Sitting of 21 May 1880

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEES—Standing-Orders, nominated; Selection, nominated; Merchant Shipping, appointed; Potato Crop, appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee —Public Works Loans (Remissions and Advances).
Resolution in Committee —Ordered —First Reading—Partnerships*[164]; Bills of Sale* [165]; Merchant Shipping (Grain Cargoes)*[168].
Ordered —Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order*.
Ordered—First Reading —Employers' Liability*[118]; Merchant Seamen (Payment of Wages, &c.)*[119]: Local Government Highways Provisional Order (Salop)*[124]; Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order* [123];
184
Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)*[121]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Aberavon, &c.)*[125]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Abergavenny, Sec.)*[127]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Alnwick Union, &c.)*[120]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Amersham Union, &c.)* [126]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Ashford, &c.)*[122]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Abingdon, &c.)*[129]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Bethesda, &c.)*[128]; Employers' Liability (No. 2)*[130]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Wales)*[131]; Local Inquiries (Ireland)* [132]; Town Councils (Aldermen)*[133]; Hours of Polling (Boroughs)* [134]; Sea Fisheries (Ireland)*[135]; Ulster Tenant Eight* [136]; Salmon and Freshwater Fishery Laws Amendment* [137]; Agricultural Holdings Act (1875) Amendment*[138]; Married Women's Property Acts Consolidation* [139]; Marriages Registration*[140]; Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) (Notice of Removal)*[141]; Middlesex Land Registry* [142]; Valuation of Land* [143]; Fixity of Tenure (Ireland)*[144]; Waste Lands (Ireland)*[145]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday* [146]; Landlord and Tenant (Ireland)* [147]; Lunacy Law Amendment* [148]; Limitation of Costs (Ireland)*[149]; Registration of Voters (Ireland)*[150]; Merchant Seamen (Conditions of Service)*[151]; Elective County Boards (Ireland)*[152]; Agricultural Holdings Act (1875) Amendment (No. 2)*[153]; Married Women's Property (Scotland)*[154]; Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister* [155]; Poor Removal* [156]; Local Government Areas (Commission)*[157]; Conge délire*[158]; Inhabited House Duty and Income Tax* [159]; Marriage Rite (Extension of Hours)*[160]; Marriage (Divorced Persons)*[161]; Judicial Factors (Scotland)*[162]; Bankruptcy Act Amendment* [163]; Medical Charities (Ireland)* [167]; Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland)* [166]; Municipal Franchise (Ireland)*[169].

STANDING ORDERS.

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYmoved to nominate the Select Committee on Standing Orders:—Sir JOHN R.MOWBRAY, Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, Mr. CUBITT, Mr. FLOYER, Mr. MONK, Mr. MULHOLLAND, Mr. DENIS O'CONOR, Mr. RODWELL, Lord AETHUR RUSSELL, Sir DAVID"WEDDER-BURN, and Mr. WHITBREAD. All Petitions referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders in the last Session of Parliament referred to the Select Committee.

  185
  Names of Sir JOHN E. MOWBRAY, Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, Mr. CUBITT, Mr. FLOYER, Mr. MONK, and Mr. MULHOL-LAND agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Denis O'Conor be a Member of the Committee."—(Sir John R. Mowbray.)
  MAJOR NOLANcomplained that the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Denis O'Conor) had been placed upon the Committee without any communication with the Irish Party, in succession to his brother the O'Conor Don, the late Member for Roscommon. He (Major Nolan) did not understand that the appointments upon this Committee were to be considered hereditary; and as the Committee had very important functions to perform he thought the Irish Representatives should have been consulted in regard to its composition. He would move, as an Amendment, to substitute the name of the hon. Member for Gal-way (Mr. Mitchell Henry) for that of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Denis O'Conor), which appeared both upon this Committee and the Committee of Selection.
  SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAYhoped the hon. and gallant Member for Galway would not persist in the Amendment. The usual precedents had been followed in selecting the names of Members to serve on the Committee; and if the Committee were nominated now he would undertake to confer with the Irish Members, and to move the discharge of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Denis O'Conor) from one of the Committees if it were found desirable.
  MR. W. HOLMSsaid, the Scotch Members had no reason to complain of the constitution of the Standing Orders Committee; but they did object to having no representation on the Committee of Selection, and at the proper time he would suggest that the senior Member for Edinburgh (Mr. D. M'Laren) should be added to the Committee.
  MR. MACARTNEYremarked, that at the present moment the Irish Party were scattered all over the House. The Home Rulers had met to get united, and had split into two Parties, one of which was sitting on the Liberal side of the House, and the other on the Opposition, each section having a Whip to keep it together, who on great occasions act in
  186
  concert. There was, however, a third Party, altogether independent of the Home Rulers, to which he himself belonged; and he wanted to know what was to be done in order to give them adequate representation upon the public Committees. He would suggest that if it was found inconvenient to place a Representative of each of the three Irish Parties upon all Committees, that at least one Representative should be nominated, each Party having the privilege, in turn, of furnishing a Member.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he would not press the Amendment after the statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John E. Mowbray). In regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney), he might say that the Home Rulers were quite ready to follow the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) into the Lobby on all important divisions, and that he apprehended was of more consequence than their exact position in the House.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Remaining names agreed to.

SELECTION.

