Sitting of 22 March 1880

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Winton, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading—National Debt *;Exchequer Bills and Bonds *, and passed.
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) *; Customs and Inland Revenue *:Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices (No. 2) (50), and passed.

STANDING ORDERS.
Moved,That the Standing Orders relating to the Public Business of the House (together with the proposed additions thereto), as re-arranged and recommended to the consideration of the House by the Select Committee on the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, be adopted as the Standing Orders of the House; on question, agreed to: Ordered, that the said Standing Orders be printed.(No. 56.)
PUBLIC HEALTH—TRICHINOSIS— SCHOOL SHIP "CORNWALL."

  QUESTION.
  LORD THURLOWasked the Lord Steward, Whether he is yet able to give any information respecting the reported outbreak of trichinosis in January last on board the reformatory school ship "Cornwall," lying off Purfleet, on the Thames?
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Mr. Power was instructed by the Local Government Board last November, as the noble Lord is aware, to make inquiry as to an alleged outbreak of "fever" on board the Cornwall.He found that among 262 boys there had been 43 cases of sickness, with one death. In the course of a very laborious inquiry, he found peculiarities in the history of the outbreak that led him to doubt whether the "fever" was any of the usual fevers of this country, and, with the object of settling these doubts and of throwing new light on the nature of the disease, the body of the boy who had died was exhumed, and subjected to post-mortem examination. It was found that the body was infected with trichinae, but gave no evidences of "fever" in the common acceptation of the word. Further review of the whole history led to the conclusion that the whole outbreak had been due to the same disease—trichinosis. A most able Report on the entire subject of the Cornwall outbreak has been made by Mr. Power, and it is now with the printers, with the view of being laid upon the Table.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES (No. 2) BILL.
(The lord President.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES (No. 2) BILL.

  (NO. 50.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord President.)
  LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months, saying that it was contrary to the spirit of the Ballot Act that any expenses should be incurred for the conveyance of voters; and the retention of the clause for allowing expenses in Cricklade, Aylesbury, East Retford, and Shoreham, could do no harm; while allowing candidates to pay conveyance expenses, in places distant from each other, might be very inconvenient. And as the Ballot Act would expire only at the end of December, 1880, he hoped that the Government would not renew this Bill only till 1881, when the Ballot Act would expire. He believed that all Election Petitions might be disposed of before December, 1880. He believed that voters might be conveyed by one candidate and vote for his opponent.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Denmun.)
  LORD O'HAGANcharacterized the measure as re-actionary and retrograde. It was unnecessary and mischievous. It would reverse the legislation which was well discussed and well considered in 1867. There had been no demand for such a change as was made in the Bill. In 1872, the provision of the Act of 1867 preventing the employment of conveyances in counties was extended to the municipalities. Before the Select Committee which sat in 1875 this very question was raised; and the result was the expression of an opinion that in most boroughs the polling places could be so conveniently selected as to render unnecessary the use of vehicles for the conveyance of voters, and that a penalty should be attached to payments made by the candidates for that purpose. So that, after experience of the working of the Municipal Act from 1872, and the Parliamentary Election Act from 1867, the Committee came to the conclusion that the law should not only be maintained, but enforced by penalties. Yet, in 1880, though the existing Act continued till 1881, they were asked in a hasty and ill-considered, measure to put an end to a provision which had operated for so many years with great satisfaction to the public. He maintained that if the Bill were passed rich candidates would have undue ad-

  1235
  vantages over poor ones; and bribery, under the cloak of the practices sanctioned by the Bill, would unquestionably prevail.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he had no idea that there would be any discussion on the matter, seeing that the law was in a very unsatisfactory condition when the Government was implored to bring in a Bill. He was bound to say that it appeared to the Government to be not an unreasonable thing in itself to deal with the question. The law was not observed anywhere in reality because it was uncertain, and there was no penalty attached to its breach. Anyone who had witnessed the late election at Southwark would have seen just as many cabs as had ever been employed at an election. The case was the same at Liverpool, where, he believed, both sides recognized the necessity of employing cabs, and came to an agreement that each should use as many as they thought proper. Why was that? It arose from the necessities of the case. Many working men were called upon to give their vote at a considerable distance from their work; and he thought that the working man need not be deprived of a ride which he could only enjoy once in five or six years. The Government had been called upon to deal with the question for a short period in one way or another; and they did not see their way to make the employment of vehicles more penal than it had been before, and they thought it best to make the practice legal for the short time which elapsed before the new Parliament assembled. With respect to the Committee which had sat on the subject, that Committee had reported that some change was necessary. They were now met by a Motion which was not upon the Paper, and which took them by surprise; but the House of Commons had passed the Bill, and, as it mainly affected that branch of the Legislature, he hoped their Lordships would not accede to the Amendment, but would pass the Bill.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that as he knew persons who were candidates and could not afford the expense of conveying voters to the poll he had been against the Bill; but he had since seen reasons to change his mind. After the explanation which had been given, he was quite justified in proposing to withdraw his Amendment. The reasons just given
  1236
  by the noble Viscount convinced him that he ought not to further oppose the Bill.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the noble Viscount had not touched the point of the increased expenses of elections which this Bill would cause, and which would make it still more impossible for poor but able men to get into Parliament.
  EARL GEANVILLEsaid, that he had heard no argument which should induce the noble Lord opposite (Lord Denman) to withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that he thought with the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) it was idle to have a law forbidding the practice, and no penalty to enable the magistrates to enforce the law; also noble Lords often conveyed voters to the poll.
  EARL GEANVILLEsaid, that looking to the fact that the conveyance of voters was not allowed at municipal elections it was quite as absurd to allow the practice to exist at Parliamentary elections.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) Withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that as the noble Lord opposite (Lord Denman) had withdrawn his Amendment he would move it.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I regret that any opposition has been raised to the measure. The course proposed to your Lordships is most unusual, for it is very inconvenient to have a Motion of this kind brought forward without any Notice on the third reading of a Bill, and more especially as it does not appear to me that this Bill is of the importance which noble Lords opposite seem to attach to it. As to the argument which has been drawn from the practice of municipal elections, there really is no analogy between municipal and Parliamentary elections; for, in the former, the electors have not to go any distance, for they all vote in wards. Noble Lords know very well, from their own experience, that there are cases in boroughs where the distance between electors and the polling booths is to be counted by miles. Then we are told that it is in the interest of the rich

  1237
  that these conveyances are used. But, my Lords, that is a fallacy. It is the working classes who benefit by them, and avail themselves of the convenience. They very often only have half-an-hour or an hour in which to get their dinner, and in that time they also have to vote; and should they not be able to record their votes in that time, they are, to a great extent, disfranchised. That, I am sure, cannot be the wish of your Lordships. This is a Bill which comes up from the House of Commons, the Members of which are greatly interested in it. It was brought forward in consequence of a feeling on both sides of the House that something should be done to put an end to the present unsatisfactory state of affairs. The noble Lord who addressed us a few minutes ago talked about the increased expense; but the fact is, there will be no increased expense, because in all elections, ever since the Corrupt Practices Bill originally passed, the law has been set at defiance, and cabs and conveyances have been used in which voters are conveyed to the poll. But the disadvantage of it is that you are violating a law, according to many high authorities, which you cannot enforce, because no penalty is attached to it. The general feeling was that to avoid continuous Petitions, and all those disagreeable circumstances which sometimes attend an appeal to the people, the best thing to do would be to come to a determination whether the practice should be legalized or the reverse. There was a general opinion in the House of Commons—certainly not a Party opinion—that it should be legalized; and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not support the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley).
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that the Bill had only come before their Lordships' House on the 18th of the present month, when they were called together at an unusual hour, and they were necessarily precluded by shortness of time, and the small attendance of Peers present, from giving the measure the attention which it demanded. The question was one which they might fairly ask for a little more time to consider, and this was not the first Bill that the House had been asked to carry through all its stages without having had an opportunity of discussing it. He would oppose the Bill.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 39; Non-Contents 24; Majority 15.

