurgents which was carried out under circumstances so favourable, and no defeat so overwhelming as that which was inflicted upon them. He also expressed his distinct belief that we should not have any further trouble in that respect. I earnestly hope that his expectation may be realized. I cannot help going a step further, and noticing with satisfaction the terms in which Her Majesty has referred to the conduct of her Native as well as British troops. Her Majesty has graciously observed—
"The skill exhibited in the rapid march upon Cabul, and in the advances upon the other lines of action, reflects the highest credit upon the officers and men of my British and Native forces, whose bravery has shone with its wonted lustre in every collision with the enemy."
My Lords, I will not attempt to predict what the future policy of Her Majesty's Government is to be. We have heard a great deal of prophecy lately with regard to it; but of one thing I am certain, and
12
that is, that it would not be possible to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan. Were we to do so, we should not only produce a bad effect upon the minds of the Natives, but also in the minds of those independent Princes who have been so much impressed at the boldness of our policy and the success of our arms. We should also run the risk of leaving those Afghans who had befriended us at the mercy of anyone who might happen to get the upper hand in the country. Turning to South Africa, let us see what has taken place there. The Zulu power has been broken up, the Zulu Chief captured, and the whole country separated into different Governments. An insurrection headed by Secocoeni and Moirosi broke out on the borders of Basuto Land; but all these matters are now set at rest. Her Majesty goes on to observe—
"I hope the time is not far distant when an important advance may be made towards the establishment of a Union or Confederation under which the powers of self-government, already enjoyed by the inhabitants of Cape Colony, may be extended to my subjects in other parts of South Africa."
In reply to a despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, urging the adoption of the Confederation Act of 1877, Sir Bartle Frere's Ministers say—
"The whole of the South African communities are anxiously awaiting the result of the war on the Natal and Transvaal Frontiers. Pending its settlement, Ministers cannot but feel that to submit general proposals for the establishment of a South African Union, or Confederation, to the Capo Parliament would be to invite the Legislature to commit itself to unknown responsibilities. In the event of the war now raging on those Frontiers being concluded and peace established on a satisfactory basis, it will afford Ministers great pleasure to submit to the Legislature proposals of the nature referred to in the despatch, in full confidence that they will meet on the part of the Parliamentary Representatives of this Colony with a favourable reception."
There is now no danger from the Native Tribes, and I very much hope that Ministers will be able to carry out those views which they express in that despatch. Having now touched upon the topics in Her Majesty's gracious Speech relating to external affairs, I will ask your Lordships to follow me while I refer briefly to those more immediately affecting domestic questions. Her Majesty refers to the appointment of the Royal Commission issued to inquire into the causes of Agricultural Depression throughout the

13
United Kingdom. I can only hope that by the time the Commission has completed its labours and made its Report the circumstances which have called it into existence may have ceased to trouble us. Two distinguished agriculturists have recently returned from America, and I have no doubt that the information they have gained there may lead to very important results. Before I leave this subject I should like to express my satisfaction at the manner in which the landowners in this country have come forward during this crisis, and the efforts which they have made to alleviate the sufferings of their tenantry. I believe that the tenant farmers of England, with whom I wish to express my deepest sympathy, will begin to realize that the oft-repeated statement that the interest of the tenant and the landlord are bound up together is not a mere sentiment, but a reality. Her Majesty goes on to deal with what has taken place in Ireland. I think, my Lords, I am right in saying that the crops in that country have at least been equal to, if not better than, those in this country; but, on the other hand, the distress has been far more widely spread; and if such is the case, then I think it be-hoves the Government to give the subject their immediate and most anxious consideration with the view of devising measures of relief. I will not pursue the subject further, because the noble Lord who sits on my left, and who proposes to second the Motion for the Address which I have the honour to move, will deal with the question at length; but I cannot sit down without adding my tribute of appreciation of the noble effort which has been made by the illustrious lady who occupies the highest position in that country for the immediate alleviation of the distress. I can only say that I earnestly trust that the hope she held out of being able to avert a famine may be fully realized. With regard to the measures that are promised to us by the Government, two of them—the Criminal Code Bill and the Bankruptcy Bill—have already been laid upon the Table of this House, the former having undergone fresh and minute re-consideration at the hands of the distinguished Judge who originally prepared it. The Bankruptcy Bill has already been fully explained to the House by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, and I
14
believe it is admitted on all sides that some relief is needed in that direction. Since the present Government came into Office they have carried several measures of great utility, such as the Summary Jurisdiction Act and the Artizans' Dwellings Act; and I trust that an Act for the Amendment of the Lunacy Laws may be added to that list. I am thankful that Her Majesty's Government have taken in hand the Land Question. If any statement can be devised which, while maintaining the principle of the Law of Entail, will yet give relief to those owners who feel that the burdens on their estates are greater than they can bear, and those others who think that by sacrificing a small and possibly outlying portion of their estates they may materially improve the value of the remainder, I am sure it will be welcomed by the majority of your Lordships. With regard to the Bill for the simplification of conveyancing, any measure which will diminish the expense and will shorten the time occupied by the transfer will be very cordially received by your Lordships. It only remains for me to express my thanks for the kind indulgence which your Lordships have been pleased to extend to me, and to assure you that it has been the means of very materially lightening the anxious task of addressing your Lordships for the first time. I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to for Majesty in reply to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne as follows:—
MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
"WE, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty's relations with all the Powers continue to be friendly, and that the course of events since the prorogation of Parliament has tended to furnish additional security to the maintenance of European peace, on the principles laid down by the Treaty of Berlin, although much still remains to be done to repair the disorder with which the late war has affected many parts of the Turkish Empire.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that a Convention has been con-

15
cluded between Your Majesty's Government and that of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, for the suppression of the Slave Trade.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that, in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty of Gundamak, Your Majesty's Envoy, with his retinue, was honourably received and entertained by the Ameer of Afghanistan at Cabul, but that, while engaged in the exercise of their duty, he and those connected with the Embassy wore treacherously attacked by overwhelming numbers, and, after an heroic defence, were almost all massacred.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that, an outrage so intolerable calling for condign chastisement, Your Majesty's troops, which, pursuant to the stipulations of the Treaty, either had withdrawn or were withdrawing from the territories governed by the Ameer, were ordered to retrace their steps; and that the skill exhibited in the rapid march upon Cabul, and in the advances upon the other lines of action, reflects the highest credit upon the officers and men of Your Majesty' s British and native forces, whoso bravery has shone with its wonted lustre in every collision with the enemy.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the abdication of the Ameer and the unsettled condition of the country render the recall of the troops impossible for the present; but that the principle on which Your Majesty's Government has hitherto acted remains unchanged, and that, while determined to make the frontiers of Your Majesty's Indian Empire strong, Your Majesty desires to be in friendly relations alike with those who may rule in Afghanistan and with the people of that country.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty's anticipations as to the early establishment of peace in South Africa have been fulfilled; and that the capture and deposition of the Zulu King, and the breaking up of the military organization on which his dynasty was based, have relieved Your Majesty's possessions in that part of the world from a danger which seriously impeded their advancement and consolidation.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that a native outbreak of considerable importance in Basutoland has been effectually quelled by Your Majesty's Colonial forces, while the Transvaal has been freed from the depredations of a powerful Chief, who, having successfully resisted the former government of that country, had persistently resisted all attempts at conciliation.
16
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty has reason to hope that the time is approaching when an important advance may be hade towards the establishment of an Union or Confederation under which the powers of self-government, already enjoyed by the inhabitants of the Cape Colony, may be extended to Your Majesty's subjects in other parts of South Africa; and we thank Your Majesty for directing that Papers on these and other matters shall be forthwith laid before us.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the Commission appointed to inquire into the causes of agricultural depression throughout the United Kingdom is pursuing its labours; and also for informing us of the special precautions which Your Majesty's Government have deemed it necessary to take in view of the threatened distress in Ireland, and of the moa-8ures which the course they have adopted will render necessary.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to the measures which may be submitted to us, and that we earnestly trust that the blessing of the Almighty will attend our labours and direct our efforts."
THE EARL OF ROSSE: My Lords, in rising to second the Address that has just been moved by my noble Friend on my right, I think I need not refer to the paragraphs in Her Majesty's Speech relating to foreign affairs, beyond congratulating the House upon the maintenance of peace. Passing over those topics, I will confine my remarks to the paragraph which deals with agricultural depression, and especially to the state of Ireland. My Lords, when I see in the papers columns headed "State of Ireland," such as have appeared lately, I think it rather ominous; it looks as if there was some special interest at work, and that, in fact, she is in a disturbed state. For the last few years, both in Ireland and in England, there has been, no doubt, a gradual diminution of prosperity. We have seen trade decline on this side of the Channel; we have seen the manufacturing districts far from flourishing; and various events have happened which have shown a diminution of that rapidly-increasing prosperity enjoyed some years ago. We have heard, during the last year especially, that the agricultural interest of this country was specially affected. Farmers