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYmoved to nominate the Committee of Selection. Mr. CUBITT, MR. FLOYER, Sir CHARLES FORSTER, Mr. DENIS O'CONOR, Mr. WHITBREAD, and the CHAIRMAN of the SELECT COMMITTEE on STANDING ORDERS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Cubitt be a Member of the Committee."—(Sir John R. Mowbray.)
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYcomplained that there was not a single Scotch Member on the Committee as as present nominated. In former years Scotland had been represented on this important Committee, which had the duty of nsminating the Committees on Private Bills, and it was evident that a Scotch Member would have the best opportunity of judging who among the Scotch Members was the best qualified to serve. No doubt the omission was an oversight, and in order to give an opportunity for re-consideration he would move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYsaid, the Committee was limited in numbers; and whilst the Government side of the House was already well represented on the Committee, there were not many Scotch Members to choose from amongst the Opposition. It was important that Private Business should go forward; and, therefore, he hoped the Motion for adjournment would not be pressed, and he would promise to see what could be done towards meeting the wishes of the Scotch Members.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Remaining names agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY OATH (ME. BRADLAUGH).
Mr. Bradlaugh, returned as one of the Members for the Borough of Northampton, came to the Table to take and subscribe the Oath, and the Clerk was proceeding to administer the same to him, when—
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I object, Sir, to the Oath being administered to the hon. Member for Northampton.
MR. DILLWYN: I rise to a point of Order.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I protest against the hon. Gentleman being sworn. ["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: I wish to point out to the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) that the House is now engaged in the administration of the Oath of Allegiance to Members of the House. It will be the duty of the Clerk to administer the Oath to hon. Members as they come up one by one; but if the hon. Member for Portsmouth has any objection to offer now will be the time.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I beg to oppose the administration of the Oath to the hon. Member for Northampton.
MR. SPEAKER: In that case it is my duty to call upon the hon. Member for Northampton for the present to withdraw.
Mr. Bradlaugh having accordingly withdrawn,
MR. DILLWYN: I rose to Order, and my object was to ask you, Sir, whe-
188
ther an hon. Member, having presented himself at the Table for the purpose of taking the Oath, it is competent for an hon. Member to interfere?
MR. SPEAKER: The House is now engaged in carrying out one of its primary duties in securing that every Member on taking his seat in this House is called upon to take the Oath of Allegiance. A Member of this House has presented himself at the Table to take the Oath in the usual form. I am bound to say that I know of no instance where, a Member having offered to take the Oath in the usual form, any interposition has been allowed by the House to his doing so. Yet, if the hon. Member for Portsmouth rises in his place and has any observations to offer upon the matter, I may not consider it my duty to interpose. At the same time, I am not prepared to say, without hearing the hon. Member, and what the terms of his Motion are, whether it is a Motion which ought properly to be put to this House.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I beg to assure the House—["Move, move!"] I shall conclude with a Motion. I beg to assure the House that I have no intention of raising this point as a Party question, nor am I at all an advocate for what may be called religious intolerance. But I think, Sir, there are certain circumstances which disqualify the hon. Member for Northampton from taking his seat in this House, and I will proceed as shortly as possible to lay my reasons before the House. I think there has been a certain amount of undue haste in the manner in which this matter has been brought forward. The hon. Member himself has not acted in a manner which is entirely conformable with the precedents of this House. In the first instance he asked to make an Affirmation, and a Committee was then appointed to inquire into his right to do so; and it is only after the Report of that Committee against his pretensions that the hon. Gentleman comes forward to take the Oath. I think it is rather fortunate for the hon. Member himself that the Committee so decided, because I do not think that a Resolution of the Committee or even of the House would relieve him from the legal penalties to which he would have been liable had he taken his seat with an Affirmation. Under the Act of 1866, any Member taking his seat in this House, and not

189
belonging to certain sects or denominations, is liable to penalties recoverable in the Court of Westminster, and his seat is to be declared vacant. That cannot be set aside by any Resolution of this House. The hon. Member is a professed Atheist—-and by the Common Law of England an Atheist is not entitled to take an oath. I do not believe the hon. Member himself denies that he is an Atheist; but I have procured certain works that are published by the Free Thought Publishing Company, and among them I find a pamphlet entitled, A Plea for Atheism, written by the hon. Gentleman, and advertised and sold under his name. At the beginning of the pamphlet are these words—"It is as a propagandist of Atheism that I pen this essay." Some years ago it was found necessary, not so much for conscience as for public convenience, that evidence in Courts of Justice should be received which would otherwise be set aside because the witness had declared himself an Atheist. The great work on the Law of Evidence I believe is that of Mr. Pitt Taylor. Mr. Pitt Taylor says—
"The wisdom of requiring witnesses to be sworn, excepting under very special circumstances, cannot well be disputed; for, although the ordinary definition of an oath—namely, 'a religious asseveration by which a person renounces the mercy and imprecates the vengeance of Heaven if he do not speak the truth— may be open to comment, since the design of the oath is not to call the attention of God to man, but the attention of man to God; not to call upon Him to punish the wrongdoer, but on the witness to remember that He will assuredly do so; still it must be admitted that by thus laying hold of the conscience of the witness the law best insures the utterance of truth. But as the administration of an oath supposes that the witness feels a moral and religious accountability to a Supreme Being, who will justly punish perjury and from whom no secrets are hid, persons insensible to the obligations of an oath ought not to be sworn, as in their case it is a meaningless formality."
It is perfectly clear, from the letter written by the hon. Gentleman which appears in the newspapers to-day, that he regards the taking of the Oath as a proceeding of a meaningless character, and he says that it will be so much the worse for those who have forced him to repeat words which convey to his mind no clear and definite meaning. When a certain change was made in the law relating to the giving of evidence in Courts of Justice, there was a penalty inflicted on those who gave false evidence under
190
an affirmation, and that penalty was substituted to some extent for the want of conscience; but that is not the case in regard to an affirmation or an oath of obligation where no penalty is attached to the breach of it. When the hon. Member tells the House that he has been admitted to make an affirmation in Courts of Justice, he must know that such an affirmation could only be administered to a witness objecting to take an oath when the presiding Judge was satisfied that the oath would not be binding on the witness's conscience. The hon. Member has, indeed, declared that no oath would be binding on his conscience. Therefore, it may be fairly asked, is the House to allow that formality now to be gone through which the hon. Member himself avows will be a mere formality, and nothing more? It might be urged that there would be no practical danger from allowing the administration of the Oath to the hon. Gentleman. The form of the Oath is—
"I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs, and successors, according to law."
The hon. Member has infringed the stipulations of that Oath even before he has taken it, because in a book published by the Company with which the hon. Gentleman was connected, and called The Impeachment of the House of Brunswick, which is certainly not couched in terms complimentary to the dynasty, I find it stated that certain acts can be performed in this country to the detriment of the Throne without the consent of the Crown. It says—
"The object of the present essay is to submit reasons for the repeal of the Acts of Settlement and Union, so far as the succession to the Throne is concerned, after the abdication or demise of the present Monarch."
I will not trouble the House by quoting the entire paragraph; but it says—
"It is further submitted that Parliament has full and uncontrollable authority to make any enactment and to repeal any enactment heretofore made, even if such new statute or the repeal of any old statute should in truth change the constitution of the Empire or modify the character and powers of either Parliamentary Chamber."
It goes on to add that Parliament "has the undoubted right to withhold the Crown from Albert Edward Prince of Wales." Now, I cannot see how a