  CONTENTS.

  Cairns, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bateman, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Leeds, D.

  Northumberland, D.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Richmond, D.

  Rutland, D.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Hertford, M.

  Colchester, L.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Denman, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Dunsany, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Cranbrook, V.

  Norton, L

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Silchester, L. (E.Longford.)

  Melville, V.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Templetown, V.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Bedford, D.

  Greville, L.

  Hammond, L.

  Lansdowne, M. [Teller.]

  Keane, L.

  Kenry,L. (E.Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Dartrey, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Granville, E.

  Monson, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Kimberley, E. [Teller.]

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Blachford, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Braye, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Foley, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 3a accordingly.
  On Question, "That the Bill do pass?"
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, according to his experience, this was the first time that upon the Motion for the third reading of a Bill there had been a division, there having been no division upon any earlier stage. The Bill had been brought forward by Her Majesty's Government, and taken notice of by one of the principal Members of the Opposition; and yet it had now been met by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl

  1239
  of Kimberley) with a side wind, and what he might call a sort of ambush, as the Motion for its rejection was made without any Notice whatever, and without the noble Earl having intimated his intention of doing so at its earlier stages.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYbegged leave to say that the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had no right so to describe his Motion, as no ambush whatever had been contrived, and the noble and learned Earl should withdraw the word. He (the Earl of Kimberley) intended the Motion to reject the Bill to be a protest against Bills being pushed through that House just in the last days of an expiring Parliament. On the occasion of the second reading of the Bill the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook) got up and moved the second reading in, he thought, one sentence. There were about four or five Peers on that (the Opposition) side, and about the same number of Peers on the other side. It had been said, and he (the Earl of Kimberley) admitted that the proceeding he took was unusual. He meant it to be so, and he did not regret what he had done, for he thereby protested most emphatically against the manner in which the Bill, as well as the Hypothec Abolition Bill, had been pushed through the House, especially when they had been meeting as early as 2, 3, and 4 o'clock.
  Moved, "That Clause 3 be struck out of the Bill."—(The Lord Denman.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES)said, there was no one in the House who was more jealous than he of the privileges of their Lordships, and he had taken exception to the manner in which the Hypothec Abolition Bill had been hurried through at the last moment; but the reason why he had taken no objection to this Bill was because it was sent up by the Commons and related to a matter affecting: particularly the interests of that House. He thought that, in the face of a General Election, such a question as this was proper to be dealt with if the Commons thought so. There was a declaration that the conveyance of voters was illegal: but no one was able to enforce any penalty. To leave the law in such a state at the present moment was open to objection, and the Commons had passed
  1240
  this Bill to settle the question, and no franchise was in any way affected by it. He did not think there was any very strong objection to the Bill in the other House.
  EARL GRANVILLEconsidered that the noble Earl was mistaken in his facts, as though the Bill passed through the other House when very few Members were present, there were several divisions which were very small, considering the power of Her Majesty's Government, and the result was that the Government were obliged to give up the provisions affecting Scotland and Ireland. This was exactly a case in which the House of Lords might come to the assistance of those who were strongly opposed to the Bill.
  Motion negatived.Bill passed.

STATE OF AGRICULTURE AND TRADE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND, on rising to call the attention of the House to the depressed state of agriculture and trade, and to inquire, How far it is owing to our present system of free importations? said, that he did so because he was under the apprehension that, in the hurry and turmoil of a General Election, the subject of trade and agricultural distress would be altogether overlooked. He had no desire to disguise the fact that there was a partial revival of trade. In fact, he would admit that, according to the statement of the American Consul in London, there had been a considerable increase in our trade with that country. In 1878 our exports to America showed a decrease of £2,260,000, while those of 1879 showed an increase of £3,250,000. In the six years following 1872 the decrease was continuous, amounting in the aggregate to more than£ 19,000,000. That revival of Free Trade was mainly owing to a rise in the price of iron, consequent upon an increased demand for that article in America for the construction of railways to enable the farmers in the Western States to send down their corn to the Eastern ports for exportation to Europe. When these railways were completed the price of iron would again decline, and co-incident with it would be a renewed depression of trade. In order,

  1241
  however, to bring his observations within a reasonable compass, he would confine his remarks to the effect of the Commercial Treaty -which was entered into with France in 18C0 at the instance of Mr. Cobden. The exports and imports of France in 1848 amounted to £72,000,000, while they amounted to £284,000,000 in 1879—a fact which showed beyond the possibility of doubt that she had largely benefited by the working of that Treaty. But how had it affected England? In 1876 the value of English goods imported into France was £26,000,000, while the value of the French goods imported into this country was £41,320,000, the value of French manufactured articles which we imported exceeding that of those which we sent her in return by £7,800,000. There was contained in the new volume of The Life of the late Prince Consort—who was anything but a Protectionist—which had been recently published, a letter written by His Royal Highness at the time that the negotiations with regard to Mr. Cobden's Treaty were being carried on, from which the following was an extract:—?
  "The Emperor proposes to break with the French Protectionists, and to give in his adherence to English Free Trade, and from this Mr. Cobden anticipates the cessation of our defensive preparations and of our Volunteer Force. Strange to say, the Treaty will give the Emperor our coal and iron, which he will want if he should come into collision with us, and by the abolition of the wine duties we shall sustain a loss of £2,000,000 in our Revenue receipts."
  It was unnecessary for him to dilate at length upon the disadvantageous operation of this Treaty as far as we were concerned, because the whole matter had been fully explained the other day by the deputation from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce which had waited upon Mr. Bourke, in the absence—which all must regret—of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. That deputation was a most remarkable one, as it expressed the opinion of the Manchester manufacturers with regard to the Treaty, which was supposed to be a Free Trade Treaty of Commerce entered into for the mutual advantage of the two countries. The gentlemen who formed the deputation stated that it was the opinion of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce that the Treaty was a most one-sided one, that the French tariffs enforced under it were
  1242
  not so much protective as prohibitory against English goods, and that, unless some steps were taken to have the French rates lowered, the Commercial Treaty between the two countries would be perfectly useless in the interests of Lancashire, as those rates were not only protective, but calculated to annihilate the trade in English yarns and cotton goods; while, owing to the increased skill of the French artizans, there now remained but few specialties in the textile manufactures of England, so that Lancashire did less and less every year in this branch of industry, until it was now hardly worth following. Mr. Hutton, one of the members of the deputation, told Mr. Bourke that the export of cotton and calico goods had nearly ceased. The subject, therefore, was a very serious one, and demanded the attention of their Lordships. Mr. Bourke's answer to the deputation was that he would do all he possibly could to persuade the French nation to give a more favourable tariff, and that we should try to show foreigners what an injury they were inflicting on their own people by these protective duties. He also added that the Government had that day received a communication from France which did not leave the Government without hope. This he (the Duke of Rutland) contended was childish and foolish language, and was most pitiable, inasmuch as it amounted to an admission of the justice of the complaints made to him, and expressed but feeble hope that any terms more favourable to the English manufacturer could be obtained. He wondered, in fact, that the reporter, in describing the scene, had not concluded by saying that in the end Mr. Bourke burst into tears. With the great advantage France derived from the last Treaty, it was absurd to suppose that she would be persuaded to relinquish her duties in order to benefit our manufacturers. France thought only of France, and did not care what happened to the trade of Manchester. So long as she could introduce her goods into this country free, and could charge 80, 40, or 50 per cent on our goods introduced into France, she was not likely to reduce her tariff. He knew one dressmaker alone in Paris imported ready-made dresses from France to the value of £60,000 in the mouth of October last, the dullest month of the year. Other French