17
were giving up their farms, in consequence of not being able to make sufficient profits to pay the amount of their rent; but in Ireland the state of things is reported to be far worse than in England and Scotland. As long ago as October the Government began to make inquiries as to the condition of the state of things in Ireland. A Special Report was sent to the Local Government Board, and appeared in the daily Press, and there was no doubt that the state of things was serious, though not so bad as at the time of the Famine. The Report stated that the general average of the harvest appears to be inferior, and the crops deficient and below those of last year; the oat crop, however, is reported to be good and plentiful. It also states that fuel is scarce, that the turf or peat had suffered much from the excessive rains, that great want was anticipated in Munster, and that the farmers were in great difficulties owing to the banks and loan companies having refused to make further advances of money. In Con-naught the Report stated that the largest amount of distress was to be expected, and on the West coast there would be considerable local distress. The poor rates, however, were not excessive, and the Report gives a list of 45 Unions where the poor rates are 3s.in the pound and upwards, and in three only above 4s.At that time the number relieved in the workhouses was rather in excess of last year; it has averaged about 11 per cent over the corresponding period of last year; the total number of indoor and out-door paupers was 84,000 as against 77,000 at the corresponding period of last year, an increase of about 10 per cent. Since that date pauperism has still been slightly on the increase. From the Report which has been made to the Lord Lieutenant it appears that, on January 25 last, the total number of in-door and out-door paupers in Ireland was 105,000 against 94,000 at the corresponding date last year, and there was a larger increase in October. But, in order to form a correct judgment on the present state of things, we have only to compare the total of 105,000 with the numbers during the Famine, when there were more than 900,000, or nearly 1,000,000 of indoor and out-door paupers in Ireland, so that it is a great exaggeration to say that our present position can at all be compared with the Famine time. As to
18
the cause of this depression, the Report remarks that the crops have been less than they were in 1871 or 1872, and that the value of the potato crop was only about half, or less than half, of the average. There had been a pretty general depression from 1876 to 1879. The bank note circulation has decreased between December, 1876, and December, 1879, from a total of £7,750,000 down to £6,250,000. The total of bank deposits and notes has decreased in the same period from £42,000,000 to £36,750,000; but it should, at the same time, be borne in mind that the last figure is still twice as large as in 1863, and three times as large as in 1848. It is quite clear, from the circumstances I have already referred to, and which I wish more fully to dwell upon, that shopkeepers have been in the habit of advancing small sums to tenants, and they have given credit to a very large amount since the passing of the Land Act. When the country is prosperous everything goes on smoothly, and the tenant does not really see his true position; but when we come to depression, when everyone finds more difficulty in earning a livelihood, or in paying the just demands made upon him, then the pressure is felt, and the banks and shopkeepers begin to withhold the credit they have so freely granted up to that time. The landlords, in every case, have given time, which is a most just thing. As I have said, the depression is attributed to the bad potato harvest, the loss of hay through floods in the Valley of the Shannon and many other places, the bad barley harvest, the inferior condition of the hay, and the unusual amount of disease amongst cattle. I am afraid those misfortunes will be severely felt in many parts of the country. There are, however, one or two circumstances on which we may congratulate ourselves. The autumn has been remarkably dry, and, as far as fuel is concerned, the present position of the poor is far less serious in most places than it was some years ago, when coal near a railway cost from 40 s.to 50 s.a-ton, while now it is the fair and moderate price of 25 s.a-ton. Then the diminution in the numbers of the agricultural labourers from Ireland to the harvest in this country has contributed to the prevalent distress, and especially in the Western counties, from which the harvesters chiefly came, the result being that there is in those parts a considerable

19
excess of the supply of labour over the demand. In the West of Ireland, where the population principally consists of the labouring class, the emigration has been so much smaller—7,000 less than last year, and those who did go earning smaller wages—that the loss in wages is estimated at £100,000. I am very glad that Her Majesty's Government have been fully alive to the necessity of guarding against all emergencies. Your Lordships are aware that, by various Acts, sums of money can be lent at a low rate of interest, in order to encourage tenants to improve their estates by useful works in the distressed districts; and in order to provide work for the people, and to alleviate the distress in a profitable and legitimate manner, large sums are being lent to landed proprietors. The additional privileges of the postponement of interest for two years was granted by a Circular issued in November; and, by a Circular issued last month, loans to the total amount of £250,000 at 1 per cent, instead of 3½ per cent interest, will be granted for unskilled labour only. That is a course which I can heartily commend, as it is calculated to furnish relief without pauperizing those receiving it. My Lords, from my own observation, and from what I hear on all sides, there is no doubt whatever that the authorities in Ireland are doing their best to meet the difficulties in which the country is placed, and the very useful work has been commenced with energy. But it must be borne in mind that these measures, which are exceptional in their character though no-cessary at the present moment, are not designed to be permanent. "Wages now in Ireland have fallen rather; and in my own neighbourhood, where the rate of wages in winter has been 1s.8d.for several years, it is now 1s.4d.to 1s.6d.per day. Much has been done to reclaim waste lands, and I strongly advocate a continuance of that as a means of increasing the prosperity of the country. I may say that in the West of Ireland the people have been thankful for the valuable assistance sent to them. As to the political aspect of the question, I must regret that, when all who have the true interests of the country at heart are doing their best to meet the difficulty, hard words and misstatements calculated to disturb the country should have been uttered. In 1869, Mr. Gladstone's
20
Government passed an Irish Land Act; but no improvement as regards the tranquillity of the country seems to have resulted from that measure. Now, it appears to be the object of some people to create what is called a peasant proprietary, which seems to mean peasant proprietors with their estates deeply encumbered. That is a proposition which can hardly be looked upon with favour, especially when the question comes on, where is the money to come from? The country would hardly be more prosperous or more content were there no landlords. I will not detain your Lordships longer, but will simply second the Address. [See page 14.]
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, having been in this House for many years, I have observed that the usual practice for a person in my position, who speaks early in a debate upon the Address, is this: He pays a compliment to the Mover and Seconder, when it is deserved. He makes some very general observations on the legislation which has been promised in the Speech from the Throne, adds some remarks upon what has passed during the Recess, and asks some questions as to the present and future policy of the Government. But, before I attempt to perform any part of this duty, you will allow me to express, for myself and for my noble Friends around me, how completely we agree with the remarks of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Onslow) as to our satisfaction that the health and strength of Her Majesty have enabled her to arrive here to-day, amid the acclamations of the people, on one of the most important and graceful occasions for Her Majesty's presence among her subjects. Now, with regard to the attempt usually made to get information out of Her Majesty's Government, I am obliged to confess that of late years I have not been very successful in obtaining answers to the questions which I have put, and which appeared to me to relate to matters of great public interest. Nevertheless, I hope to be more fortunate in getting some information which the public await with great anxiety. With respect to the Mover and Seconder of the Address, I can, with the greatest sincerity, congratulate the noble Earl who moved it on the facility and clearness of his speech, which appeared to mo the more agreeable because there

21
was added to it a little flavour of Party spirit. With reference to the Seconder of the Address, it is not the first time the noble Earl has spoken in this House. Some time ago there was a speech made by him full of matters about the country to which he belongs; and on that occasion I had an opportunity of complimenting him on the hereditary claims he has to the respect of this House. With regard to the legislation promised in Her Majesty's gracious Speech, I have this to remark—that on the opening of the six last Sessions the promise of legislation has on each occasion been small, and even that small promise has not been kept. That legislation has been impeded by Parliamentary obstruction, and by wars and rumours of wars, is true; but I have always doubted whether Her Majesty's Government much regretted it—whether they did not wish by a masterly inactivity to show a brilliant contrast to the legislative energy of their Predecessors. It seems, however, that I was wrong, and that they were only concentrating their efforts on the last Session—that, like the Irish postboy, they were reserving their trot for the avenue. The Secretary of State for the Colonies told us the other day that this was to be a Session of real work. No one denies that the Government have the legal right to keep a Parliament together for seven years. But it is a question whether it is right, especially in a Conservative sense, to put the utmost strain upon the Septennial Act, particularly when there are a host of new and important issues upon which the constituencies have had no opportunity of giving an opinion. I own there are temptations in this case. The large majority which insures the existence of a Government which is considered by them necessary for the safety of the Empire—their misgivings as to the result of the General Election—these are temptations, and, if I am right with respect to their wishes on the subject of legislation, it would be a pity to lose a Parliament so admirably fitted to do nothing. But that the Government really expect to carry an extended list of important measures I can hardly believe. Judging by former averages, one or two is all that they can hope for out of the whole. There is, indeed, one measure not announced in the Queen's Speech, but which, I am told, will appear in the
22
shape of a Private Bill, on which I heartily congratulate your Lordships. It may possibly prove to be the most useful measure of this Parliament. I called attention last Session to the miserable supply of water in the Metropolis for the extinction of fire. A noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown), who had often, without any encouragement from the Government, brought the whole subject before your Lordships, announced his intention of asking your Lordships to agree to a Resolution on the subject. Mr. Cross, however, told us that he intended to take the matter in hand, and deprecated further discussion in this House till he could make his statement. I believe that he fulfilled his pledge, and has been successfully working on the lines of the excellent Reports of the Society of Arts. With regard to any retrospect as to what has happened during the Recess, I have this difficulty. It has been usual during a Recess for the Opposition, who have plenty of leisure, to make frequent extra-Parliamentary speeches, and for Ministers, who are more fully occupied, to speak at much greater intervals, reserving themselves for the meeting of Parliament. The present Cabinet, small in numbers, and, perhaps, not the worse for that, contains most distinguished orators. In 1878, a week had not elapsed after the Prorogation before Cabinet Ministers were beginning to harangue the Provinces. In 1879 the majority of the Cabinet have done more of what is vulgarly called "stumping the country" than any previous Administration has done daring all the Recesses of any one Parliament. I am bound to say that Her Majesty's Opposition have not been remiss in doing their duty iii this respect, and the result is that the people are constantly hearing both sides of the subject. That does not diminish the importance of discussing these matters fully in Parliament; but it takes off the gloss which might otherwise here belong to them. Some Members of the Government have complained of the use of strong language; but I am quite sure that that is a feeling in which the Prime Minister does not share. We all know with what ridicule he has treated such mealy-mouthed objections to strong language on vital questions; and, therefore, though he may approve his friends and supporters in calling the Opposition unpa-

23
triotic enemies to their country, and men who wish to break up the Empire abroad and bring about revolution at home, he could hardly consider them as compliments, or that they hardly gave to the Opposition that monopoly of abuse which is attributed to them. Among the subjects discussed has been the depression in the trade and agriculture of the country, and the state of foreign affairs. As regards agriculture, I am a little surprised that not one word of sympathy is expressed in the Queen's Speech as to the depression under which the whole agriculture of the United Kingdom is suffering at this moment. As regards trade, leading Members of the Government have spoken in the most decided way as to the impossibility of reverting to Protection, direct or indirect, as a mode of relieving distress. But in declaring that a return to Protection was impossible, I regret certain language which has been held by some Members of the Government. I regret I do not see the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) here tonight, not only on account of his indisposition, which I hope is not serious, but on account of the reference I intend to make. The noble Marquess, speaking in a town which is supposed to be the head-quarters of Free Trade, took credit as a Freetrader for having reduced the duty on a single article in the Indian tariff at a time when the Indian Debt was being increased. He went on, still as a Freetrader, to deplore the walls of Protection which he found surrounding most of the great countries of the world, and then suddenly, and apparently to the astonishment of his hearers, he ox-pressed the deepest regret at the complete manner in which Sir Robert Pool and his successors had adopted Free Trade as far as we wore concerned, instead of retaining the duties on a number of articles which might have enabled us to haggle with foreign Governments, varying as we went along our own import duties according to the fancies and prejudices of the States with which we were dealing. Now, my Lords, the noble Marquess is, I am sure, very anxious, as he stated, to persuade foreign countries to reduce their tariffs, and he finds no doubt a difficulty, from the fact of our having few reductions left to make, in dealing with statesmen who believe that to reduce a duty is to confer a benefit upon us and not upon the in-
24
habitants of their own country. But has he reflected upon the immense difficulty which language such as his, and such as the much stronger expressions used by the first Legal Adviser of the Crown in the House of Commons, throws in the way of our diplomatic agents when endeavouring to obtain a reduction? Secretaries of State and First Law Officers of the Crown cannot make public speeches exclusively for home consumption—hey get published abroad; and is it not certain that a Protectionist foreign statesman will say—"I believe the reduction of duties is dangerous to the industries of my country; but I am also convinced that they have proved to be so even for those of Great Britain, for do I not find some of the most important personages of your Government expressing extreme regret that for 30 years the freedom of your commerce has been complete? Either it has been an advantage or it has not: and it is perfectly impossible that it should be an advantage if your ablest men are of opinion that it would have been wise to exclude our goods because we did not admit yours." I presume it is from some practical experience of the difficulty of meeting such arguments that the Under Secretary of State has, I am glad to see, been employing language which is entirely opposed to the regrets expressed by his Chief. The advantages of Free Trade for this country have not been more clearly shown by our extraordinary industrial prosperity during the quarter of a century following the Repeal of the Corn Laws than by the fact of our having suffered less in the recent time of depression than other countries afflicted with Protection. That this is so is proved in a striking manner by the Board of Trade tables, which show that while there has been hardly any diminution in the amount of goods which we have exported, the value of those goods has only fallen 8 per cent; whereas the decrease in the value of our imports has been more than 30 per cent. A year ago I stated that the Government had for two previous years been seeing bits of blue sky not visible to the unofficial eye; and I asserted my belief that if they only stuck to their text they would, at last, find themselves in the right. I believe that the revival of trade has been retarded by the want of political as well as commercial confidence; but the tide