191
Gentleman professing the views set forth in that work can take the Oath of Allegiance. He can only do it if he looked on the Oath as an empty form which did not bind his conscience. Parliament has very wisely made a relaxation of the rule in favour of the members of different creeds and sects; but all those sects have a common standard of morality, a conscience, and a general belief in some divinity or other. What we have now before us is the distinct negation of anything like perpetual morality, or conscience, or the existence of a God. And, as I believe that a person holding these views cannot be allowed to take the Oath in this House, I beg to move my Resolution.
MR. R. N. FOWLER: I rise, Sir, to second the Motion, and I do so in order that I may inform the House that I hold in my hand a Petition most influentially signed by merchants and bankers, and others in the City of London, praying that no step be taken to allow any alteration of the law and custom of this Realm for the purpose of enabling one who denies the existence of a God to sit in Parliament. That is the feeling of my constituents, and I cordially concur with them in entreating this House not to admit an Atheist within its walls.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the opinion of this House, Mr. Bradlaugh, Member for Northampton, ought not to be allowed to take the Oath which he now requires to be administered to him, in eon. sequence of his having previously claimed, at the Table of the House, to make an Affirmation or Declaration instead of the Oath prescribed by Law, founding his claim upon the terms of the Act 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and the Evidence Amendment Acts of 1869 and 1870, and on the ground that under the provisions of those Acts the presiding Judge, at a trial, has been satisfied that the taking of an Oath, would have no binding effect on his conscience."—(Sir Henry Drummond Wolff.)
MR. GLADSTONE: You, Sir, have put from the Chair the Motion which has been made and seconded; and you having thereby expressed your judgment that it is a Motion that can be entertained, we have to consider in what manner it is best to deal with it. Now, Sir, the first consideration which occurs to my mind, and one which is of the greatest weight, is this—that the matter on which we have been invited to proceed is one, in the strictest sense, of a judicial character. I wish the House to
192
bear in mind what these words import, and whether, if I am accurate in that statement, I am not warranted in proceeding to the next proposition which I would respectfully submit, and it is to the fact that there is considerable danger, when we view the nature of the topics which may be imported into this discussion, that if we proceed with the debate in this House it will be found very difficult to handle it in a manner strictly and properly judicial. I take, Sir, the few words which fell from the Seconder of the Motion. Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me for saying that it appeared to me that he had not considered with sufficiently rigorous care the nature of the Motion which he was seconding, because he thought fit to make the staple of his speech the presentation of a Petition which advances the proposition—in which it may probably be that many will concur—that it is not desirable that persons passing as Atheists should be Members of this House? But, Sir, that question is not a judicial question—it is a political and a Constitutional question of the greatest delicacy and importance. The hon. Gentleman introduces, I think erroneously and mistakenly, that political and Constitutional question into a discussion which, if I am right, is in the strictest sense of a judicial character. I might, perhaps, also draw another illustration from the speech of the Mover. The Mover, I think, was perfectly warranted by the terms of his Motion in referring to evidence which he thought necessary and sufficient to show that the description he gave of Mr. Bradlaugh's religious opinions—those opinions forming the ground of his objection—was a true description. But I must own that if this be a judicial handling of a judicial matter, I do not see what relevancy there was to the subject-matter in hand in that portion of his speech which referred to the political opinions of Mr. Bradlaugh. If I understood him rightly he wishes the House to understand that Mr. Bradlaugh was not in a condition to fulfil loyally the obligations of a subject. ["Hear, hear!"] Fresh evidence, I am bound to say, I find in support of the proposition that I have laid down and the proposition that I intend to make in the cheers which hail and accept the announcement that the hon. Member for Portsmouth has argued that Mr.

193
Bradlangh was politically not in a condition to fulfil his duty. That subject-matter, however important in itself, however delicate, however invidious when raised with respect to a particular Member of the House, does not enter into the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and forms no part whatever of the evidence by which we ought to be guided in passing our judgment on that Motion. Why have I said that this question is one which is strictly judicial? There are many questions debated in this House with respect to which the epithet "judicial" is used, not without force, but, at the same time, with more or less of laxity. But, in this instance, if I am right, that epithet is applicable to the subject-matter of this discussion in the very strictest sense of which it is susceptible, for that in which we are engaged is the consideration of the fulfilment of statutory duty. It is not in consequence of any regulation enforced by the authority of this House— of a single branch of the Legislature, however complete that authority may be over the Members of this House, that the hon. Member for Northampton presents himself to take an Oath at the Table. He presents himself in pursuance of a statutory obligation to take the Oath in order that he may fulfil the duty with which, as we are given to understand in a regular and formal manner, his constituents have intrusted him. That statutory obligation imposed upon the hon. Gentleman primâ facie imports a statutory right on the part of the hon. Gentleman. I am not now arguing against the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth. I am only pointing out the extreme delicacy of the ground on which the House stands, because it is dealing with statutory subject-matter, and its Resolutions are liable to be called in question and handled by Courts of Justice quite irrespective of what this House may think. Sir, the hon. Member himself has justly reminded us with reference to another part of the subject that it was fortunate for the hon. Member for Northampton that he had not succeeded in obtaining the administration of an Affirmation at the Table, for if he had succeeded in obtaining it he would have been liable to be prosecuted in a Court of Justice for sitting and voting in this House without having fulfilled the obligations imposed
194
upon him by law. I apprehend that is a perfectly true and warrantable observation; and it is just as true, on the other hand, which the hon. Member does not seem to have perceived, that if the hon. Member who just now came to the Table for the purpose of taking the Oath did not fulfil the duty imposed upon him by statute, but did take the Oath, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth seems to think, in a manner not acquitting him of that duty, he would still be open to these very prosecutions in a Court of Justice, and the law would have provided a remedy against the evil which the hon. Member seeks to secure by Resolution of this House. Now, Sir, as I understand the principal contention of the hon. Gentleman, it would come to this—that, inasmuch as there is a practice in the Courts of Justice by which, in any given circumstances, a Judge makes inquiry regarding the competency of a witness to deliver his testimony under the sanction of an oath, or in such other form as the law may permit or prescribe, so he appears to think that when a Member of Parliament presents himself at the Table of the House with the intention of fulfilling that statutory duty, it is within the power of the House to intercept that hon. Member.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: No, Sir, I did not say that. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not imply it. This is a very special case. The hon. Member for Northampton raised the question himself by asking to be allowed to make an Affirmation.
MR. GLADSTONE: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. Everything that he says is entirely consistent with what has fallen from me. I represented him with the utmost accuracy. I did not intend to charge upon the hon. Member—or rather to assert, for there is no question of charging—that he has affirmed indiscriminately, and on all occasions, that the House is in a condition so to interfere and so to interpose and prevent the observance of the Oath by any Member; but the hon. Member conceives that, under certain circumstances, it is open to the House to make an inquiry, and for that purpose to intercept a Member when he presents himself to discharge what he conceives to be a statutory duty. That is, I think, a true representation