  1243
  manufactures, such as clocks, watches, fancy goods, and other miscellaneous articles all came into this country perfectly free of duty; while our goods, no matter what the articles, were burdened by such heavy duties that every branch of industry was impoverished. The depression in trade was not confined to iron, coal, cotton, or agriculture; every single interest had been depressed, and that, not by accident, but in consequence of the insane system of free importations. If nothing were done in the shape of retaliation to force France to take off her protective duties, it was absurd to suppose that there would be a revival of English trade. It was impossible. Mr. Bright had made a speech on this subject. Mr. Bright was a great Freetrader—a very eloquent, able, and, he (the Duke of Rutland) believed, a very conscientious man. He was perfectly convinced, as they all were, of his own honesty, patriotism, and integrity; but the moment anyone differed from him in opinion he believed him to be the most selfish, unpatriotic, and ignorant man that ever existed. What did Mr. Bright say? He said that those who opposed the repeal of the Corn Laws created a famine in the land and starved the people, and did it purposely, with malice prepense.Why, those who opposed the repeal of the Corn Laws believed that, with a sliding scale, admitting corn free when prices rose and storing it up in the warehouses of the country, they were doing their best to keep a steady supply of food for the people. Mr. Bright went on to say—"In those days—before the Corn Laws were repealed—your industry was not free. You could not exchange any article of your manufacture, so ingenious and admirable in Birmingham, with the farmer in the far West of America for his barley or flour; but it was directed by law that you should exchange it with Warwickshire, or Norfolk, or Lincolnshire." But had they Free Trade with America now? He (the Duke of Rutland) would ask whether the manufactures of Birmingham could be exchanged for produce with the farmers of the far West of America now? Why, they were obliged to pay in hard cash, with extravagant duties, on nearly everything they took from her. Mr. Bright himself, when writing to Mr. Gray, the Secretary of the Agricultural Board of the State of Kansas, in fact, admitted this, by
  1244
  showing how America would be benefited by Free Trade. Mr. Bright's speech was addressed to the working classes, and he (the Duke of Rutland) would address himself to the same classes, for they knew that their industry was not free, and would not be free so long as the present system of free imports existed. Take the sugar trade, which held a meeting recently at Cooper's Hall, Commercial Road, London. That meeting put forth a statement emanating from 67,300 working men engaged in the sugar industry, urging the abolition of foreign sugar bounties. From that statement it appeared every branch of labour connected with the sugar industry of Great Britain had suffered, and was still suffering, a grievous wrong by the foreign manufacture being admitted duty free and the English manufacture being prohibited the foreign markets. Instead of Free Trade, they were subject to unfair hostile competition. The workmen who signed this document concluded by calling on all Parliamentary candidates to declare that they would vote for countervailing duties as a means of redressing the grievous and insufferable wrong to which we were exposed by the foreign export bounty. If we were to have a revival of trade that was to be lasting, we must alter our present unfair, unjust, and unequal arrangements. He need not detain their Lordships by proving the reality of the distress in agriculture, for there was hardly one of them who would not come forward as a witness of that reality. It was not the men with capital who were suffering most; they were able to bide their time, and to tide over the difficulties of the situation; but it was the small landowner and the small occupier, the men without capital, thousands of whom were quitting an ungrateful country for the shores of America, where they could enjoy the advantage of Protection. He might be told that, if they talked of Protection, the working classes would not listen to them; but they were becoming more educated; they thought more for themselves; they knew that cheap food and cheap raiment were not all they required; they knew that before they could buy the cheap loaf, or cheap coal, or a cheap hat, they must have the money to pay with. An Irishman in Liverpool grumbled at being asked Is. for a basket of eggs which he said he could buy for 6d.

  1245
  in Ireland. "Then, why don't you go back to Ireland?" said the shopkeeper. "Faith, where should I get the 6d.?" was the answer. The Radical candidate at Grantham had called attention to an advertisement inserted in the paper by a gentleman who wanted to sell his false teeth, because, as he said, he had nothing to eat, and, therefore, they were of no further use to him. We were all rapidly coming to a condition in which we should be able to sell our false teeth for the same reason. The candidate who told the story at Grantham was trying to get the votes of the workpeople of the large manufacturers of agricultural implements, whose trade had fallen off so much that they had been obliged to accept lower wages. The other day Lord Harrington made merry over the candidature of Mr. Eckroyd, and declared he did not know what Reciprocity was; but he (the Duke of Rutland) would try to enlighten him. If the noble Lord had read the published letter of Mr. Eckroyd he could not have feigned such ignorance. Mr. Eckroyd wrote that he wished to see the United Kingdom, its Colonies, and Dependencies, formed into one great Free Trade Empire, supplying all its essential wants, and resorting to Protection only as against those nations that imposed duties on our productions. No duties, it was said, should be levied on the raw materials of our industries, from whatever quarter they came; but, in the matter of food, our own Colonies were capable of supplying five times all that we required, so that we were under no necessity to take food from those who would not receive our manufactures. Mr. Eckroyd went on to say that a large field for emigration would thus be opened, and that our Dependencies, bound to the Mother Country by the material ties of serious advantages, would be more ready to meet our wishes and to establish Free Trade with us and one another. He (the Duke of Rutland) maintained that the policy which he advocated was an intelligible policy; but if they should deem it impossible to follow it, he would ask them to fall back upon another remedy—namely, real Free Trade, in accordance with which they would not only obtain food from abroad free of taxation, but would allow the British farmer to raise food also free of taxation, and especially from the tax on malt. He held that it would only be fair and
  1246
  patriotic to place English and foreign food on the same footing. They could not tax English food and not tax foreign food. He would be told that if his views were adopted the Revenue would suffer. But if they were to put a tax upon goods coming from France, Germany, and America, they would easily recoup their losses. He was obliged to the Government for what they had done in the shape of remission of local taxation; but if British agriculture were to be kept alive, and if they should refuse to accede to his proposals, it would be necessary to relieve the country to a greater extent from the rates which burdened it. Before sitting down, he wished to refer to Ireland. A noble Marquess on the other side of the House had lately shown how fearful was the present distress; but added, he saw no Royal road to remedy it. The people were unfitted for emigration; they could only rely on the spread of education and of sound opinions; but he (the. Duke of Rutland) would like to ask whether their Lordships did not think that the condition of Ireland might be improved by making an attempt to revive industrial enterprize, and to restore the manufactures which once existed there, while, at the same time, protecting the people from foreign imports? If the result of their present policy was that their trade was paralyzed and their agriculture ruined, he would have the satisfaction that, previous to the Election, he had done his best to inform his countrymen of what would happen; and he hoped that men would be returned to the next Parliament who would not repeat the cuckoo cry of the great advantages derived by this country from Free Trade, but who would endeavour to pass measures likely to increase the well-being of the industrial classes.
  THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORDsaid, that he was always loth to occupy their Lordships' time, because he was a great admirer of the manner in which a vast amount of real business was done in that House with as few speeches as possible; but the subject before their Lordships was one that particularly interested him, and he must ask their indulgence for a short time. He should confine himself to the first part of the noble Duke's Motion—namely, the depressed state of agriculture, of which he had, unfortunately, personal experience, and he