25
has certainly turned, and although there may be danger from exaggerated speculation, I shall be surprised if, during the next few years, we have not additional proofs of the industrial superiority of a country enjoying Free Trade over those which interpose artificial obstacles in the way of its full development. I am glad to see that Ministers in France give no encouragement, at all events, to increased Protection in that rich country. With regard to agriculture, I am afraid the question of revival is one for the future and not for the present. Farmers have been ruined, landowners much embarrassed, and labourers suffering, though to a much less degree. The immediate cause has been the coincidence of a succession of bad harvests in this country with a succession of wonderfully good harvests in America, accompanied by a great depression among consumers of agricultural produce both here and in the United States. The First Lord of the Treasury said last year that this was the only interest which had suffered from Free Trade. I do not believe that Protection would have helped the farmer more than it did in the years when it still existed, while it would have been absolute ruin to the labourer. But the strain of competition has been great, and figures are given which threaten much more severe competition. One grain of comfort might be derived from the revival of one of those branches of industry to which I have alluded. Seven months ago there was not an expert in the iron trade who did not think it was doubtful whether we could compete with the American ironmaster in the neutral markets, and was not certain that we should never send a ton of iron or steel again to the States. For the last four months we have been doing the Americans that which Protectionists would call the injury of inundating them at their own request with iron. Is not this a lesson that we must not attach too much importance to the gloomy predictions even of the most experienced men in times of great depression? But of this we may be sure—that a competition which, has reduced the rent of land in the Eastern States of America to nil will make it necessary for us to make every effort to free British agriculture from all that may clog its most beneficial exercise. I am especially glad to have heard the announcement made in the Speech in
26
reference to a Bill for some alteration in the Land Laws. Forty years ago I formed my own opinion that the Land Laws of France and those of this country were alike in extremes—those of France in taking away nearly all freedom of testamentary disposition and making the partition of estates almost compulsory, and those of England in restricting sales, in making the transfer of land expensive, in cramping the liberty of the supposed possessor, in discouraging improvements by the landowner and the best cultivation by the tenant, and by making artificial difficulties in the way of either dividing or agglomerating estates. I believe that change is necessary, and that some change would be desired by farmers and would not really be objected to by landlords, whatever might be the feelings of some of their advisers. Those changes should be in the direction of simplifying titles; of making the presumption of law, both as regards the succession to land and the relation of landlord, conform, as far as possible, to right principle, and, without destroying freedom of contract, should give more liberty of action to the nominal landowner. I am quite certain that if the measure contemplated by Her Majesty's Government carries out some such principles as these, the measure will be one which we on this side of the House can approve. I should hardly venture to speak of the subject of distress in Ireland after the full manner in which the noble Earl opposite has referred to the subject. I am exceedingly anxious to hear from the Government the way in which they intend to deal with this question in detail. I hope they have not neglected the experience gained by Lord Russell's Government, and that they will use the means best adapted to relieve distress without in any way interfering with the general labour market. I think it is not possible to make sufficient provision, without deliberately breaking the solemn provision of an Act of Parliament passed not long ago. My Lords, I am not one of those who impute wickedness to Irishmen because they advocate Home Rule, if they think conscientiously that it would be for the public advantage. I deplore the fact that men of great ability and influence should waste their efforts upon what I believe to be a sterile agitation, instead

27
of profiting by our present institutions to join with Englishmen and Scotchmen in promoting measures for the welfare of our common country. I use the word sterile advisedly, and I need not argue in this Assembly that it is impossible for Home Rule, such as exists in Canada, could be established in the sister Kingdom. But if you talk of giving to Irishmen more power to do their own local work I entirely agree. I believe what is wanted is a thorough reform of the local governments of Ireland, and that we should then throw upon these reformed bodies the greatest possible amount of local duties and responsibilities. You would in this way relieve the Members of the House of Commons from an intolerable burden that now presses upon them. I regret the violent language used and the violent measures advocated by Mr. Parnell, and I do so on this ground. During the whole of this century there have been two parties in England and Scotland, one very jealous of Ireland and desirous of keeping a heavy hand upon it, and the other anxious to meet whatever was proposed by Irishmen and to act in accordance with their feelings, and even with their prejudices, so far as that could be done without a breach of principle. I believe that during the whole of that time the one party has diminished in strength and the other has gained ground in strength and in numbers; and I do fear that the violent language used by and the proceedings of persons like Mr. Parnell tend to create a re-action in this country, and to make it difficult to go on with those measures of amelioration connected with Ireland which most of us ardently desire. The noble Earl opposite alluded to a recent proposal of Mr. Bright. Mr. Bright is a very remarkable man, and has given much attention to the ills of Ireland, and has suggested measures for their removal, scrupulously endeavouring to make them consistent with a due regard for the rights of property. His proposal may be open to all the objections which have been raised, not only by the Conservative Party, but by men like Mr. Fawcett; but I think there can be no doubt of his honest desire to ameliorate the present state of things. Merely from the fact of agrarian propositions in a different quarter, I have seen Mr. Bright treated as if he were a revolutionary and
28
an agrarian Socialist. In my opinion it is the duty of both Englishmen and Irishmen to discuss questions of this kind calmly and in the spirit of the late Lord Bessborough—a man known and liked in this House, and still more known and liked in his own country of Ireland, for his singular calmness, firmness, and judgment, mixed with the greatest possible liberality in relation to subjects of this kind. Connected with the previous subjects there is a question which, we have been informed on high authority, is the strong point of the Government. Lord Carnarvon last year said that good government made good finance. He immediately apologized for having unintentionally borrowed the phrase from the First Lord of the Treasury. I am afraid that the First Lord owes another apology to Baron Louis, who is quoted by all the contemporary memoirs as having used this expression at the time of the Restoration; and Baron Louis probably owed apologies to the Ministers of Henri Quatre and Queen Elizabeth. The maxim is so obvious that it must have occurred to many minds. That in a time of unusual depression we have been spending an unusual amount of money there is no doubt; that greater expenditure means a certain pressure upon trade and a greater pressure upon those who are employed in re-productive labour, no one can question. The great question is this: Whether the objects of Her Majesty's Government and the results which have attended their policy justify the evil of an increased expenditure. Her Majesty's Ministers have spoken a good deal on foreign affairs; but they certainly have not given those accurate detailed explanations with regard to their policy which we might expect in Parliament. They have chiefly confined themselves to some vague general declarations as to England having risen in the scale of nations, and that sort of thing; and then they turn round upon the Opposition, and adopt a peculiar mode of proceeding. They imagine a foreign policy adopted by the late Government, and it is much easier to do this in consequence of the foreign policy of the late Government having been seriously questioned in Parliament. Then on this assumed policy they proceed with the greatest satisfaction to throw stones and sticks at us. I see the noble Lord opposite the Under Secretary of State for War

29
(Viscount Bury) laughing; hut it is exactly what he did when he went to Nottingham a short time ago. He there made a most eulogistic speech in favour of the foreign policy of the present Government, and then he proceeded to find the most severe fault with one act of the foreign policy after another which had been pursued by successive Liberal Secretaries of State. The noble Lord has great advantages in discussing these questions. We know that he has a mind open to conviction on political subjects. He has the advantage not generally possessed by noble Lords on this side or on that side of the House. He has been able to study these questions from different points of view. Unlike the knights of old, he has been able to see both the silver and the gold sides of the shield. What, however, puzzles me a little is how he can throw such blame upon acts done at the Foreign Office in the time of Lord Palmerston, Lord Clarendon, Lord Russell, Mr. Gladstone, and myself, when I fancied that during the greater part of that time he appeared to be a supporter of those public men. Now, I do not object to his giving his more or less fixed opinions to the electors of Nottingham. But I have a right to claim that a Member of the Government, speaking with official authority, should to particular as to his facts. He told Nottingham that the late Government had abandoned the Black Sea to the Russians. What are the facts? One of the conditions of the Treaty of Paris was the neutralization of the Black Sea. It was not one of the conditions recorded by Count Buol and Lord Clarendon as thought necessary at the Conference of Vienna by the Powers of Europe as a condition of peace. It was an afterthought of M. Drouyn de Lhuys. Lord Palmerston thought this provision would have the practical effect of giving time to Turkey to recover the naval position she held before the unfortunate destruction of her Fleet at Sinope. He did not think it could be permanently retained. He never thought that condition could last. What was the opinion of Mr. Gladstone on that subject? He denounced it in the strongest manner as a condition to which it was impossible that a great military Power could be subjected, seeing that it deprived Russia of the right of defending its own coasts and its own
30
trade. I do not expect to convince the noble Lord by citing Mr. Gladstone's opinion; but the noble Earl the Prime Minister thought it a most humiliating condition, and he was supported by the noble Marquess the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who, with his usual fertility, gave several illustrations of the absurd injustice of the condition. France told the Emperor of Russia that, in her opinion, that condition ought to be modified; Germany did the same; Austria followed Germany; and Italy followed Austria; and we were left alone in our silence. Prince Gortchakoff, in an awkward and discourteous manner as regarded the co-signatories of the Treaty of 1856, denounced the duty of the Emperor to be bound by it. We called upon Europe to join with us in repelling what seemed to us an offensive assumption. Baron Brunnow tried day after day to obtain from mo some inkling of what would be our course if the retractation was made. I positively refused to give that information until that fact was accomplished. The most ample retractation was made—one that has been quoted with effect by Her Majesty's present Government—and then, and not till then, all Europe agreed not to abandon the Black Sea to Russia, as the Under Secretary of State stated at Nottingham, but to substitute for it another arrangement. It was to admit not only Russia, but Turkey also, with her magnificent Fleet, to the Black Sea, and to give the latter the power which she did not then possess of calling in her maritime allies even in time of peace. The Turkish Ambassador stated that was the very thing that Turkey wanted. It is an arrangement which no one can pretend was of the slightest advantage to Russia in the last war. I remember a conversation in this House on the subject. I described the alternatives which we might have adopted, all of which seemed to me to be bad. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) following asked whether another had not suggested itself to me—namely, to do nothing. The suggestion did not occur to me, and, at all events, it has not been adopted by him in a somewhat similar case. When Russia claimed Batoum, which she has now got, the noble Marquess was not satisfied in doing nothing. He secretly engaged with Russia to join Europe in giving sanction to their possessing the