195
of what the hon. Gentleman said. If that be so, what I have to observe is that it appears to me clear what course the House ought to pursue As the Motion has been made we must take some course with regard to it. The case raised is one of the utmost novelty and nicety. I believe it is a case absolutely new. There have been cases when Members of this House have themselves raised the difficulty. Members of this House belonging to the Society of Friends have in other days declined to take the Oath prescribed by law, and demanded the substitution of an Affirmation; but there is no parallel between their predicament and that of the hon. Member for Northampton. In the same way, other Gentlemen professing the Jewish faith — Baron Rothschild and Alderman Salomons—have come to the Table here and declared their incompetency to take the Oath as it was tendered to them. In one of these instances the House, I think, appointed a Committee to consider what course should be taken, and whether it would not be possible to separate a portion of that Oath from the rest, so as not to affect what formed part of the body of the Oath. I think I am strictly accurate in saying that, so far as we know, the hon. Member for Northampton has presented himself at the Table with the intention of doing at the Table neither more nor less than exactly that which the statute prescribes. Then, the question that presents itself is new, and I think I may also say it is a very delicate one. Oaths in the Courts of Justice are not precisely on a parallel with the Oath taken in this House. I cannot assume it as self-evident that the power possessed by Judges belongs to Members of this House; and the intervention of the House in every instance has arisen solely and simply out of the fact that the Member presenting himself was not ready to do that which the Member for Northampton is ready to do to-day—namely, to comply exactly with the forms and proceedings prescribed. Well, then, in these circumstances, I am happy to think that we appear to have a mode of proceeding open to us which is safer and surer than the prosecution of an inquiry of this kind depending entirely upon the law of the land, and where the House moves at every step in danger of having its proceedings questioned. Considering
196
especially the extreme gravity, and delicacy, and importance of the matter at issue, and that there is such great danger of our deviating from the path of merely judicial investigation in order to express, it may be, wise or unwise opinions, but which seem scarcely to have a place in what ought to be a dry, dispassionate, and perfectly impartial inquiry, I have merely endeavoured to point out the difficulties which lie in our way, and I have not in the slightest degree expressed an opinion bearing upon the merits of the case; but I fall back upon precedent, and I find that in all cases it has been the wise practice of the House to refer the consideration of the matter to a Select Committee. That was the course taken a few days ago when the hon. Gentleman presented himself and claimed to affirm—most justly taken, and in strict conformity with precedent — because then there was a precedent strictly applicable to the case. Now, there is no precedent for proceeding in the case of a Member willing to fulfil the statutory duty as it is understood and administered by the officers of this House; but as the hon. Gentleman has raised the question, and as the House entertains it, it becomes a question fit for our consideration, and, under these circumstances, I cannot doubt that by far the wisest course will be again to refer to a Select Committee the question which has now arisen—one perfectly now and perfectly distinct from the question which was raised a very short time ago. I will read to the House the terms of the Motion I propose to make, and which I think will meet with very wide and general approval—
"That it be referred to a Select Committee to consider and report their opinion to the House whether the House has any right, founded on precedent or otherwise, by Resolution to pre-vent a duly elected Member, who is willing to take the Oath prescribed by the Acts 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, from doing so; and, if they are of opinion that the House has such right, further to report on what grounds it is competent to the House to prevent such Member from taking the Oath."
That, I believe, will open the whole field of inquiry; and I beg, therefore, to move it as an Amendment.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it be referred to a Select Committee, to con-

197
sider and report their opinion to the House whether the House has any right, founded on precedent or otherwise, by Resolution to prevent a duly elected Member, who is willing to take the Oath prescribed by the Acts 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, from so doing; and, if they are of opinion that the House has such right, further to report on what grounds it is competent to the House to prevent such Member from taking the Oath,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. GIBSONsaid, that this was an extremely painful question, and he did not think there was any hon. Member on either side of the House who would not be glad to be relieved of the necessity of considering it at all. He admitted with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that the question was a difficult and delicate one. But if his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) required any justification for the course which ho had taken, it would be found in the proposal which had been made by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had carefully abstained from expressing an opinion on one side or the other, but proposed to refer the question to a Select Committee; but he had done so in a manner which would leave very little discretion to that Committee in dealing with it. The right hon. Gentleman's words had ignored altogether the substance of the case they were now considering, and presented it as an abstract question, with every condition stated that would insure a particular finding; it ignored every special fact which had occurred before their eyes, and the facts which every one of them knew surrounded the case of the hon. Member for Northampton. It was not his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth who had voluntarily obtruded on the attention of the House this painful and delicate question. On the hon. Member for Northampton must rest the responsibility of bringing this painful and disagreeable topic before the House. It might well have happened that, had the hon. Member presented himself in the crowd of Members who took the Oath a short time ago, he might have taken the Oath without any observation; but he deliberately elected to obtrude
198
himself on the House and the country. The hon. Gentleman had a right to his own private opinions, but must accept the grave responsibility of them; he had, however, shifted upon the House a large part of the responsibility for those opinions by taking them into his confidence by the action he had adopted. When ho had come to the Table, and had had placed before him the very simple, clear, and unambiguous obligation containing the Oath, when he had been tendered a Book which they all revered, ho had refused to accept the obligation or to take the Oath, and had then, in cautious and guarded language, claimed the right to make an Affirmation. By that claim he must stand or fall in the House of Commons. That claim was referred to a Committee, which decided against it; and, in his opinion, speaking with all deference to those Members of the Committee who differed from the majority—and no one could have a higher respect for the Law Officers of the Crown who were in the minority than ho had—very justly so decided. He thought that decision was entirely right. The Government had acquiesced in the decision of that Committee and did not seek to question it, and it must now be taken to form part of the admitted law of that House. Could they now ignore the fact that the hon. Member for Northampton had so recently declined to take the Oath and appealed to another sanction? Could they allow him to ignore all that and to come up as if nothing had happened? He desired to state the question as far as possible in a manner free from personal or disagreeable topics, in the spirit which had been so well described by the Leader of that House, in a judicial spirit. But he wished to direct the attention of the House to what had occurred; and after what had occurred he did not think that the course which had been adopted by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth was an unreasonable one. He admitted that the hon. Member for Northampton was, primâ facie entitled to come to the House and ask to discharge the mandate which had been intrusted to him by his constituents, and that no unreasonable delay should be placed in his way. His constituents had elected him as their Member, and ho was entitled to have the question speedily settled; but, at the same time, they must see that the