  1247
  should leave the vexata questio of "Protection" to those more competent to discuss it. He lived in one of the Midland counties, which had been more seriously prostrated than any other part of Great Britain by the disastrous seasons of the last four years. It only required a glance at the advertisement sheet of the local papers, especially of The Farmers' Gazette,to see how wide-spread the distress was. Whole columns were taken up with notices of farms to let and of auctions to be held on the premises of outgoing tenants. He trusted, however, that the present dry, genial weather was the harbinger of a bounteous harvest; but it would take two, if not three, years to get back to where we were before, even in the most favourable circumstances. The murrain, which had rotted whole flocks of ewes, and which had been the last straw that had broken the back of many a poor struggling tenant, would make its results felt for long; and this from no fault of the farmers, except, perhaps, in a few instances, for they had gallantly contended against adversities of no common order, and had won the respect and esteem of those who had had opportunities of judging. And he must also stand up for the landlords as a class, for, except in a small number of instances, they had done their duty and had tried to help their tenantry through their troubles as far as their diminished rents permitted; and he never spoke to a brother landlord without hearing expressions of kind sympathy with the tenants as a class. It was sometimes said that the only cause of this distress was the continuous bad weather, and, undoubtedly, it was chiefly due to that visitation of the Almighty; but the farmers had much right on their side when they complained of increased local burdens. A few years ago, when they were somewhat less, and when prices were better, they did not feel these so much; but when the pocket was touched all other grievances, however small, were intensified, and now the local rates were considered unendurable. He would instance the highway rate. Since turnpikes were abolished—why, he never could make out—farmers had to see the roads, for which they paid heavy rates, increasing every year, cut up by the heavy traffic of timber merchants, brewers, coal merchants, and others, who did not pay one sixpence
  1248
  towards their maintenance. Surely that was an anomaly that must be remedied, and all property should be taxed and made to bear its fair share. Then, again, the education rates pressed very heavily upon the land, especially in those unlucky parishes where there were school boards. The farmers found their labourers did not care about the education so expensively bestowed upon their children, because they wanted them to be earning their bread early; and they, therefore, grudged having to pay high rates, especially when it prevented their obtaining boys to work, except at men's wages. Surely, these schools were for national objects, and ought to be chiefly paid for out of the national purse, and not out of the local rates. He was not finding fault with the present Government, for the head of it had been the only Prime Minister in his recollection who had ever evinced a real desire to help the tenant farmer. Among other measures having this object in view, he might mention the considerable saving occasioned to the ratepayers by the repayment of a portion of the pauper lunatic charges, also the Prisons Act and the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, which was a most valuable measure, not only to farmers, but to the whole community. Again, the Agricultural Holdings Act was a step in the right direction, and the official recognition of their Chambers of Agriculture by the Government would give the agricultural classes a better status for promoting or opposing measures as they believed them to be good or bad. Those measures, and, above all, the Royal Commission, proved that the Government were fully alive to the exigencies of that important interest; but he urged that more relief in the same direction was much needed, and he did not doubt that if they remained in Office they would do their best, even before the Report of the Royal Commission was presented, to carry out the measures to which he had called their attention. The Government would thus make the British farmer a far happier man, because he would then feel that strict justice had been done him, and that he was no more taxed than his neighbours. He would, at all events, feel that proper sympathy for his troubles had been shown him; and if this unjust American competition went on, he would, perhaps, bear with more equani-

  1249
  mity the sight of cargoes of American beef conveyed by our Railway Companies for little more than half what he had to pay for his home-grown bullocks; and even of his neighbour, the brewer, buying Californian barley, which, whether it was the case or not, he must look upon as so much out of the pocket of the British farmer.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My noble Friend the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland), when he last brought this subject before your Lordships' consideration, had to dilate upon the commercial depression which then prevailed. On the part of Her Majesty's Government, I expressed our opinion that that commercial depression would not last long, and told your Lordships that we saw signs which, though they might be deceptive, still, in our opinion, indicated a remedial rally in our commercial relations. I am glad to hear from my noble Friend the noble Duke a recognition of the fact that there is a considerable improvement in our commerce. It is true that my noble Friend based his consolation upon the increased commercial relations between this country and the United States; and though it is impossible for anyone to deny that there has been a great improvement in our trade with America, and although it is impossible to deny that our commercial relations with the United States amount at present to several millions more than they did 12 months ago, still the noble Duke wished to impress upon your Lordships that it was a sudden demand for one particular article which alone occasioned this improvement. Now, there I differ from my noble Friend. The demand of the United States for iron has, no doubt, been very great, and it has been for objects which, according to the noble Duke, may in time be exhausted; but I venture to say it is an error to suppose that the commercial improvement comes only from the advance which has been effected in our trade with the United States. The commercial improvement is a general improvement, and I think it is one which applies to almost every country, and now to almost every article. It is also an error to suppose that our commerce as regards iron is confined to the United States, for there are other States with whom we are now carrying on an active commerce in iron. Well, then, the noble Duke
  1250
  having acknowledged the improvement in our trade, and having rested his illustration of our present position in that respect mainly upon one very important article of commerce—namely, iron—the noble Duke went on to warn us that we could not depend upon a continuance of our commerce in that respect, and to endeavour to enforce those views which he always so consistently upheld, and which he has expressed with so much ability to-night. Upon that subject, the noble Duke, wishing to show the fallacy of what he regarded as the principle on which our commercial system is now established, took the case of France, and endeavoured to show that our Commercial Treaty with France had been one of immense benefit to France, but very slightly beneficial to this country. But that, I venture to say, is an error of my noble Friend. I have no doubt that the Commercial Treaty with France has been a vast advantage to this country. If it has not been of equal advantage, as I hope it has, to both countries, I maintain that it has been of vast advantage to this country. But I must stop for a moment to remark that if my noble Friend wishes to advocate a commercial system, based upon protection of native industry, he ought, to a certain degree, to be a supporter of the Commercial Treaty with France, because it is a Treaty entirely of Reciprocity; and there is no doubt that if that principle had not been adopted in the negotiations which led to the Treaty the commercial relations between France and this country would have remained probably much in the same state and of the same amount as they were before that Treaty was entered into. The question of Reciprocity and the question of Protection are utterly different questions. I have previously made remarks on the question of Reciprocity, and it is quite unnecessary that I should now say anything on the principle of the protection of native industry. If the nation chose to adopt a protective policy, nothing could resist that policy being carried into effect. But, with regard to Reciprocity, I have always impressed upon those who brought it forward as a remedial measure that it was now practically impossible; that we had diminished our tariff to such an extent that it was only by chance that the British Government were able to carry the French Treaty into effect; and, in