31
best port in Asia Minor. I really think the noble Lord has given me a fair locus standi to come forward to do what I have never done before—defend the Foreign Office. We have been attacked for having during the late Administration said so little about foreign affairs. It is a fault which cannot be imputed to the present Cabinet. I doubt whether any former Administration ever talked so much. It has its advantages, but they are hardly of a lasting character. In the long run it does not give strength, and when so much is said it is almost impossible for Ministers not to contradict one another and even themselves. We all remember, when the Treaty of Berlin was signed, Her Majesty's Ministers told us they had saved Russia going to Constantinople—which I do not believe at all—that they had brought back peace with honour, that they had led Europe, and that they had saved Europe. It was pointed out the other day that the secret Memorandum was necessary to induce Prince Bismarck to hold the Conference at all. It is said that when Russia endeavoured to deviate from the line traced in it, he kept her to the point. It is said that when the British Plenipotentiaries, frightened by the storm raised by the publication of the secret Memorandum, tried to withdraw from the concession they had promised respecting Batoum, Prince Bismark held them to their bond. Could anyone doubt that Prince Bismarck had an important hand in the Treaty? Well, did he talk of saving and leading Europe? No, he minimized his share, his interest in the work; he described in the humblest illustration the nature of his work. I have some doubt whether the real strength lay with those who had talked the biggest. The First Lord of the Admiralty the other day said that it was now known that when England said that a thing was not to be done, all the power and strength of England would be exerted to prevent it. I do not know any such a thing. It happens that at the end of Mr. Gladstone's Administration I said in this House—and I said it without contradiction and without the fear of contradiction—that we had never said one word to which we had not adhered. Is it possible to say this regarding this very Treaty of Berlin? Read the celebrated Circular of the noble Marquess.
32
Could anything be stronger than the objections stated in it to the San Stefano Treaty? As to the annexation by Russia of Bessarabia, the acquisition of the important harbour of Batoum, the strongholds of Armenia, the indemnity from the Turks—not one of these objections has been met by the Treaty of Berlin. It is true that the noble Marquess says that those who think so cannot ever have read the Circular, because there is a sentence in the Circular—"These results arise not so much from a single Article as from the operation of the instrument as a whole." And we are told that the political and military supremacy of the Sultan in Eastern Roumelia will compensate for all the other objections; but even if this were so, which no one can think, what does the supremacy of the Sultan in Eastern Roumelia amount to? He cannot garrison the impregnable barrier, and he has not sufficient interest with the Governor of Eastern Roumelia to obtain the dismissal of Militia officers who insult him. Now, my objections to the Berlin Treaty are not great; there are great faults in it, but it was a tolerable arrangement under the whole of the circumstances. But what I object to is the singular inconsistency of the Treaty with the big words you used. The Circular had created great enthusiasm among certain classes of the supporters of the Government. The Treaty of Berlin was an immense disappointment to these. And this disappointment drove the Government into the most indefensible Convention that England has made during this century—a Convention which, while it destroys the proud boast of a Conservative statesman that England is strong because she fears nothing and wants nothing, throws upon us and our survivors indefinite liabilities under all possible contingencies, without giving us the slightest additional means of carrying out those engagements or of reforming the Turks. With regard to these two Treaties, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a few questions. We know that Turkey has fulfilled her engagements towards Russia and towards Austria. What progress has been made with respect to the concession, which the Prime Minister described in Knightsbridge to be so great, to Greece? Are the other Powers agreed on the subject? Are we acting

33
with them? Again, what progress has been made in carrying out the Treaty respecting Montenegro? I entirely agree with the Mover of the Address in what he said on the subject of the Convention for the suppression of the Slave Trade, and I hope it will be more effectual than the promises in the same direction hitherto given. I would also like to know something about that mysterious incident, the demonstration with regard to the persecution of the missionary and his assistant, and the menaces, if any, which were used by Sir Austen Layard, and what was the ultimate success of the measures which he took? With regard to Cyprus, if Lord Salisbury had been here, I should have liked to know whether the internal administration has profited by the strange expedient of placing it under his personal superintendence, rather than committing it to the care of the Colonial Office, so full of traditions? I will venture to ask the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Beaconsfield), whether the steaming in during the healthy time of the year of men-of-war into the pestilential harbour of Famagosta, and steaming out again as soon as possible, is a fulfilment of the pledge which was to have been redeemed eight months ago as to an available port for all our commerce, and whether it will contribute much to the establishment of a place of arms? There is a long paragraph in the Queen's Speech about South Africa. I entirely join with the noble Mover in rejoicing that the war is ended. The fact of its being at an end does not in the slightest diminish my regret—I may say, my indignation—that it ever was commenced. Two Ministers have lately laid great stress on the fact that the Government not only did not sanction, but forbade the war, and they greatly deploredit. But the war was either just or necessary, or it was not. If it was just and necessary, why did the Government forbid it? If it was not just and necessary, I can conceive no more deplorable proof of weakness—nothing of a worse example—than that a war should be begun and carried on with varied disaster and success, at a great cost of blood and treasure, with the perfect acquiescence of a Government which deplores, but does not prevent it. It is true that a third Minister has since declared that now the war is over, and successfully, he thinks
34
that the Government were wrong and Sir Bartle Frere was right. As Papers are promised, I presume they will give us the grounds for the promise which has often been held out to us of a speedy Confederation, and the mode in which it is proposed to settle the country. This Speech does not announce, like a previous one, that the annexation of the Transvaal has been received throughout the Province with enthusiasm. I presume the Papers will show whether Sir Garnet Wolseley's declarations were the result of instructions from home, and, if not, whether they have been approved. There are two paragraphs in the Speech from the Throne on a subject upon which the interest of the country is deeply concentrated. Forty years ago a dreadful disaster happened, the worst that has happened to this country during this century. The bitter lesson was taken to heart by the East India Company, by successive Advisers of the Crown, by successive Viceroys and distinguished Anglo-Indian soldiers and administrators. It was only after the accession of the present Government to power that a change of policy was decided upon, a policy not announced, but carefully concealed from the people of this country. What has been the result? Let anyone take up the account by the historian Kaye, or the statesman soldier Sir Henry Durant, and shut his eyes to the dates, and he will fancy that he is reading step by step, with the great exception of the incompetency of some British officer, every incident of the present day. In the same way I read in the newspapers of the last year of the easy overrunning of Afghanistan by our troops, of the fanaticism excited by our advance, of the massacre of our gallant Representative, the difficulty in which we found ourselves, and which is indicated in the Queen's Speech, of remaining or going away. I can hardly help fancying that I am hearing the very words which the late Lord Lawrence, with not a grain of that Party feeling which may excite some of us, and with almost tears in his eyes for that India which he loved and had served so well, prophesied in conversation to me, as he did in public, the certain results of the step so falsely taken. What is the present position of things? We have some 45,000 British troops there—more are hurrying up from Bombay; we hardly

35
do more than hold our own; we have spent millions in destroying the only Government; the outlying Provinces north and west are in complete anarchy; and all this has been done not to prevent Russia invading us—because that the Prime Minister said was almost impossible—but to destroy the possibility of Russian intrigue. Is it possible to imagine more completely playing the game of Russia or any Power that wishes to intrigue? What the country want to know—and I do not speak merely of the Opposition, thoughtful Conservatives are just as anxious as we are—what we want to know is, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government? Sir Michael Hicks-Beach pledges the Government to take such measures as will revive the prosperity of the Afghans. The First Lord of the Admiralty says that the policy of the Government is to refrain from annexation except when circumstances absolutely compel them to resort to it, not only for their own preservation, but for the interests of the people annexed. Sir Stafford Northcote says it is a policy of self-defence, and not a policy of annexation. It is a policy which, aims at securing India from vain alarms of movements and invasions from outside. It must be exceedingly difficult for Sir Stafford Northcote to define a policy which is at once consistent with the principles he has publicly laid down about the folly of going beyond our former Frontier and the policy which his Colleagues have initiated. Lord Lytton says that it is not the acquisition of territory, but the firm establishment of durable foundations for the future good behaviour of India's Afghan neighbours. Her Majesty's gracious Speech indicates that the troops are to remain until this wild country is settled, and it adds—which really in a State document sounds like a joke at this moment—that it desires to remain on friendly relations with the Rulers who no longer exist, and with the people whose hatred they have so deeply stirred. It is not for me to say that the Government have no policy. But so ignorant is every Peer in this House who is not in the Cabinet of their views, and so accustomed are we to surprises, that I doubt whether there is any one of us who would be much astonished if they heard that the Government had decided either to withdraw to that scientific
36
Frontier of which we have heard so much, but the definition of which is not known to us—the Annexe to the Treaty of Gandamak having been steadily withheld from us—or that they had decided to retain Cabul and Candahar; that they were marching on Herat, or adding a fresh guarantee to our stock with respect to Persia. Surely, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government should give us not vague generalities, but some clear indication of what their policy is. I must make one remark upon the reckless way in which boasts are made even in the Speech from the Throne. The march upon Cabul is described as rapid. The murder of the gallant Cavagnari was on the 3rd of September. The orders to advance were on the 6th, and the distance was 82 miles. How long do you take to make this march?—just one month. The distance from Lundi Kotal, the post on the scientific Frontier in the Khyber, to Cabul, is 157 miles. The order to advance was given on the 6th. The force reached Jellalabad, 52 miles from Lundi Kotal, on the 13th of October, and was, therefore, more than a month in marching 52 miles. These were marches at a pace which a snail would not call rapid. The fault was not in the least that of the officers; it was that of the arrangements and want of preparations of the Indian Government, whom the Government insisted upon our thanking at the end of the Session. My Lords, there are two subjects to which I must allude, though it is with the greatest pain that I do so. A charge has been made by Bishop Colenso of acts done by our countrymen in defiance of all the laws, not of peace, but of acknowledged warfare. I need not say that Bishop Colenso is an important witness, from his position, his high character, and his knowledge of the country. But his sympathy with the Natives, which does him so much honour, his detestation of a war which has appeared to him unjust, unnecessary, and un-Christian, is so strong that it may have warped his judgment in judging of evidence. I devoutly wish that this may be the case. Another Memorial has been presented to the Prime Minister, in calm and almost judicial language, denouncing certain acts committed by the British authorities in Afghanistan contrary to the laws of civilized warfare, and certain to be followed by dis-