199
hon. Member was not allowed to do violence by his attitude to the conscience of the House of Commons, nor should they permit any violence to their usages, or wrenching of their Rules and practice, to suit the delicate workings of the hon. Member's conscience. On the 3rd of May the hon. Member did not take the Oath. He did not make that solemn appeal which was usually made by Members; but he did refer to something, and he rested his case on the Act of 1869. That Act contained words which had become familiar to Members of the House during the course of that debate. It set forth that—
"If any person called to give evidence should object to take an oath, such person shall, if the presiding Judge is satisfied that the taking of an oath would have no binding effect on his conscience, make the following promise."
The hon. Member had claimed the benefit of that Act in the presence and hearing of the House, and had thus announced that an oath would have no binding effect on his conscience. Could they now, with full knowledge of all these circumstances, allow the hon. Member to take that Oath which he had declared to have no binding effect upon his conscience? They had all the materials before them for an almost immediate decision. Let them suppose that the hon. Member, when presented with the Book, had said—"I regard this Book as one which contains no sanction binding on me. You call it the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; I do not regard him as my Lord and Saviour. The first words of the Book are, 'The generation of Jesus Christ;' I do not believe in Jesus Christ. The last words in the Book are, 'The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.' I do not believe in that grace; I do not believe in that Jesus Christ." Supposing the hon. Member had said this, speaking with all respect, and merely expressing his own belief, and had said that he regarded the Oath as an empty unmeaning form, but that, as he was not allowed to affirm, he was willing to take it, in order to take his seat, what would then have been the feeling and action of the House? But was not that the very substance of what had occurred?" Would there not have been a thrill of horror and indignation through the House, and would not the unanimous conscience of the House have
200
declined to allow itself to be so openly outraged? The hon. Member had published a manifesto in that morning's paper which he assumed was intended to contain a moderate statement of the argument by which the hon. Member sought admission to the House. He did not desire to say anything offensive to the hon. Member; but what were the words with which he described the Oath which ho refused to take the other day? The hon. Member said—"It includes words of an idle and meaningless character, "referring, presumably, to the closing words;" it would be an act of hypocrisy voluntarily to take this form;" "the words of the Oath I have scores of times declared are to me sounds conveying no clear and definite meaning," and the hon. Member alluded to the final sanction as "a meaningless addendum to a promise." With these facts before them, could any hon. Member think that this was a case in which, without grave consideration and immense caution, an oath should be allowed to be taken in the way the hon. Member sought to take it? Immense caution was required before allowing an oath to be lightly taken; and yet no objection on this occasion had come from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. Some thought that identical conditions should exist for the taking of oaths in Courts of Justices and in the Houses of Parliament. But he would point out that the cases were different in their nature, because a person who, either by promise, or affirmation, or oath, took upon himself to speak the truth in a Court of Justice was liable, in case of a violation of his word, to certain penalties which would not be applied in Parliamentary life. Some persons thought that no oath whatever should be necessary before a man commenced his Parliamentary career. He was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister dissented from this proposition, and denied that he would ever be a party to the proposal that the necessity for Oaths should be removed, for in 1854 the right hon. Gentleman, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said—
"I know there are some Gentlemen here who think we should come to the discharge of our duties without any oath. I do not happen to be one of that opinion. I revere the principle of the oath. I think it tends to maintain that

201
serious, reverential temper with which men ought to address themselves to solemn duties; but I say this, if you want to gain the real and substantial objects of the oath, you ought to frame it in a manner that should adapt it to those objects. Our oaths ought to be brief, ought to be simple. They ought to be the same for all—they ought to go directly to the point; they ought to be divested of all needless and useless words in order that the words we use by solemn sanction in the presence of God may be used with a sense of the presence of God, and in a temper which befits men doing a solemn act."[3 Hansard, cxxxiii. 900.]
Those were eloquent and impressive words, and yet they were asked now to allow a man to take an Oath "in the presence of God," but "without a sense of the presence of God." Was not that a very grave and momentous issue? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, though he did not commit himself to any final opinion, appeared to suggest that where a statutable duty was imposed a correlative right was conferred. That was true, no doubt, in a general sense; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that all Courts of Justice had an inherent control and jurisdiction over their own proceedings and forms; and he held that when one of the most solemn Forms of the House was about to be outraged and treated in a way which a great many Members would regard as a kind of blasphemy, it could not be suggested that there was not an inherent power in that great Assembly to interfere and prevent such an occurrence taking place. How did they commence their proceedings? By prayers, which were heard every day with respect and reverence. What were the closing words of the gracious Speech from the Throne delivered to them on the previous day? They were words which asked for the blessing of God upon their labours. Again, the closing words of the Address to Her Majesty proclaimed their trust that the blessing of God might attend their labours. The subject before the House was a very difficult and painful one; and though he had listened with extreme attention and respect to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, his difficulties were not removed by anything which the right hon. Gentleman had said. It was obvious that the case was beset with many difficulties; but plainly, and after deliberation, he could say that the hon. Member for Portsmouth was quite justified in his action, and that it would be
202
abhorrent to the consciences and feelings of a vast majority on both sides of the House if they were to find that an hon. Member added to their ranks had taken an Oath which bound their consciences by the solemnity and reverence of its sanction, but which was to him only an idle and unmeaning form.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there were some few words wanting from the speech of his right hon. and learned Friend—namely, the words which would have informed the House what course in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion ought to be taken on that occasion. He looked upon the able and eloquent speech of his right hon and learned Friend as a speech in support of the Amendment of the Prime Minister. His right hon. and learned Friend agreed with the Prime Minister that the subject was one requiring the greatest caution and gravest consideration, and yet suggested that the judicial functions of the House should be exercised by the House constituted as it then was. This being the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend, how discordant to his ears must have been the cheers which greeted his speech, for they were hardly sounds which should issue from a body exorcising judicial functions. He was relieved in great measure from performing the duty of discussing the question before the House in relation to the legal rights of the hon. Member for Northampton because ho supported the Amendment of the Prime Minister, which suggested that the discussion of those rights should not be entered into in detail in the House, and which asked for full consideration of the rights in question under circumstances in which a speaker would not be cheered when explaining in eloquent language his general views. Unless they were seeking to deprive the hon. Member for Northampton of the rights to which he was entitled, why should they refuse that kind of inquiry which, in the House of Commons, most nearly approached judicial form? His right hon. and learned Friend opposite said that the right of the hon. Member for Northampton to a seat in the House depended upon whether he could secure his seat without violating the conscience of the House. Well, the right of the hon. Member to sit did not depend upon, any such consideration.
MR. GIBSONexplained that he had referred to outraging the conscience of the House in its forms.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would not discuss words with the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he thought the words "violence to the conscience of the House" caught his ears. But the House must recollect that these forms were not the Forms of the House, but of the Legislature, and sanctioned by Parliament, and it was not for them to consider that shifting quantity, the conscience of the House, dependent upon whether the majority was sitting on one side of the House or the other. The question was whether, in refusing admission to the hon. Member for Northampton, they were not depriving him of his right, or that of the constituency which sent him to represent them. "What were the grounds, he would ask, on which it was alleged that the hon. Member was not entitled to take his seat? His right hon. and learned Friend admitted that if he complied with the Forms of the House he was entitled to take his seat. How did the hon. Member for Portsmouth seek to deprive him of that right? By going beyond what had occurred in the House and adducing hearsay evidence culled from books of the authenticity of which there was no proof. ["Oh, oh!"] It was clear, from that expression of dissent, that hon. Gentlemen opposite were now seeking to exercise judicial functions. They wished, upon common notoriety, to try the hon. Member at the Table of the House, and to sentence him to virtual expulsion for being an Atheist, a sentence which could not be revoked except by a vote of the House. And where, he would ask, was the authority for saying that an Atheist could not sit in that House? It might be right or wrong that he should not be permitted to do so; but he would not enter into that question, because it was not within the terms of the Motion, and yet the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Portsmouth proceeded upon that proposition, and so also had one half of the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. If it was right that they should be excluded, then let a Motion be brought forward to that effect; but let not the Oath, which was never intended as a religious test, but was imposed for a different object, be
204
taken advantage of for doing improperly what might be properly done if the question was raised with a sense of the responsibility attaching to it. Ho felt that he ought not to continue the legal argument at that moment; and it was somewhat strange, he thought, to have such an argument addressed by his right hon. and learned Friend to such an Assembly. He was not, at the same time, going to dispute that it was well that the question should be discussed; and what was asked for was that it should be considered in the most general terms, which would include the particular circumstances of the case before the House, by a Committee properly constituted. ["No, no!"] If the terms of reference were not deemed to be general enough, any suggestion on that point would be listened to and fully considered by those who ought to guide the House. If that were done, could anybody, he would ask, fairly contend that the right course to adopt was not to appoint a Committee to inquire into the subject, which his right hon. Friend beside him suggested every one must regard as being worthy of the gravest consideration?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, in commenting on the powerful and, as I think, very convincing speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), observed that there was one thing wanting in it, and that was that he had said nothing to indicate the course which he would advise the House to adopt. I must say that, having listened to that speech, it did not seem to me that there was very much difficulty in understanding what that course was. I understood that speech to be in favour of the Motion which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and the course which will be taken by my right hon. and learned Friend and by others will be to vote against the Amendment, and in favour of the original Resolution. The observations of the hon. and learned Attorney General appear to me to place the matter in this light. The question before us is, Shall we decide upon the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth now, or shall we refer the matter to a Committee, and allow that Committee to report before we come