  1251
  fact, if the French Treaty were continued, as I believe is the wish of many who are good judges of what is advantageous to this country, there would be no materials by which we could adopt this principle of Reciprocity, on which my noble Friend so much dilated, and which, it appears, from some cheers, would be very popular in this House. Popular or not, it is impossible. Now, the noble Duke, after having admitted that commercial depression had disappeared, brought before your Lordships the real subject under consideration—the depressed state of agriculture; for the commercial depression has so far subsided that I do not think, had there been no agricultural depression, we should have been called upon to consider this Motion. No one can deny that there is great distress and depression in our agricultural condition. I think that is universally admitted; hut the question is, How far is it in our power to relieve this distress? Well, that is a question from which we do not and ought not to shrink. My noble Friend who spoke just before me (the Marquess of Hertford) said the remedy was that there should be a further diminution of local taxation. Well, if it can be shown to Parliament that there is still local taxation which is unjustly imposed upon real property, and not equally on all kinds of property, nobody who has confidence in the wisdom of Parliament and in its sense of duty can doubt that, if a fair case be made out, Parliament will give relief in that respect. Parliament has already shown that it sympathizes with that class of property in this country which was subject to taxation from which all other classes of property were exempt. And if it can be fairly demonstrated that there are still taxes levied, not on agricultural land only, be it remembered, but on real property which may exist in towns, I have no doubt that, General Election or not, the sense of duty which influences Parliament will induce it to do what is right in that matter. But I must say that I do not think any further remission of local taxation, though it may be just, could be offered as a remedy at all adequate to the distress from which the agricultural world is now suffering. Now, it appears to me that there are many things which may be done, which require consideration, no doubt, but the
  1252
  principles of which appear to me to be accepted by the general opinion of the country as the result of discussion, debate, and public writing, which may very much facilitate the improvement of the soil, and, by facilitating the improvement of the soil, may benefit the occupiers of the soil. Whether we consider the question of removing the restrictions on its cultivation, or that most important point as to which I introduced in the other House of Parliament a measure—namely, the securing for a tenant a complete protection for the capital which he has invested on the farm which he occupies, whether it takes that form or any other, I think myself that before we can beneficially act to relieve and improve the agriculture of this country, the agriculture of this country must be in a normal condition, and that it would be most unwise in a moment of distress to hurry through some measure when we are not dealing with the land of England in its usual state. I think it must be at once acknowledged by all that it is not so much competition, it is not so much unjust local taxation, but what is infinitely more injurious and more powerful—namely, an almost unprecedented series of disastrous seasons, which has brought about the present unfortunate state of agriculture in England. That condition of the cultivators of the soil, however, is not a permanent one, and, as far as I can see, matters are tending towards improvement. I will not pretend to say I can foresee what may occur; but all the evidences of nature that can guide us rather make us hope that we are about to enjoy a season of prosperity and abundance; and should this promise be fulfilled, the agricultural mind will be relieved from a great deal of the despondency and distress which, at this moment, paralyze to a great degree the energies of the farmer. Then will be the right time for us to consider whether we cannot alter many things in the relations of the farmer with the landowner, and deal with other matters which do not now beneficially act upon his condition. Among the measures which might then be introduced are those which will place the local taxation of the country upon a just basis, should it be found unequal, and secure to the tenant complete protection for the capital which he has invested, and which the Agricultural Holdings Act endeavoured, at least, to procure

  1253
  for him—an Act of which almost every day I hear something that shows me that very scant justice was done to it by those who opposed it. And again, if we find that a change in the normal condition of English agriculture has been brought about by a series of bad seasons, we may venture, at the same time, to come to some accurate estimate of what the degree of competition is which it has to encounter with the produce of foreign countries. I must say that, although I have myself read all those estimates and accounts of production of the American Continent which have, of late, been so much circulated, I cannot myself say that I feel much anxiety upon the subject, or that I have arrived at those conclusions which some of my friends have. We want more data; we want more opportunities of examination, and more experience, before we can come to any decided opinion as to the effect of the importation of foreign-grown corn upon our home produce. When the English farmer has been blessed with a harvest worthy of his industry, and when we have gained greater experience of the effect of the produce of other countries upon our own, then will be the time for us to consider a variety of measures which, undoubtedly, may not appear very important in themselves, but which will in the aggregate place him in a more advantageous and improved position than he now occupies. By adopting that course we shall be able to look back with satisfaction, when these times of depression are passed, to the fact that we were guided by the dictates of prudence and did not rush into hasty legislation. I know that it may be said that it is very easy to preach patience to those who are suffering. Nobody can esteem more than I do the character and endurance of the British farmer. I think that the patience and the high spirit with which he has borne up against a series of disastrous seasons, the few complaints he has made notwithstanding the great suffering he has experienced, exhibit his conduct in a light in which it is impossible to view it without a feeling of admiration. Whatever may happen, the cultivator of the soil still forms the largest class of our industrial world; he is the greatest employer of labour; and your Lordships especially and the country are bound to him by
  1254
  those ties which the traditions and the pleasantness of his occupation and his good conduct and loyalty have rendered so strong. Aristotle says that the agricultural class is the least given to sedition. That we have found in England; and we have, at the same time, found among that class some of the best exemplars not only of moral life, but of that devotion to the Sovereign and that strict performance of public duty which have given such a high character to this country. Therefore, my Lords, when we meet again, I hope we shall do so with a less gloomy feeling with regard to the fortunes of our agricultural friends. I could not recommend at this moment any change in our law affecting the agricultural interests that might be brought about by hasty legislation. Her Majesty has appointed a Royal Commission, which is now engaged in examining into the subject, and from the labours of that body I augur considerable results. I think that from them we shall obtain much information as to the productive powers of the American Continent which may guide us in our decision with advantage, and that they will also lay before us the opinions of some of the most experienced and practical men in England as to the conditions under which the cultivation of the soil can be most beneficially carried on. My Lords, I shall be deeply disappointed if one result of the labours of that Commission is not to afford the farmer the most complete and absolute security for the capital which he has invested in the cultivation of the land which he occupies.

HONG KONG—THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ORDINANCE, 1867.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to call the attention of the House to the Copy of Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Governor of Hong Kong to inquire into the working of the Contagious Diseases Ordinance of 1867, which had been presented to the other House of Parliament; and to move for the despatch of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in reply there to. He had been speaking for some time, when——
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, at the present moment this was asking the House to discuss a

  1255
  Report which was not before it. He would suggest that the proper course would be to move that a Copy of the Report be laid on the Table, and then call the attention of the House to it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYjoined in the appeal to the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) not to bring forward the question at the present moment. It was an important subject, and he thought the course suggested by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) was the right one to take under the circumstances.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he was willing to adopt the suggestion of the noble Duke, and would accordingly move for a message to the other House for the Papers to which he had referred.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, there was no objection to the production of the Papers; but he would ask the noble Lord to defer the Motion to allow him an opportunity of looking through them.
  Motion postponed.