37
grace and dishonour, and asking for an inquiry. The noble Earl will, I have no doubt, be prepared to say what knowledge he has of these facts, what inquiries have been made, what have been the results, and what course the Government have taken with reference to this matter. The President of the Board of Trade (Viscount Sandon) speaks lightly of struggles unto the death. It is a phrase he uses in every speech of his, and it is a grave question whether such struggles are imminent upon us. The noble Viscount is reported to have stated at Liverpool the other day that our neighbours had enormous Armies, and were trying to injure us in all directions. This is most portentous information, even if true, to be blurted out for the first time by a Cabinet Minister in an electioneering speech. The first part of the intelligence is superfluous—the second is perfectly new to me. Germany, France, Austria, and Italy have all enormous Armies. Are they all or any of them trying to injure us in all directions? And if only one was meant, and that Russia, I wish to know what are the attempts that Russia is known to be making since August last, when the Prime Minister solemnly announced that the Emperor of Russia
"has fulfilled his engagements-with dignity and honour, and is at this moment cordially operating with this country and the other Powers of Europe in a policy the object of which is to secure and maintain the general peace?"
If Viscount Sandon is right, why did the Prime Minister lull us into a false security in August, and why does he tell us in the Speech to-day that the relations of the Queen with Foreign Powers are all friendly? However, whether we are to have a struggle unto death depends much upon our own policy. If our foreign policy is to be conducted on a system of jerks and surprises; if when we touch the Eastern Question we sanction the material advance of Russia, and at the same time make ourselves equally detested by Russians, by Slavs, by Turks, and by Greeks; if in another Continent we carry on a bloody and inglorious war, which, Ministers tell you, they not only did not order, but actually prohibited and which they openly deplore; if in that Continent you annex settlers of a European race—a race as obstinate as ourselves—and after
38
promising them freedom, announce that you mean to govern them despotically and to govern them for ever; if in India you disregard all the lessons of experience and all the best recent advice, and pour out blood and treasure on a mountainous district, which you absolutely manure as a hotbed for hostile intrigues, and which it is equally difficult to remain in or to retire from; if you think to govern the whole world by phrases—defiant phrases periodically produced, now in a dead, now in a living language, and which daily collect around them an increasing flavour of ridicule—I do not know that a struggle unto death may not be nearer than is supposed. But if, on the other hand, your policy is firm and conciliatory, not saying more than you mean to perform, and if you adhere to what you say; if you jealously protect yourself from real injury and insult; if, while requiring respect, you fully respect the rights of others; if you show that you do not covet the lands of others, but throw all the weight of your influence in the European Councils in favour of justice, of freedom, and of peace, I have such confidence in the geographical position, the maritime resources, the accumulated wealth, the free institutions, and the spirit of this people, that I do not believe that it will be the interest or the wish of our neighbours to engage us in a struggle, or that the struggle, if it came, would be a struggle unto death.
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just addressed us has given us a very picturesque description of the rhetorical campaign carried on during the Recess. According to the noble Earl, scarcely a single leading Member of either of the two great Parties in the State has not played a part more or less distinguished in those efforts of eloquence. One alone was wanting, and that was the noble Earl himself; but to-night he has certainly made up for all the deficiencies of the Recess. The noble Earl has shown us that he has been a careful and a brilliant critic throughout the Recess of all those efforts of eloquence that we have heard. The noble Earl has given us an article, a summary, a literary production of no ordinary character, full, I conclude, of plain Whig principles. He has, I think, placed before us in a very able manner—and cer-

39
tainly, all will admit, in a very agreeable manner—some of the sayings of his opponents, mixed up with some of their doings, though hardly introduced into discussion to-night with the usual fairness which distinguishes our debates; for certainly I did not expect we should be called upon to vindicate the negotiations that terminated with the Treaty of Berlin, a subject which has boon brought most fully before your Lordships' House before, upon which your Lordships have given your opinion, and in a manner, with numbers present, and with power of debate and discussion, which, I think, should be considered, in this Parliament at least, conclusive as to the judgment which can be formed upon those events. I would not have touched upon that subject now, even in a cursory way, had it not been for two or three authentic anecdotes of the noble Earl's—I will not say invented for the occasion, because I am sure he has some authority for them beyond his own fancy—which I cannot pass over without notice. I will not dwell upon his charge, repeated more than once, that we described the Balkans as "an impregnable bulwark and frontier," when such an epithet was never used, and could not be used, by anyone who had any knowledge of the facts. What was said at the time—and what, I believe, is perfectly justified by circumstances—is that the Balkans were "an intelligible frontier," not "an impregnable frontier," and everyone acquainted with these matters will, I think, agree with that. The noble Earl, in speaking of the Treaty of Berlin, connected it with the Turkish Convention. Accurately speaking, it was not part of the negotiations of Berlin, nor does it appear in the Treaty; but the noble Earl, noticing the guarantee given to the Porte as to Asia Minor, says—
"It is well known—I believe there is no doubt about it, he says—that it was in consequence of the general discontent that was felt in England, when the results of the Treaty of Berlin were made known, that Her Majesty's Government then had recourse to this Convention in order to distract public attention and obloquy."
Now, if the noble Earl will only look at the date of the Treaty—of the Convention with the Sultan respecting Asia Minor—he will see that that instrument was negotiated and signed before the
40
labours of the Berlin Conference had ceased, or, indeed, I believe, before they had even commenced. The noble Earl says he has often asked questions which have not been answered. I have endeavoured to-night to make a catalogue of his questions, so as to answer them categorically. The noble Earl wishes to know what has been done with regard to the delimitation of Montenegro. Well, that is a business which is not concluded; but I should think that at no time have the prospects of its being concluded in a satisfactory manner been more hopeful than at the present. Upon that point I can speak with some confidence. The noble Earl next wants to know what we have done about Greece. Well, I consider the policy of Her Majesty's Government respecting Greece to be one which, if it were fairly challenged by the noble Earl, we should have no difficulty in defending. But it is very difficult to meet questions which are not preceded by any statement of facts, or by any detailed argument from which you may infer the object of those questions. I do not wish to go into the difficulty respecting the settlement of the Greek Frontier under the Treaty of Berlin; but I may explain that at present the state of the case is this. On the 17th of last month, after long and protracted negotiations, the suggestion made by the French Government, which had been for some time under the notice of the Powers, was brought under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and in consequence of it we made a proposition which, in our opinion, and in the opinion of others, gives us every reason to hope that the affair may be shortly concluded. That was the 17th of last month. Of course, it is not in my power, at the present time, to go into any detail on the matter. When a proposition is before the Powers, nothing can be more irregular, and no step can be taken that is more calculated to injure the chances of success, than that we should enter into the discussion of the conditions which are matters of diplomatic deliberation. But I do say this—that I look forward with confidence to a settlement of that question; and I am sure that when all the Papers respecting it are placed before Parliament they will be such that no British Minister need be ashamed of laying on the Table of the House. The noble Earl wants informa-

41
tion upon the question of the missionary. Now, the question of the missionary is, I hope, not one of such importance as the noble Earl would make it. I hope he will find that the general result is of a satisfactory character. There are Papers to be placed upon the Table which will give the noble Lord all the information he desires. I may take this opportunity of saying that Papers will also be presented forthwith upon the affairs of Central Asia and the settlement of boundaries and other matters under the Treaty of Berlin, which will show that no ordinary pains have been taken, not only by Her Majesty's Government, but by all the signatories to the Treaty of Berlin, to carry into effect arrangements conducive to the maintenance of general peace. The noble Earl then comes to what he calls the unjust and unnecessary war in South Africa, and says he cannot understand how a war can be at the same time unjust and yet necessary. "Well, I will not enter into any controversy about words; but the noble Earl seemed to be very dissatisfied with the condition of affairs, and wanted to know whether there was any prospect of this scheme of South African Confederation being carried into effect; and, without entering into any controversy on the question how a war can be just that is unnecessary, I would refer for one moment to the conviction which the noble Earl seems to entertain, that there is no prospect of any scheme of Confederation being carried into effect in South Africa. I will read to the noble Earl a telegram recently received from Sir Bartle Frere, under date January 27. It is as follows:—
"My Ministers, having considered the subject of your despatch dated the 11th of December, have informed me that they are willing to deal with Griqualand West and Kaffirland. They propose a Conference to draft details for the union of all the South African Colonies—the Capo to be represented by the Governor and six members; Natal, Transvaal, and Griqualand West, each by three; totol number of representatives at Conference, 15. A practical solution of many difficulties is offered by this Minute. To-day's mail takes a despatch on the subject."
I think that telegram is a sufficient answer to the noble Lord so far as South Africa is concerned. Well, then the noble Earl comes to the case of Afghanistan. I must confess to being at a loss to know exactly what the noble
42
Earl wants us to tell him. He addresses to us a question which does not appear to me to be founded upon fact, or to have any character of reality. He assumes certain opinions and imputes them to the Chiefs and Sirdars of Afghanistan. He informs us that the whole country is against us; whereas those who have studied the question on the spot know that only a very limited portion of the population is against us. Then he wants to know what the Government are going to do? Well, that is a question which it is difficult to answer, if only in this sense—that it concerns matters which are in an unfinished state. You must consider the question of Afghanistan first of all with reference to the British Empire, and, secondly, with reference to Afghanistan itself. So far as the relations between this country and Afghanistan are concerned, our policy is perfectly clear. It was adopted after due consideration, and, as we believed, with complete and perfect knowledge, and no mistake has been made in carrying it into effect. It is true that a great disaster has occurred, but to such contingencies human affairs are always subject. As regards Afghanistan, what we aimed at was to secure an adequate and powerful Frontier for our Indian Empire. That we obtained, and we obtained it in a very short time, with brilliant military success; and, having obtained that, we negotiated the Treaty of Gandamak, which described and sealed that policy. It is unnecessary to recall to the notice of noble Lords the terrible circumstances which have for a moment prevented that policy from being carried into effect. No doubt it is possible, in applying the same principles which have always influenced us, that circumstances may occur to alter some details of the scheme which were not contemplated at the outset. But our policy remains the same. It is a policy opposed to annexation—a policy in favour of the people of Afghanistan being governed by their own Chief, or Chiefs—they can decide who these should be—but which, at the same time, retains our powerful and adequate military Frontier. That is our policy so far as England is concerned. As regards Afghanistan, we must be guided by circumstances over which we have not always entire control. It is an error to suppose that Afghanistan, generally