205
to any decision? I do not understand that the ultimate decision can rest with any Committee that may be appointed. I understand that in a matter of this kind the House will not part with its authority, in coming to a decision, to any Committee, however able and important that Committee may be. Ultimately, we must be the body ourselves to decide upon this question. It seems to mo that really we are in. a position to come to a resolution upon the facts before us, and I fail to see in what way the deliberations of a Committee are to assist us in dealing with it. The proposal that a question of this importance should be referred to a Committee, coming from the Government and made by the Leader of the House himself, of course, naturally commands attention and respect; but I must be allowed to say that the circumstances under which that proposal has been made, and the manner in which it has been made, considerably diminish the respect which ought to be given to such a proposal. If the right hon. Gentleman had, upon the receipt of the Report of the Committee, or at any subsequent time, given Notice that, having considered this question on behalf of the House which ho loads, he had come to the conclusion that it was necessary that inquiry should be made, and had he recommended the House, in the first instance, to take this stop of the appointing such a Commit-tee, we should naturally have listened with respect to the proposal, and given such attention as we could to the arguments in favour of it. But it must be within the observation of everybody that the Government took no action whatever in this matter; and that, although they have now proposed the appointment of a Committee, they have made that proposal as an Amendment to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, and that rather, as it were, in the nature of a plea in bar of that proceeding. And not only is that the case, but when exception is taken to the manner and form of this proposal for a Committee, we are told by the hon. and learned Attorney General they are quite prepared to re-consider the form of the Committee which they proposed to appoint; to reconsider the instructions and directions to be given to that Committee. And I say, if that in so, this is not a proposal
206
which comes to us with the weight which would have attached to it if it had been an original proposal.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, what I said was that any suggestion that came from the front Bench opposite to make the Reference wider would be duly considered.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. and learned Gentleman. I understood that, and I thought that was the substance of what I was suggesting. But I say you must consider this as being a matter which the House must ultimately determine, and upon which, it seems to mo, the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) shows we have absolutely sufficient power to come to a decision now. What is the case? What is the very element of it? An hon. Gentleman has come forward under circumstances which we need not now repeat, and has given the House very clearly to understand that if he takes a solemn Oath at the Table of this House he does so declaring that it is a meaningless and idle form; and we are asked whether we, who recognize an Oath as a solemn and religious act, are prepared to admit that such an action should take place with our consent and approbation. We do not raise any question whether there is anything irrelevant in the course which the hon. Member proposes to take from his point of view; but I do think, looking at it from our point of view, that making ourselves parties, as we shall do if we permit him to take the Oath, to that proceeding, we incur a great responsibility, and one which I think this House should be slow to accept in the eyes of the country. It seems to me that the course which the House ought to take, and certainly the course which I myself and others will take, will be to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth; but whether any further steps should be taken in consequence of that is a matter upon which I will not now enter. But with regard to the issue now raised by my hon. Friend, it seems to me that, taking the view we do of the sacredness of the Oath, we cannot make ourselves parties to its being taken in a manner and under circumstances which render it a really ridiculous and unworthy proceeding.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that as the Colleague of the hon. Member (Mr. Bradlaugh) in the representation of Northampton, he thought it right to state that his hon. Friend was selected by the majority of the constituency solely on account of his political views. They did not occupy themselves with his religious convictions, because they were under the impression that they were giving him political rather than theological functions to fulfil in that House. A proposal had been made by the Prime Minister that this matter should be referred to a Committee. It certainly did appear to him (Mr. Labouchere) somewhat strange that a Member who had been duly elected to that House should be told that ho could not take his seat because he was forbidden to make an Affirmation on account of his not being a Quaker or a Moravian, and because he was forbidden from taking the Oath on account of certain speculative religious opinions which he had professed. [An hon. MEMBER: Irreligious.] But that appeared to be the view of many Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and he should be perfectly ready to discuss that view; but as the Prime Minister had very rightly said, the matter was a judicial one, and it would be far better, in his humble opinion, that it should be referred to a Committee of the House to look at it in its judicial aspect rather than that there should be an acrimonious theological discussion in that House. When, however, it was referred to a Committee, he thought he had got a right to ask in the name of his constituents that that Committee should decide it as speedily as possible. Should the Committee decide that the hon. Gentleman was not to be allowed to take the Oath, it would then become, if not his duty, the duty of some other hon. Gentleman, to bring in a Bill to enable his Colleague to make an Affirmation, in order that his constituents might enjoy the right which the Constitution gave them of being represented by two Members in that House.
EARL PERCYsaid, a great effort had been made to narrow the issue before them to a simple judicial one; but he ventured to think, with all submission to the legal authorities, that there was another aspect to this question. The House had always reserved to itself
208
the right to decide whether the conduct of a particular Member was such as to make him a fit person to exercise legislative functions; and it had even gone so far as to suspend or expel certain Members. Now, the question before them on the present occasion was whether the hon. Member for Northampton was a fit and proper person to sit in that House. They had heard a great deal about the rights of constituencies, and he should be sorry to infringe upon them in the slightest degree. The question had been put on its present footing entirely by the action of the hon. Member himself. In the letter which the hon. Member had sent to the papers, and which he, no doubt, published as a manifesto of his views for the information of hon. Members in that House—for there was not the slightest pretence that the document was a forgery—he declared that a man who voluntarily took an oath which was not binding upon his conscience committed an act of hypocrisy. The hon. Member, to do him justice, had sought to avoid taking an Oath to which he attached no sacred character; but, believing it to be forced upon him, he had at length expressed his willingness to take it. Well, if the House allowed him, under those circumstances, to take the Oath, it would itself, in his (Earl Percy's) opinion, incur the guilt of an act of hypocrisy. He was not now discussing the question whether Atheists ought or ought not to be admitted to that House as a matter of principle, though the present difficulty was, perhaps, only a necessary consequence of the past action of the House in so modifying the conditions of admission as to receive professors of every form of religious belief. He should be sorry, indeed, to see that House erected into a tribunal of conscience. But ho held that they could not, with a proper sense of self-respect, allow an hon. Member to take an Oath which, by his own declaration, would have no binding effect upon his conscience. He did not think that under the circumstances the House would be usurping a function which it ought not to discharge if it were to decide that it could not admit the hon. Member. The real truth of the matter was that the hon. Gentleman came to the House and declared that he intended to take God's name in vain. That was a course which the conscience