AFFAIRS OF AFGHANISTAN.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENrose to call the attention of the House to the affairs of Afghanistan. He said, before this expiring Parliament absolutely died, he was anxious to make a few remarks on the subject of the state of things in Afghanistan. He had listened with great attention to the conversation which took place some little time ago on Afghan affairs. That debate must have been of absorbing interest to those who had taken an active part in the proceedings discussed; but to all ordinary unemployed Englishmen it was instructive only from an historical or antiquarian point of view. Never having been an Ambassador, or General in command in the field, or a Viceroy or Secretary of State for India, or a Prime Minister, or any of those kind of things, it did not interest him so very much to know who began it, or what the different actors in the drama did some years ago. He would rather have learnt who was going to finish it, and what was going on now, and what was to be done next. But these matters were passed over comparatively in silence. He confessed that he saw much to approve of in the general policy of Her Majesty's Government,
  1256
  and he recognized great force in their plea that circumstances had completely changed since the late Government were in Office. He believed it was necessary for the Government to take action in regard to Afghanistan to assert the proper position of England in regard to that country, to check Russian ascendancy, to re-assure the people of India that we intended to be masters, and to secure a better Frontier for our Indian Empire. The faulty nature of the opposite policy pursued by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) who spoke first in that debate was indicated by his own statement. He said he was frequently taunted with not having shared in Shere Ali's fear at the Russian advance. But the noble Duke declared solemnly, in the face of their Lordships' House, that he never had been afraid and was not afraid then. But the noble Duke did not condescend to explain why he was not afraid, or to advance arguments to show that there was no cause for alarm. He merely asserted that he was not frightened. That did not prove there was no danger—it only showed that the noble Duke was incapable of fear. That was the difficulty. The noble Duke was too courageous. Being incapable of fear, he was also unable to appreciate danger. Circumstances had abundantly proved that Shere Ali was right, and that the noble Duke was wrong. The noble Duke spoke of the Government as listening, appalled and trembling, with ears to the ground, to the approach of the thirsty and the Russian battalions, and said that such a posture was undignified. He would not stop to inquire how far Her Majesty's Government was affected by the ignoble sentiment of fear; but he believed that the ordinary Englishman, determined that this Empire should be maintained intact, or that the ordinary Englishman, actuated by more sordid motives and having large sums of money invested in India, would prefer that the Government should hear the approach of these Russian battalions, even if they were frightened, rather than that the Government should not be afraid because they were deaf. No one could deny or ignore the rapidity with which Russia had of late years approached our Frontier—a rapidity which was marvellous considering the nature of the country she had had to traverse. He did not pretend to

  1257
  say that her object was to attack India. He only meant to say that a very powerful and aggressive nation—a nation that could bring an Army of about 1,000,000 of men into the field—had advanced comparatively close to the Frontiers of British India. Russia would go to Merv. She had said that if necessary she would go there; and the noble Duke said that he saw no reason why she should not go there, if it was desirable that she should extend her civilizing influence as far as that. The present was a rather unfortunate moment for speaking of the civilizing influences of Russia. The morals and manners of the Turkomans must be bad indeed if they could be much improved by copying from Russia. However, he quite agreed that there was no reason why Russia should not go to Merv if she desired it; but at Merv she would be within 220 miles of Herat. Then came the serious question whether she should be permitted to go to Herat. Herat might not be the key of India; but it certainly was a very important place. If Russia were meditating an invasion of India, it would be the natural end and object of her advances across the deserts. In that valley she could gradually accumulate the forces necessary for an invasion, and could there develop all requisite materials for war. She could organize an invasion with little drain upon her own resources by drilling and utilizing the native material in men and the various products of the earth. For an invasion it was essential to have a base, and Herat and the adjacent country afforded the only base convenient for the purpose of invading India. For an invasion of India Herat was invaluable. It could be of no use to Russia for any other purpose. The noble Earl, who was formerly Viceroy of India (the Earl of Northbrook), said that Russia ought never to be allowed to go to Herat. That was very strong language, stronger than he (the Earl of Dunraven) should like to use. However, he could understand the policy which contended that Russia should never be allowed to occupy Herat; but he could not understand the policy which said that, and argued at the same time that England should have remained on her old Frontier, should not prevent the Russian occupation of Herat by occupying it herself, and should not even place
  1258
  herself in a position to nullify as much as possible the effects of a Russian occupation of Herat. With Russia at Merv, whither she would certainly go, and with England at her old Frontier line, we should be perfectly powerless to prevent a further Russian advance. But with Candahar, and railway communication from Candahar to the sea—and it should not be forgotten that England's base of operations in India was the sea—they would be in a very different position. They would be in a good position to act in the event of any Russian advance on Herat. He believed that, with the Passes in their hands and with such a magnificent flanking position as Candahar, British India would be perfectly defensible and secure. In the Paper containing the Treaty of Gandamak, which was presented to Parliament, mention was made of a Schedule annexed, dealing with the delimitation of certain districts, and he supposed that in the Schedule the scientific Frontier was marked out. The Schedule was omitted, and he did not believe that it had ever been presented to Parliament. If not, he thought that Her Majesty's Government should give the House some information as to what the Frontier was or was to be. It was a question whether it were a better strategical position to hold the heads of the Passes, the entrances to them, as they now did, or whether they would not have done better in making the mouths, the exits of the Passes on the Indian side, easily defensible. That was a matter he should like to have heard discussed in that House. In civil life, if he expected the approach of a burglar through a long and narrow passage, he should prefer waiting for him just outside, so that he might conveniently knock him on the head the moment he emerged. But in this question of a Scientific Frontier there was much to be considered, and he could understand that it might be advisable to hold the crests of the mountains. Besides, there was the question of health to be considered, if European garrisons had to be kept at the mouths of the Passes. The Government asserted that they had got the scientific Frontier they wanted, and they had as yet heard no strong arguments urged against it. It was true that the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) spoke about its being useless to occupy the crests of the mountains they now