43
speaking, was governed in past times by one individual. On the contrary, the grandfather of Yakoob Khan was, I believe, the first Ruler that collected under his power all the tribes of the country. It may be necessary that we should restore Afghanistan to the state in which it was previous to the accession of Dost Mahomed in that respect. That is possible. The noble Earl does not suppose that we are sitting down with our hands in our pockets all this time. Although we have our English interests first of all to look to—that is to say, the security of our Indian Empire—our next object is to have prosperous, happy, and contented neighbours. Well, we are taking those steps which we think are wise, and which, in our opinion, are the best calculated to bring about the results which we desire. But these are things which cannot be done in a day. You cannot settle them as you would pay a morning visit. If you have got a vast country full of warlike populations, and those populations ready to enter into any engagements provided you meet their particular wishes, it is not always easy to ascertain how far the gratification of those wishes may tend to the tranquillity of the country. If we sanction in any way the position and authority of individuals, we take upon ourselves a great responsibility if we make a choice in which the great body of the people have no confidence. It is a work of labour to bring a country like Afghanistan, in its present state, into a condition of tranquillity and prosperity. But there are in that country all the elements of peace and prosperity, and the noble Earl is labouring under a most erroneous impression in supposing that the great body of the people there are opposed to us. In reality, not one-tenth are opposed to us. I am not talking of those who are merely controlled by our regiments. I am talking of those people who really represent masses—the great Chiefs and the great tribes who have placed themselves in confidential and friendly communication with Her Majesty's Government, and from whose declarations, and a wise calculation of the motives which actuate them, we have a right to infer that they are sincere in their desire to bring about a settlement of the country. I believe such a settlement will be brought about,
44
and that we shall have in Afghanistan a neighbour on whom we can depend, on the whole, for its tranquillity and its desire for commercial intercourse; and that that result will be accomplished totally irrespective of the great object of strengthening our Frontier, while it will be highly favourable to the Afghan people themselves. I now come to another part of the question which the noble Earl has noticed. The noble Earl has alluded to the cruelties imputed to Her Majesty's troops in the course of the war in South Africa. Now, all I can say is, that I have seen no evidence which goes to establish a charge of that kind. I do not believe it. The noble Earl has spoken of the Afghan Memorial which has been submitted to me, and asked—What has been done in consequence? I wish the noble Earl could have quoted the answer I made to that document. With regard to the Memorial, it may be, perhaps, that some noble Lords present are more or less entitled to its paternity. At all events, I can see in it a remarkable similarity to the tone of many remarks on Afghanistan to which I have listened in this House; and I observe that those who sign it are generally familiar names on the subject. There are two Bishops, which I always expect. That Memorial imputes the most criminal and cruel conduct to British soldiers, and my answer to it is this—I ask the Memorialists to give me the documents upon which they found these statements. In no instance have I had any such documents. Here are charges of a most extraordinary kind—charges imputing, I say, to a British General cruelties of a criminal character; but there is not the slightest documentary evidence upon which those accusations are based. The Memorialists speak of something which they had read in newspapers; and I find that they are always ready to give credit to those anonymous statements which favour their own views. In those newspapers there are telegrams from places where, no doubt, the most accurate information could be obtained; but whether the authors of the telegrams ever reached those places seems to me to be matter of great doubt. At all events, not the slightest evidence has reached me to justify any of the charges which have boon made. Ono person accused of having acted with unnecessary cruelty is Sir Frederick

45
Roberts. Now, I do not know Sir Frederick Roberts, except by his public conduct; and I believe no one can deny that, irrespective of his skill, he has shown himself to be one of the bravest of men personally. As a general rule, I have not found that those who are brave are cruel. I think not. I may add that I mentioned the subject to a person who has a very accurate knowledge of Sir Frederick Roberts's character, and asked him what sort of a man he was, and whether he was a man who would be likely to act in his position with extreme harshness. The reply was—"He is one of the most merciful men." Here is a man with a tremendous military responsibility, who has shown great skill in his profession, although the noble Earl sneers at the march to Cabul. Here is a man of whom we have not the slightest information which would justify a single statement of the Afghan Memorial, and yet this is the manner in which he is treated by his countrymen. Her Majesty's Government have, of course, taken stops to ascertain the truth in this matter; but it is a very disagreeable thing to institute such inquiries with regard to such a man as Sir Frederick Roberts. In making the inquiry I, however, expressed my disbelief in those allegations. I believe the whole affair will turn out to be like other atrocities—it will serve its purpose, be stigmatized and forgotten. My Lords, I will say nothing about the friendship which Her Majesty maintains with other Powers, which I think the noble Earl has professed to doubt, or seemed to consider inconsistent with the declarations in the gracious Speech. I can only say that the language of the gracious Speech is, in my opinion, accurate language, and it is sincere language, both on the part of Her Majesty, and also as expressing the reciprocal feeling of other Powers. I do not know why the noble Earl has taken upon himself to question the sincerity of that declaration. Certainly he referred to some speeches at an election. A new school of rhetoric has been brought into the House. Our old style is quite worn out. We are now called upon to answer what in somewhat barbaric language are termed "extra-Parliamentary utterances," and not to conduct our discussions upon mutual information afforded by sides of
46
the House, and by means of which much misapprehension was prevented. The area under the old system was, no doubt, more limited; but then it was, I think, adequate. But we are now to be called upon to answer persons who are making speeches upon the hustings at elections—
EARL GRANVILLE: A Cabinet Minister.
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: And the noble Earl questions the language of what must be one of the most solemn documents of public life—the gracious Speech from the Throne—because he says a Cabinet Minister is away, and has spoken in a manner that does not agree with it. If that be so, it appears to me that the noble Earl ought to have drawn the inference that the Cabinet Minister was wrong, and had not acted properly in expressing himself in the manner to which the noble Earl objects. But the noble Earl did not do that. He took the contrary course. He wanted to make out that Her Majesty's Ministers were insincere. Another point which the noble Earl noticed was the measures respecting Ireland. The noble Earl wants to know why we ask for an indemnity; and he said that the Treasury could have obtained the £500,000, or whatever the sum, without violating a solemn Act of Parliament. The noble Earl will, however, see from the Papers which will immediately be laid before Parliament that he has altogether misconceived the position. We are not asking for this indemnity because we violated any Act of Parliament in taking the money. The Act under which we have obtained this money for the relief of Ireland is an Act which gives to the Government power to that effect. There is no violation in taking the money; the violation for which we require the indemnity is that under the Act of Parliament which allows the Ministry to take this money and devote it to Ireland a fixed rate of interest is required, which it would not always be possible to pay; and, therefore, we have availed ourselves of our privilege as Ministers at a moment of crisis like the present, and we have drawn out a certain amount, which we have been obliged by the exigencies of the case to lend at a lower rate of interest than that prescribed by the Act, and we came to Parliament to indemnify us for that. I think, therefore, the noble Earl will find that his

47
labours during all the speeches in the Recess have not furnished him with a catalogue of points which we have not been able to answer. I was glad to hoar the noble Earl use the expressions which he did with respect to Irish politics growing unfortunately out of this Irish distress. For the first time for a long while I have the satisfaction of agreeing with the noble Earl in his views; but I was sorry to find, at last, that the noble Earl was ready to suggest a great many changes as possible in the conduct of Irish local business, and so on. It is to be regretted these suggestions were not brought forward at a more favourable time, and at a time less open to be misconceived. It is very easy to talk of the House of Commons and of Parliament generally being over laden with business—to a great degree with Irish business—and that it would be very desirable that a great portion of Irish business should be transacted in Ireland. Well, I should like to know what this business is that is to be transacted in Ireland. It is so easy to say these things; but there is no business which, generally speaking, refers to Ireland which would not equally apply to England. There are the people of York, for instance. Why should they not transact their own business. ["Hear, hear!"] "Hear, hear!" says the noble Earl; but you may so go on until you have no Parliament at all. We should find the noble Earl in a short time coming to this point. Well, what is the present result? Why, it is avowed that there is to be a Parliament in St. Stephen's Green. The noble Earl, who has such intimate information of what is going on at an election that he takes down the words of a Cabinet Minister, knows very well that the Party called the Home Rule Party—that is, the Repeal of the Union Party—have defined their policy to be the revival of the Irish Parliament. The noble Earl will allow me, as he has quoted a Colleague of mine, to quote a Colleague of his, one who, although he displayed great sympathy with the new school, and although he was not prepared to be a Member of the Parliament in St. Stephen's Green—not yet prepared—still did not care how many friends he had who sat upon those benches. I wish to say, whatever may be the result of that election, I trust that England will understand what is the issue at the
48
present moment on this subject. I wish the country to understand that it means nothing else but the dismemberment of the United Kingdom. I do not care where a man sits in this House—whether opposite me, or on my own side—those who favour such a policy are false to their Sovereign and to their country, and will live, I feel confident, soon to regret the responsibility which by their conduct they are incurring.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: There was one declaration of the noble Earl who has just sat down which gave me the greatest possible satisfaction—the solemn declaration of the Prime Minister upon a most grave and solemn occasion that he did not believe the reports respecting the executions at Cabul. But, then, I confess my satisfaction at this declaration was very much qualified when he went on to say that he did not believe in them any more than he believed certain other reports of horrors. He referred, I suppose, to his celebrated speech in the House of Commons in relation to the horrors of Batak, which he ridiculed exactly as he has ridiculed this other matter to-night. It is perfectly true that the horrors of Batak were exaggerated; but I hope the noble Earl was satisfied that 3,000 men, women, and children were murdered in the village of Batak. When he tells us that the executions in Cabul have the same foundation as the murders in Batak, I can only say I hope not. But there was another remark of the noble Earl with reference to these alleged executions at Cabul which I listened to with the utmost astonishment. He said there was no foundation for them, except a few foolish newspaper paragraphs. The noble Earl must have been asleep. He cannot have read the Papers on this subject. Is he not aware that the India Office has published in this country a telegram from the Viceroy giving the Proclamation of General Roberts to the people of Cabul? Does the noble Earl know what the charge "against General Roberts is? Does he suppose that we have charged him with going there and instituting a general massacre? No such thing. He is accused of this—and I ask the noble Earl who will speak after me to answer this question—Whether General Roberts has not had shot by his orders men who had been guilty of nothing but the defence of their country? That is the