209
of the House could not allow. He certainly could not do so; and he would, therefore, vote for the Motion. He was sorry for the electors of Northampton if they were deprived of the services of one of their Representatives, because the hon. Gentleman was recommended to them by his hon. Colleague, whose religious opinions were well known; and he was further recommended by another hon. Gentleman, whose Christian principles were at least as well known, and who came from a distant part of the country to show his zeal—
MR. H. SAMUELSONrose to Order. He wanted to know whether the noble Lord was in Order in referring to the conduct of hon. Gentlemen who had recommended the hon. Member for Northampton, when the question under discussion was as to the fitness of the hon. Member to take the Oath?
MR. SPEAKER: The remarks of the noble Lord, so far as they reached me, appeared to be quite relevant.
EARL PERCYsaid, they were informed that day that the hon. Member for Northampton was elected on political and not on religious grounds. If that was the case it was an additional reason why they should be very guarded how they received the hon. Member on the footing on which he sought to be admitted, because his present position was wholly unforeseen by his constituents, who would now, he trusted, repudiate him. Ho thought the issue before the House was a very great one. He must protest against any idea that this was a Party movement. If they were, as a House of Commons, to have any religious faith and a conscience, without which he did not think they were fit to legislate for a great Christian country, they were bound to protest against the admission of the hon. Member on the ground that he had put forward, and also to protest against slipping out of the question by the course recommended to the House.
MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Sir, there seems to me to be one thing we are all unanimous about, and that is that the question before the House is one of some difficulty and of supreme delicacy. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) agrees entirely in that with my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. I think
210
all persons who have any authority in this House now, or in times past have had, recommended Parliament to discuss questions of this kind, so difficult and delicate, with as little temper as possible, and with regard not to their own particular feeling or to particular points in connection with it, but with regard to what is absolutely just and according to law. Now, with us on this side, so far, the question has been treated purely as one of a judicial character. Those who have heard the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, however favourable a view they take of it, must, I think, admit that there were introduced' into that speech things which had nothing whatever to do with the law, and did not at all treat this question as one of a judicial character. Probably we are all, or nearly all, agreed in deploring the views with regard to the Christian faith and with regard to the character or the existence of the Supreme Being, which are understood to be held by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). Now, if there is one thing more than another that we are required to do by the Christian faith, by its precepts, by our regard to the character of the Supreme Being, it is that we should do as far as we know that which is perfectly just with regard to one of our fellow-Members of this House. We—I speak for my right hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, the hon. and learned Attorney General, and myself—we discuss this question simply as a question of right and a question of law, and not with reference to our religious views. We know that many hon. Members on the other side of the House probably would, and those who represented that Party in past times would, have excluded all the Catholic Members of the House on grounds which to them appeared very strong, and we know also that they would have excluded all the Members of the small Society with which I am connected. When Mr. Pease came to the Table of this House, after the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, what did the House do? He said, "I cannot take the Oath," and further than that, "I cannot take the Affirmation in the words of the Oath." Well, the matter was referred to a Committee, and the Committee recommended to the House not only that