  1259
  held, because there were other crests beyond them which they would have in turn to occupy. But the noble Lord (Lord Napier of Magdala) pointed out that a plain, about 120 miles in width, extended at the base of the mountains they now held. Big guns not having been yet developed to an extent that they could throw projectiles 120 miles, the enemy could not affect them in any way without deploying on the plain, and giving them the opportunity of attacking their forces when and how they pleased. Their position on the mountains was, with the addition of Candahar, so strong, that they ought to be quite content with it, provided, of course, it was understood that Herat was outside the sphere of Russia. If, however, Herat was such a very important place, and if it were absolutely certain that under no circumstances must Russia be allowed to take it—that her possession of it would be fatal to them—then he trusted that they would take it themselves. He quite agreed with the noble Duke in saying that it would be foolish to bolster up Persia. Nothing could be more injudicious than to hand over Herat to Persia. The noble Lord so long connected with the Foreign Office (Lord Hammond) touched the most important point of the debate when he called attention to the position which Russia would occupy, acting upon her Treaty rights, if Persia were possessed of Herat. Her Majesty's Government had been asked by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition (Earl Granville) if they had had any negotiation or convention with Russia as regarded Herat. They had never yet given a definite answer on that subject. He (the Earl of Dunraven) noticed in The Standard of that day a telegram from Candahar, saying that the Shah had sent an Envoy to Herat with a strong escort, and it was supposed that he had treasure with him. That rather looked as if some arrangement had been entered into with Persia as regarded Herat, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would be able to give some definite assurance that such had not been the case. There was only one thing that could be worse than giving a guarantee to Persia, and that would be for England and Russia to enter into a co-partnership in the matter. They had had enough of mutual interference in
  1260
  the case of Egypt; and he feared that before the next Parliament met they might be pledged to co-partnership with Russia, or a guarantee of Persia. Her Majesty's Government had been very reticent on the question of Herat, and they had returned somewhat evasive answers to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition on the subject. It was not unnatural that they should look with some uneasiness upon this silence. The most extraordinary and quite anomalous, position of affairs in Afghanistan was They were at war; they had an Army of 50,000 or 60,000 men in the field; they found great difficulty in recruiting for it. The Commander-in-Chief was going to the front to take command, and they had not the slightest idea what they were fighting for, or what the war was about. The objects the Prime Minister mentioned—the scientific Frontier, the assertion of their determination to put up with the influence of no Foreign Power in Afghanistan—had been accomplished. In securing their position and vindicating their authority the Government acted wisely and well; but they committed one great, fatal error in forcing a European Envoy upon the Afghans at Cabul. The results of that error the Prime Minister described as an incident or accident of war. It cost the life of a most talented and gallant officer, and many brave men. It cost to this country the services of a man who might have been of the greatest value to it, and it dragged this country into war, or into warlike complications out of which we saw no way of extricating ourselves. And the reason why that was done was, according to the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cranbrook), because a Native Envoy would not have been so useful. He (the Earl of Dunraven), however, believed a Native Envoy would have been found infinitely more useful than a European one. But it was thought necessary, because a Russian Envoy had been to Cabul, that we should send an Englishman there. That appeared to him a childish assertion of power; and that was called an "accident." He called it a grave diplomatic error—an error in judgment, that entailed most disastrous results—a mistake, and a fatal one, in policy; not an accident. If they went to war to vindicate their authority and honour and to improve their Frontier, then every penny spent and every

  1261
  drop of blood shed since the Treaty of Gandamak had been poured out and wasted on account of that "accident" or "incident" of war. The differences between England and Russia had been narrowed to a very small issue—down to a question of boundaries and ultimate aims and objects in Central Asia—and it would be very strange if an understanding—permanent, because satisfactory to both parties—could not be arrived at. No understanding that consisted of a co-operation or co-partnership could be satisfactory. It was right and proper that Russia should be allowed to fulfil what she deemed her civilizing mission in Central Asia; but the possession of Herat could not be necessary to secure that object. The possession of Herat would be a direct menace to British rule in India, and should be dealt with according as circumstances would at the time indicate; and, in the meantime, we should take up a position which would secure us even against any evil arising from that eventuality. But if it be agreed, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) appeared to think, that it was absolutely essential that Herat should never be in the possession of Russia, then let them settle that question in the only way in which it could be settled satisfactorily—namely, by taking it themselves. He did not believe, however, that was necessary; he believed, with the Passes and Candahar in their hands, India was safe enough. Her Majesty's Government might be actuated by a very laudable desire to extend the blessings of their rule to people who sadly needed it; the settled dwellers in the cities and valleys would be only too glad to be protected by them from the savage highland clans that now ruled them; but he trusted the Government would consider chiefly what was best for the interests of England and for' our fellow-subjects in India. There were two distinct policies, and a good deal could be said to recommend each of them. They could remain where they were, on the lines settled by the Treaty of Gandamak with the addition of Candahar, or they could take Herat and annex the whole country. They knew not as yet in which direction the policy of the Government lay. There was an intermediate policy—a policy that would be fatal—a policy that would endeavour to exercise a feeble control
  1262
  over Herat through another Power; that would give Persia a vicarious authority in Afghanistan; that would possibly involve England in some international arrangement with Russia—some joint-stock business, in which of a surety their liability would not be limited. It was a policy which would be very fatal to the country, and yet the Parliament was about to be dissolved, leaving the country in absolute ignorance as to whether the policy of Her Majesty's Government tended in that direction or not. It would, therefore, be to the interest of the country if the Government would give some information on the subject before Parliament dissolved.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Dunraven) had understated the case with regard to the unfortunate death of Major Cavagnari; it was no accident of war; not only should the Government not have insisted on sending a European officer as Envoy, but Major Cavagnari was the last man that should have been chosen for that service, for he was identified in the minds of the Afghans as the man who caused and began the first wax1; and what had happened was foreseen and anticipated. If a European were selected as Envoy he should have been a civilian, and either have had no escort, and trusted himself to the hospitality of the people, or have had a larger escort. We did not yet know who was responsible for this selection; whether it was the Home Government or the Indian Government. He would not say much about the first war, as their Lordships had already heard so much about it; but it would have been unnecessary, if the Government had then done what they had seemed lately to be inclined to do, to make an alliance with Persia. Sir Henry Rawlinson had advocated an alliance with Persia for the last 20 years, and his ideas were very good; but they must be taken as a whole and fully carried out. Now they had had an alliance with Persia; but in 1825 they had abandoned Persia, although several British officers were at that time in command of Persian troops; and in 1827 the Treaty of Turkman Tchai had excluded Persian ships from the Caspian. In Nadir Shah's time an Englishman had commanded a Persian ship on the Caspian, and from the Caspian Sea the

  1263
  Russians could be taken not only on the flank, but in the rear. The telegraphic news from Afghanistan was conflicting. One telegram spoke of negotiation with the Afghans in Ghuznee, and another said orders had come from India to attack it. He hoped that this would be avoided by negotiation and pacification, and that they would not uselessly throw away the lives of their own men in attacking it, nor uselessly increase the blood-feud between them by killing more of the Afghans. He also wished to say that if Abderrahman Khan should succeed in establishing himself over a considerable part of Afghanistan, it would be very short-sighted on their part to oppose him, merely because, when in exile, he had been a pensioner of Russia. By his age and position he was one of the family of the Barakzais, who had most claim to rule in Afghanistan; and the most gracious Speech of the Queen at the opening of the Session had repeated the desire for a friendly and independent Afghanistan.
  LORD BLANTYREsaid, that the invasion of India by a merely Russian Force would be of little consequence; but if Russia gained strength in the advance she was assuredly making upon India, and was allowed by us to add the very formidable Turkoman cavalry and the hardy Afghan races to her own Forces, then their joint invasion of India would probably be a success. A locust was a small and weak thing in itself; yet the locusts in India had been known, by attaching themselves in great numbers to the rails and train, to overcome the power of the engine to move the train. An invasion of India from Central Asia, organized on a large scale, would be overwhelming from its numbers—resistance would be vain. Some military men had proposed to stop invasion by forts and armies; if it took place, probably no resistance of the kind would avail. The safer way was to prevent such an invasion taking place; to detach the whole of Afghanistan, not only from Russia, but from barbarism; for so long as any considerable portion of that country remained barbarian it would yield to the invitations of Russia to join her in looting India. Roads, trade, good government, would civilize Afghanistan, as they had done other countries, and unite her people in a common interest with India. We en-
  1264
  tered on the policy of drawing the countries yet remaining between us and Russia to our side when we left the Indus Valley; that was not an ancient Frontier, for the Afghan races had dominated a large part of India, and it had only been occupied by us for about 30 years—a weak Frontier, and hemmed in by barbarians. The question was, whether our present plans were sufficiently comprehensive? A Frontier drawn through the middle of the country was likely to involve us in chronic warfare. There is no course that would effect our object of strengthening India by a civilized and dependent Afghanistan, short of ruling the whole country. Why did we delay to take Herat? We had a large force at Candahar—the campaigning season was about to begin—Herat might be expected to offer less resistance now than at any future time. It was necessary to take it to subdue opposition to our arms and authority in Afghanistan. Herat had always occupied a leading position in giving a Ruler to that country. We might use it to that end, or we might, by inactivity, allow it to be used against us. The possession of Herat would allow us to take another step towards the prevention of a successful invasion of India. Once there, we should be in a position, by diplomacy, or by acts, to secure the independence from Russia of the Tekke Turkomans.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he was sure their Lordships would not expect him to notice all the remarks of the noble Lords who had spoken on the subject, or to agree with them in all the conclusions at which they had arrived. Very different opinions had been expressed by the noble Lords who had spoken; and he thought those of their Lordships who had listened to the discussion would come to the conclusion that, at all events, those who were not responsible for our treatment of Afghanistan had very different methods of dealing with it. The noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Blantyre) had told them to annex the whole of Afghanistan. The noble Earl who introduced the subject (the Earl of Dun-raven) deprecated anything of the kind, advised them not to go beyond the scientific Frontier of Gandamak, and that we should take particular care not to allow Persia to take Herat, or to have any voice in the affairs of Afghan-