49
question which I ask. If General Roberts merely shot men whom he had good reasons for believing had act or part in the murder of Sir Louis Cavagnari and his suite, then I admit that he was justified in the act; but if he shot men who had done nothing but oppose the advance of the British troops in the invasion of the country, then I say the act was as infamous a one as was over committed by the Emperor Napoleon. That is the accusation. I must say I feel indignant at the way the noble Earl has treated the subject. I am not one of those who signed the Memorial. I did not sign it when asked. I said—"I do not know the facts, and I shall wait until Parliament meets to know the facts;" and therefore I did not sign it. But what is this Proclamation of General Roberts? First of all he spoke of those who had act or part in the murder of the English Mission, and then came the reference to those who opposed the advance of the British troops, and the Afghans were told that by opposing that advance they became rebels. Rewards were offered for information leading to the capture of any persons implicated in the attack on the Residency, and similar rewards were offered for those who had fought against the British troops since the 3rd of September. I say that this threat was an infamous thing. These men were defending their country; and do you mean to say that because they did not show obedience to the puppet you had under your care they were therefore rebels? Large rewards were offered for rebel officers of the Afghan Army. The noble Earl tells us—" That is all made up by a few scraps in the newspapers." I beg to tell him, in addition to the telegrams, we have the letters from officers in the Army, correspondents of the Press, who give us much better information than the Government give us. I do not know whether action was equal to the threat; but we have it in evidence that numbers have been shot and hanged for no other crime whatever than that they defended their country, which they had a right to do. I may express satisfaction at another part of the speech of the noble Earl. He was asked—by my noble Friend behind me (Earl Granville)—What is the policy of the Government with regard to Afghanistan?—and he replied that it was a very awkward question to be asked. I have
50
no doubt it is; but he answered it to some extent by saying—"We mean to go back to the principle laid down at Gandamak." My Lords, I am very glad to hear it. I think it is a foolish Treaty and Frontier; but of the various alternatives before you this, perhaps, does the least mischief. But my satisfaction was very much qualified by his saying that the policy of the Government must be governed from time to time by circumstances over which—and then he stopped. He was going to say by "circumstances over which we have no control." Now, what are the circumstances over which they have no control? One of them is the Viceroy. They have no control over him. I believe a great deal has been done by the Viceroy without the sanction of the Government—he is, indeed, the wild elephant which they cannot control. A great many of the violent actions of the Government were due to the fact that they had not been able to keep their Viceroy under control. If we are dependent on the Viceroy we shall not be able to go back to anything like the Treaty of Gandamak. What about the occupation of Candahar? That does not look much like going back to the Treaty of Gandamak. It is much more probable that the policy of the article in The Nineteenth Century is the policy to be pursued. Then there is another passage in the noble Earl's speech which I cannot believe—although, of course, I believe perfectly in his sincerity—and that is that we have not met with the hostility of the great bulk of the people of Afghanistan.
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: Hear, hear!
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: The noble Earl cheers that. But does he know the country as well as Sir Henry Rawlinson? In that article in The Nineteenth Century the Chairman of the Political Committee at the India Office tells us, in three or four paragraphs, that we have earned the hatred of the great mass of the people of North and East Afghanistan, the most dangerous and difficult parts of the country. This debate is necessarily desultory, and I do not pretend to enter upon the great question of our policy. I have placed on the Notice Paper to-night a Notice that I shall on this day fortnight, or on Friday, the 20th, call the attention of the House

51
to the consequences which have followed the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Afghan Question, and I shall then open the whole of that question in a manner which I trust will enable the House more freely and more fully to debate the whole question. Now, my Lords, I should now sit down, if it were not for one paragraph in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne, which I cannot let pass without a word of remonstrance—
"The course of events since the prorogation of Parliament has tended to furnish additional security to the maintenance of European peace, on the principles laid down by the Treaty of Berlin."
Now, my Lords, I believe that statement to be entirely unfounded. I believe the progress of events since the Treaty has been such that we are at present in the greatest possible danger of war—a difficult, a discreditable, and, possibly, a disastrous war, arising out of the provisions of the Treaty. This is a very serious matter, on which I wish to say a few words to-night. My belief in this danger arises from the relations which the Treaty of Berlin bears to the Treaty of Paris. I had my humble share of responsibility for the Treaty of Paris; and I have always contended that by that Treaty the protectorate of the Christian population of Turkey was taken away from the claim of Russia and made over to the European Powers. They undertook by that Treaty a certain protectorate of the subject-populations of Turkey. At one of the Conferences which preceded the signing of the Treaty, Baron Brunnow said he wished one Article modified and extended in favour of the protection of the Christians, and he urged it upon this ground—that his august Master had special and particular reasons for it. The amendment was negatived by all the other Powers. The Representative of England (Lord Cowley) said he could not allow the claim which had been made to pass unnoticed—that of the Emperor of Russia to be the champion of the Christian populations of Turkey—and that England, Prance, and Austria had equal interest in their protection; and on that the special provision of the Treaty of Paris was made. But there is this difference between the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Berlin—the Treaty of Paris provided a means whereby war might
52
be avoided on the execution of that Treaty by prescribing that no one Power should, interfere with Turkey unless after a common consultation with all the Powers, and, failing such consultation, each of the Powers had a right of quarrel with Turkey. I quite admit the duty we undertook was vague, and especially the clause of the Treaty relating to the reforms proposed to be executed by Turkey. The doctrine which has been put upon the Treaty by the present Government is that Turkey was intended to be upheld in a particular strategic position. That is a monstrous doctrine, in my opinion an immoral doctrine, and one which is at variance with the whole spirit of the Treaty. It has been said by the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook), that if we had coerced the Turks and a single life had been sacrificed, that would have been murder in the first degree, and he based that opinion on the clause which forbad our interfering in the details of Turkish affairs. That clause had nothing to do with the subject; it was confined to a particular communication made by the Turks, and it did not absolve us from the duty of protecting the subject-populations of Turkey. I want to point out the difference in this respect between the two Treaties. The Treaty of Berlin has gone a great deal further in assuming the protectorate of the Christian populations. No thanks to you for that. Every one of those clauses was taken from the Treaty of San Stefano; they were extracted from the Turk by the Russian Army, and they would never have been extracted by you. Finding them in the Treaty, and not daring to throw them out, you adopted them. The promises are given by Turkey, not to all the Powers, but to each, and there is no provision for common action before Russia or any other Power quarrels with Turkey and goes to war with her. Do you not see the enormous danger to which Europe is exposed? The time at which we may be exposed to war de-ponds upon the Turks. Is there any Member of the Government who believes that the promises of Turkey to reform will be fulfilled? They apply to the whole of Turkey in Europe. They are not vague and general, like the proposals of 1856, but definite and specific. The Treaty of San Stefano provided that

53
the fulfilment of the promises was to be seen to by a Commission; you struck out the words and left the matter in the hands of the Turks, knowing that the promises would then be nugatory. So long as the Turks do not fulfil those promises to Europe, each and every one of the Powers has a standing quarrel with Turkey, and may go to war with her at any moment. In Asiatic Turkey the condition of things is as bad as ever. The promises of the Turks are even more binding than in regard to Europe, and each one of the Powers may call for their fulfilment. The noble Earl spoke of the guarantee we had given on certain conditions; but he did not go on to say what they are. I have heard friends of the Government say that if Turkey does not fulfil her promises our guarantee fails. It would be well if it were so, and no doubt the Government may put any interpretation they like on the Convention. That, however, says the obligation is to depend, not upon the Turks reforming, but on the Turks giving a promise. They have given a promise; you have given your promise; and the Turks are doing nothing. You are bound to defend every bit of that territory from Russian aggression. You know that, in addition to general misgovernment, there is the danger arising from the incursions of the Kurds into Armenia. Russia may say to Turkey—"You promised to maintain order. You promised it to England under a separate Convention. We have nothing to do with that. You promised it to Europe and to us; and unless you keep these people in order we will do it for you; we will take possession of that part of Asia inhabited, by the Kurds, and we will keep them in order." What are you to do then? Are you to interfere with Russia? Remember, the secret of your Convention was the wish not to aid the population, that was a secondary object—but it was to keep Russia out of that part of Turkey. You are in this position—Russia has got an Army in the Caucasus of 150,000 men, and you have guaranteed Turkey that she shall not suffer for her broach of promise to you and the rest of Europe. I hope you will give instructions to the illustrious Duke who sits on the cross-benches (the Duke of Cambridge), to double the standing Army of Great Britain—which I have no doubt would be a popular stop with many classes in
54
Great Britain—but I do not believe that even that would be sufficient. What are your facilities for conducting these operations? You have aplace d'armes at Cyprus; but it is ridiculous now to mention the name of that island. What good can it do you? What, then, is the use of the noble Earl telling us that the Treaty of Berlin has been fulfilled? What do you mean? Russia has fulfilled it most loyally and faithfully; Austria and Germany has fulfilled it; but Turkey has not; and I say that under the obligations you have taken to Turkey England may be brought into war at any moment, and from causes over which she has no control. It would be most discreditable and dishonouring in England to defend Turkey with regard to any part of her territory, in the government of which she has failed to carry out the promises which she has given, unless you adopt the principle that, however horrible the government of Turkey may be, however ruinous it may be to the population over which she rules, you are determined in your own interests to maintain her in that position. I believe that is the secret doctrine of your own hearts; but I tell you it is a doctrine that the English people will not stand, and which you have not the power to sustain. I say that the paragraph is most inaccurate, and if it is sincere it is the sincerity of mere thoughtlessness. Neither of these Treaties—the Treaty of Berlin nor the Anglo-Turkish Convention—is really securing peace. I wish to ask the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) if he approves of the Chairman of Foreign Relations at the India Office publishing a paper which may be translated and sent over all Asia, and with regard to which he may be supposed to be in communication with the Viceroy. ["Oh, oh!"] I am not speaking without reason. Sir Henry Rawlinson has himself published letters written to him by Lord Mayo; and I think it extremely possible that he may be in communication with Lord Lytton. At any rate, the Chairman of Foreign Relations may be supposed to be in communication with Lord Lytton; and I want to ask the noble Viscount if he approves of a man in his position publishing recommendations that the British Government should annex Candahar and Jellalabad, deliver Herat to Persia, and enter into a Treaty of gua-