  1265
  istan. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) said that we should enter into an alliance with Persia and hand her over Herat, and at the same time—which struck him (Viscount Cranbrook) as inconsistent—they should attempt to set up a strong, united Afghanistan. It was very well for noble Lords to evolve out of their own consciousness their various modes of dealing with this question, and they might be worthy of great consideration in the abstract; but when the Government had to deal with the actual facts of the country, and look at the position in which they were placed, they had to deal with causes and effects of which noble Lords were not aware. He was quite ignorant of what was intended by the noble Earl, who merely gave Notice that he would call attention to the affairs of Afghanistan; he did not know whether he was going to support the Government in the course they had taken, or how he was going to deal with the question. He was very glad, however, to hear the noble Earl state that he did not mean to refer to the old history of the country. It was much better to direct their attention now to what had to be done rather than to what had been done. The noble Earl complained of the reticence of the Government. Now, the Government, in the Queen's Speech, announced particularly that they had no desire to annex Afghanistan, and that they would go in the main on the lines of the Treaty of Gandamak. That was the policy to which they still adhered; but he objected altogether, at the very moment when the spring had arrived, and the war might be going to commence, to lay down any particular rule as to any particular line of Frontier until they saw what the dispositions of the Natives were, and how they were to assert their supremacy in that country. The noble Earl asked whether the Treaty of Gandamak did not lay down definitely any plan. No, it did not. Only a short interval elapsed before the unfortunate Cavagnari and his companions, whose loss he (Viscount Cranbrook) deeply deplored, were murdered, and the period was too short thoroughly to survey the position. The noble Earl had condemned the policy of sending an English Envoy to Cabul. Now, Cabul was not their selection; it was the selection of Yakoob Khan, and it was in
  1266
  deference to his wishes that the Envoy went there. It might be that the fall of Sir Louis Cavagnari might have been foretold; but all he could say was that it was not foretold by himself, or by those who were conversant with the affairs of Afghanistan. Nor was it contemplated by him when he was there; because, although he knew there were great dangers to Yakoob Khan, he had no reason to suspect that there was the deep-rooted hostility against the Mission which was manifested by the attack on the Residency. When the time came for unravelling some of the secrets of the matter, it might be that steps were taken which involved treachery too deep for them to have suspected. However, that was past. But he did not understand the noble Earl to condemn our sending troops to avenge the insult offered to England, or to blame them for having taken steps to vindicate the authority so set at naught. It was, no doubt, their duty to go to Cabul then, although their desire had been in the former campaign not to do anything which might interfere with the security of the Ameer or tend to the disintegration of his Kingdon. With respect to English Envoys as against Native Envoys, he would just say this—In one of his letters he had lately read, Lord Minto expressed himself strongly as to the deficiencies of Native Envoys. They were trustworthy to a certain extent; but it was impossible for them to speak with an authority that could be relied on—with the authority of an Envoy belonging to the ruling nation. They spoke as they were told by those in whose Courts they were; and it was notorious that their reports were actually, in some cases, revised and corrected by the authorities of the Court to which they were attached. That did not seem to be a position of things to enable them to get correct information; and assuming that Yakoob Khan could have protected the Envoy who was sent there at his own request, they would have found themselves on much better terms than they had been before. Unfortunately, that did not take place, and they had to advance upon Cabul. They were now in a position in which they had Forces in the Kurrum Valley, at Candahar, and at Cabul. The noble Lord objected to them marching on Ghuzuee; but unless

  1267
  a pacification was to come he saw no other course open to them. At no distant date he hoped that General Stewart would make his march back to India by Ghuznee. Whether it would be necessary for him to attack it, which he very much doubted, or whether it would not be a peaceable march to its possession, he could not at that moment say. But here, again, he might say rumours of very different characters prevailed as to the disposition of the Chiefs at Ghuznee; and it would be very foolish of him, when they were just at the beginning of spring, to adopt any conclusion as to what would be the conduct of the Tribes at that particular period. It must be remembered that sowing time was a most important time for these people; and they knew if they did not sow their fields they would have no harvest to reap. The time was also most important for us, when the Passes were open. It would give them a great advantage in any movement they might make if it were made at this time. With respect to Herat, the noble Earl was very anxious that they should not annex it. He (Viscount Cranbrook) was disposed to agree with the noble Earl to a certain extent that Herat was not of the infinite importance many attributed to it; and particularly when we were in possession of Candahar, and the other positions we held, Herat became of much less importance than it was on any previous occasion. But, as the noble Earl talked of the civilization of Central Asia, he (Viscount Cranbrook) would say that during last year more steps had been taken with that view than had ever been taken before, and that chiefly by pressing on those railways which had already reached Afghanistan. Sir Richard Temple described the progress of these works, in which he had taken an active part, in a most interesting manner, speaking of dynamite blasting the rocks in Afghanistan and making a way for the railways, which it was to be hoped would in 1882 be carried into Candahar. If that were the case the railways would go further and the trade of Central Asia would come by way of Candahar, and they might look forward to this great question being solved by their further progress towards Herat. In that way a solution would be arrived at far better than any that had been suggested to-night. The noble Earl ex-
  1268
  pressed a hope that they would have no understanding with Russia on this subject, and he asked whether there was any arrangement with respect to Herat. In reply to the noble Earl, he had to say that they had no understanding with Russia on the subject, and that no arrangement had been come to with Persia with respect to Herat. It might be true that Persia had emissaries in Herat, and he had no doubt Persia would be extremely glad to be in possession of Herat. There were possible conditions which might make its acquisition by Persia not so dangerous; but he must ask the noble Earl to leave this question unsolved for the present. He looked forward with great hope to the pacification of Afghanistan, and of its being governed by Rulers of its own choice, without any interference on our part in its internal affairs, only taking care to secure the Frontier we had achieved.
  In answer to the Earl of NORTHBROOK,
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, no arrangement had been made by Convention or contract with Persia, to waive the Treaty of Paris with reference to Herat.
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.