55
rantee with Persia against Russia? If that policy is followed, we shall be in a most dangerous position.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDrose to Order. The noble Duke's present course of observation was not fair to Lord Lytton.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Is the noble Duke aware of this—which I believe' to be a fact—that in the course of last year Lord Lytton disapproved so much the policy of the Government that he wrote an elaborate paper, sent it home, and had it distributed among private individual Members of this House? I am told that there is in possession of Members of this House a document recommending measures much more severe and violent with regard to Central Asian politics than those approved of by the Government. This happened when the Government were considering the question of the Ultimatum to Shere Ali. They recommended that another appeal should be made to Shere Ali to see whether he would not give way. The decision of the Government was sent out on the 25th of October. The Cabinet declared that the Viceroy should be instructed to send another appeal to Shere Ali to get him to give way without war. What happened? The message was secret and sent in cipher. The Correspondent of The Daily News at Simla got possession of the substance of that telegram. He could not have got it except by communication with the Government of India. ["Oh!"] I do not know who the correspondent was, whether he was Mr. Forbes or not; but the telegraph was employed to raise excitement in India and England against the decision of the Queen's Government. "We are humiliated by the orders which have come from the Cabinet." This was the language of the Correspondent at Simla, not perhaps in the exact words, but in substance. That telegram from the Imperial Government could not have been communicated to the Correspondent of The Daily News except by the authority of some Member of the Government of India. In this way an appeal was made from Her Majesty's Government to the passions of the Indian Services, military and civil, which, as Sir John Kaye has said, are always in favour of war. Lord Lytton or his Government was responsible for that betrayal of political confidence.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I really must rise to Order. I think the noble Duke is making statements which ought not to be made in this House. I think the statements are not founded upon that just consideration which the noble Duke ought to show to Lord Lytton in this matter.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Let me tell my noble Friend that if I have made a mistake in anything I have said to-night I shall come down and apologize for it; but I want evidence. I give you my evidence, and you must produce yours. Surely that is a fair bargain? My evidence is this—that in the published Papers presented to Parliament you have the Message to the Indian Government, and that next morning you have the substance of this telegram communicated to The Daily News.I do not say it was Lord Lytton who communicated the telegram; but some Member of the Government betrayed the Cabinet. I go farther, and say an appeal was made against the policy of the Queen's Cabinet, and when you had got a temporary heat in the Government of India you cannot be sure that the pacific appeal the Government meant to send to the Ameer was ever given to him. I only say the Members of the Indian Service, although they might be perfectly sincere in thinking the policy of the Government a humiliating policy, had no right to put their own opinion against that of the Government, so as practically to prevent a conciliatory message being given to the Ameer. In these circumstances, I repeat, we have no security whatever for peace, either under the Treaties already concluded or under the negotiations now proceeding.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: When the noble Duke told us, at the beginning of his speech, that he had not signed a certain Memorial because he was not acquainted with the facts of the case, I think he would have done exceedingly well if he had made his speech on the same principle, and had not ventured to discredit public servants by guessing about what was the state of their minds. I venture to appeal to those who have occupied any public office in this country whether on any previous occasion anyone who has held the Office of Secretary of State has ventured to impugn the character and conduct of a Governor General of India without having before

57
him the facts on which to found the charge? To guess at the state of mind of the Governor General, to guess that he would disobey the Government at home, to guess that he would bring that Government into discredit by following out a policy which he knew they disapproved, I tell the noble Duke that he forfeits his title to the name of a statesman when he adopts such a course, and is doing a wrong and an injury to a public servant, who is not here to defend himself. I will say more—I say that Lord Lytton has loyally obeyed the expressed wishes of the Government at home; I say that he has in the frankest and most open manner discussed the question of the policy of the present Government; and I should despise a Governor General who did not give the best reasons which he could for the policy which he desired to pursue, and I say that Lord Lytton has gone to the full extent of his duty in following the policy of the Government in every particular. With regard to the Ultimatum of which the noble Duke speaks, it is perfectly true that the Government of this country did desire to delay the war, and, if possible, to avoid the necessity of war, with Shere Ali. They did not rush hastily into war, but were anxious to give him the fullest time for consideration. But when, after the fullest consideration on the part of the Government, the Ultimatum was sent to Lord Lytton, without a moment's hesitation he obeyed it. And am I to be told that, because The Daily News Correspondent by some intrigue, or some means of which I know nothing, became acquainted with the substance of the telegram sent to Lord Lytton, it being obtained by the representative of a newspaper not in their interests—am I to be told that those who immediately took steps to carry out faithfully the policy of the Government have betrayed their duty by striving to raise public opinion in India against the Government? My Lords, such charges are utterly unworthy of the noble Duke. I should be the last man to say anything of the noble Duke beer hind his back which I would not say before his face; and I suppose the noble Duke would respect his opponents and treat them with fairness, and not impute to them discreditable conduct without such distinct evidence as would claim the consideration of your Lordships' House. The noble Duke has been told
58
that Lord Lytton did so and so; but he does not give the name of his correspondent or informant. If I were to get up here and state, in the noble Duke's absence abroad or elsewhere, I had been told the noble Duke had done so and so, without any more certain knowledge of the facts, I should be ashamed of myself. When the noble Duke makes charges against a public servant, who is in a distant part of the world, it is a point of honour that he should formulate those charges, and give due notice of them and enable the person accused to meet them. I will come now to other points to which the noble Duke has referred. In the first place, an imputation has been made as if I had something to do with articles published by Members of the Council of India. When I took Office as Secretary of State for India, what did I find? I found that Members of the Council had written publicly in their own names on this question of Eastern policy. Sir Henry Rawlinson, as everybody knows, had published a large book on this subject with the knowledge of the Secretary of State. Under these circumstances, I felt myself precluded from interfering. I do not hesitate to tell the noble Duke what I think on this subject, as he has asked for my opinion. I think it is a very great pity that Members of the Council of India should have entered in that way into discussions on political subjects connected with the India Department; but, as is perfectly well known, they have been allowed to do so, and the thing has not been confined to Sir Henry Rawlinson. Now, with respect to Sir Henry Rawlinson's article, I have not read it. Sir Henry Rawlinson asked me whether I would wish to see it in proof, and I said—"Certainly not. It is your affair, not mine." I thought I was not entitled to interfere in the matter. The Council of India hold an extremely peculiar position; they are not exactly like ordinary public servants. They hold an independent position; and I do not see how it is possible to control them any more in their writings than in their conversations. I felt that I was not authorized to interfere; and I did not think it would be consistent with my duty or with the dignity of the position I held that I should attempt to interfere where I had no authority. It will not be necessary for me, therefore, to enter into anything stated by Sir Henry Rawlinson,

59
because I am in no sense responsible. But, to the best of my belief, Sir Henry Rawlinson has not been in communication with the Viceroy on this subject, and I consider it impossible that such a thing could have taken place without my knowledge. I come now to another point. Strong language has been used, imputing to General Roberts conduct of which I am quite sure he will be found to be entirely innocent.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I referred to his own Proclamation.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I think that when the noble Duke comes to see the Proclamation as it was really sent forth, he will find that it is of a rather different character from what he has supposed—that the expressions used and the measures adopted are not so strong as he seems now to think. I am not going now into the case of General Roberts, because when these charges were made against him he was called upon to state what he had to say for himself on the subject; and his reply not having yet been received, I think I should be doing him a grave injustice if I were to undertake his defence in any manner differing from that which he himself might adopt. The noble Duke has said that General Roberts has shot men who had been only guilty of defending their country. But I affirm upon statements received, not from General Roberts himself, but from others, that not one single man has been so shot. I have been shown private letters from gentlemen of the highest position and acquainted with the circumstances, stating that, in their opinion, if General Roberts had erred, he had erred on the side of mercy. I say nothing myself. I only wish the House now to see that there are two sides to the question, and I ask them to suspend their judgment until General Roberts has given us his own defence. As this is the first opportunity which I have had of speaking recently with regard to Afghanistan—for I am not one of those Members of the Cabinet to whom the noble Earl (Earl Granville) alluded as having spoken a good deal during the Recess—let me say that I have had the advantage of reading private letters from Sir Louis Cavagnari and Lieutenant Hamilton, which have given me the highest opinion of their ability and character as Representatives
60
of the Queen in Afghanistan; and I take this opportunity of saying that I feel that the country has sustained a very great loss in their death. The noble Duke must acknowledge that we have a solemn responsibility thrown on us by what has occurred in Afghanistan. There are those in Afghanistan who, to a certain extent, have sacrificed their position in order to help us. It is impossible that we should desert them or give them up to enemies who might wreak vengeance on them. But I think it is quite within our power, without adding essentially to our territory or to the charge of our territory, that such measures should be taken as will put us in a position to protect our friends. Considering that we are dealing with savage and barbarous tribes who are given to plundering, it is not improbable that we may have difficulties yet to encounter in Afghanistan; but there is no desire on our part to take any step which is not just and fair to that country. I feel confident that the Generals who lead our Army will not use their power unjustly against men who, from a sense of duty, have fought for their country; and I feel confident, also, that that has not been done hitherto. I now pass from Afghanistan to the remarks made by the noble Duke as to the Treaty of Berlin. And here I will say I am sorry my noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury), who is so much better qualified to speak on the subject than I am, is absent. The noble Duke appears to me, first of all, to put a strictly technical interpretation on the Treaty, and then to impute to us that we are trying to put upon it a new interpretation which was never put before. With regard to the Convention into which we entered with Turkey, I stated on another occasion, and in "another place," that that Convention is a conditional Convention, and it is not merely on the condition of making promises, but of fulfilling promises, that it exists. The noble Duke wishes us to say what we think Turkey will or will not do; but, in my opinion, our business is to induce her to do what is for her best interests. I do not despair that under legitimate pressure she may be made to redeem her promises, and may see it to be for her interest to act up to what she has undertaken. I object altogether to taking the line which the noble Duke wishes us to take. He quotes hypothe-

61
tical cases, and wants me to say what I should do if certain things occurred. Let the things occur, and then I will tell him what I will do; but until they have occurred, the matter must be left in that limbo of uncertainty to which all future events belong. The noble Duke may, however, rest perfectly confident that, in accordance with the desire expressed in the Speech of Her Majesty, the Government will do all that is in their power to give due effect to the Treaty of Berlin, and to maintain the peace of the world.
Address agreed to, nemine dissentiente,and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

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