211
in his case the Oath should be dispensed with, but that he should be allowed to make an Affirmation, and that an essential portion of the Oath should be left out of the Affirmation. The House by its vote admitted him to sit among its Members; and some time afterwards, I do not recollect how long, the law was altered so as to admit those of his sect, and of two or three other sects, whose names are familiar to us all. The House there proceeded in a manner which should recommend itself to all persons in the country and to all persons in the House whose minds are not distorted by what I may call strong religious feeling and fanaticism, or what amounts to what I may call religious passion. I know that when a thing is passed some 30 or 40 years ago we can look back upon it with cooler minds than when the facts are transpiring before us. The noble Lord who has spoken said he should be sorry to see anything in the shape of an Inquisition established by Parliament; but unless you take care what you are doing in this case you will endeavour, by a vote of this House, to establish an Inquisition. And if you are entitled to obstruct what I call the right of a Member of the House to take his seat on account of his religious belief, because it happens to be the belief or no belief ho has openly professed, what reason is there that any Member of the House—I will not mention the name, but a very distinguished name will occur to the mind of many Members—what objection would there be, if that Gentleman was now in the House, that he should be asked the question which the hon. Member for Portsmouth would put, and that if he did not answer the question in the way the hon. Member thinks he should answer it, you should then be at liberty to object to his taking his seat amongst us. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken. I want to call attention to the position in which he stands in this matter. The other night he agreed to the appointment of a Committee. So I understand from what appeared in the Papers. The question was this—whether an hon. Gentleman coming to this Table should be compelled to take the Oath, or whether he should be permitted to make an Affirmation. Some people think Affirmations are no good, and that Oaths are a great good. I do not think there is much good in either of them.
212
But there is one thing I believe most profoundly, that there is nothing among mankind that has more tended to destroy truthfulness than the forcing of men to take an oath. Well, but the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer judged, to my mind, very wisely. He said, This is a question of law, and the House is not competent to decide upon a question of law of this kind. It is not a question of voting; it is a question of statute law; and, therefore, he agreed to a Motion from this side of the House that it would be desirable that the House should divest itself of this matter, and not try to assume a judicial function, but should refer the matter to a Committee, which should carefully inquire into it. I was on that Committee. I was one of the minority. There were four eminent lawyers on one side, and three or four on the other. The question was very delicate, as the House well saw, and perhaps difficult to determine; but the question being referred to the Committee, the Committee decided, and by a majority of one vote, which was furnished from this side of the House, that the hon. Member for Northampton could not, according to law, make an Affirmation. Are you now to turn your backs upon that argument of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to questions of law? Are you to say that it was necessary for a Committee to determine what was the law in that case, but that tonight, when it is a question whether a Member duly elected can take his seat unless he agrees with all the things you have put into the Oath which you require him to take; that you will decide by a multitudinous vote of the House that you will have no legal opinion, no reference to a Committee of judicious and eminent Members, selected from both sides, but will dare to come to a decision, though it may be absolutely contrary to the statute law which you yourselves have been parties heretofore in making? It appears to me the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is inconsistent to an amazing degree, because, if it was right the other night to agree to a Committee to determine whether a Member could take an Affirmation instead of an Oath, surely it is fair to ask that the House should agree to a Committee with the view of ascertaining whether, according to law

213
—and that is the question—the hon. Member for Northampton may be allowed to take an Oath at this Table. Now, I have no right to speak of the hon. Member for Northampton. I think it never happened to mo more than once to address to him a single sentence, or to hoar any expression from him. I never saw him, to my knowledge, but once before he appeared in this House; but ho is returned hero by a largo constituency, and by a large majority, to whom his religious opinions were as well known as they are now to us. All the means that men could take—that the hon. Member for Portsmouth would have taken—to explain, and, if possible, to exaggerate what we call the sorrowful parts of Mr. Brad-laugh's views, were taken to make the whole of the electors of Northampton fully cognisant of his views. And yet ho was elected, and he comes to this House; and without a Committee, without any legal inquiry, without any calm consideration and examination, you are asked to shut him out from this House because the Oath which you ask him to take is not, in a certain portion of it, binding on his conscience. Now, I have no doubt whatever, though I have no authority to say so, that the Oath as it stands is binding on the conscience of the hon. Member for Northampton in the sense that an Affirmation would be binding on his conscience, that the words of the Oath, so far as they are a promise, are words which would be binding upon him, but that their binding character is not increased by the reference to the Supreme Being, of whose existence, unhappily, as we all think—such is the constitution of his mind, and such has been the constitution of many eminent minds of whom we all have heard—he is not able to form that distinct opinion and belief which we, who I think are more happy, have been able to do. Therefore, if he were to come to the Table and take the Oath as it is, and as he proposes to take it, I have no doubt that it would be binding on his conscience as my simple Affirmation is binding on mine; because in my Affirmation there is no reference to the Deity. I make a promise. My word is as good, and taken to be as good, as your Oath. And that is declared by an irrevocable Act of Parliament. And if Mr. Brad-laugh take this Oath, as ho proposed to
214
take it, I have no doubt that, though the last words of the Oath have no binding effect upon him, yet his sense of honour and his conscience would make that declaration as binding on him as my Affirmation is on me and as your Oath is on you. The question is—What should the House do? I think it would have been much better if we had not opened the inquisition of which the hon. Member opposite spoke; but having opened it, clearly, if we can put ourselves forward six or 12 months, we should be able to discover that we should be very much wiser to take some mode of deliberate or careful examination be-fore the House shall come to any definite conclusion upon a question which, on that Bench and on this, is declared to be one of the most delicate, and, perhaps, one of the most difficult, that has ever been submitted to Parliament with regard to the rights of any of its Members. If you take the course which the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin seem to recommend, you will launch yourselves immediately into a sea of troubles. You recollect the case of Wilkes. You know to what degree of humiliation the Crown and Parliament were brought by the conduct of Parliament in that case; and now, if you take the advice of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, supported by the converted opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I said before, you launch yourselves on a sea of trouble. You come into conflict with a great constituency. I know not whether you will declare the seat vacant; but if you do, I need not tell you that it would soon be filled again, and that the contest and the difficulty would again be presented to you. Would it not be better now that you should take the advice of the First Minister of the Crown, whose experience has extended over so many years, whose devotion to the Christian faith is at least not less than that of any Gentleman opposite, and whose anxiety to support the dignity of the Crown and the honour and the influence and the dignity of Parliament cannot be called in question by anyone in this House or in this country. Would it not be better to take the advice which ho has tendered to the House, which will allow you a fair op-

215
portunity for calm consideration and for a wise and a righteous judgment? I think the House of Commons will stand badly with the whole nation and with history if it should determine, on the case before us, to shut the door irrevocably against the hon. Member for Northampton, to adopt the proposition of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and to reject what I think is the statesmanlike and judicious course which has been suggested to us by the First Minister of the Crown.
MR. GRANTHAMthought the subject which had been brought forward was one of the most important that had been mentioned in Parliament for many years, and one which the House ought to determine for itself, instead of relegating it to any Committee which might be appointed. The charge of inconsistency brought against his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) was unfounded. The point the other night was one of law, which very properly was referred to a Committee; but the present question was altogether different. It had nothing to do with judicial or legal rights at all; but it was whether a Member should be allowed to take an Oath which he himself had openly declared would have no binding effect on his conscience. They had it on record that the hon. Member for Northampton declared in a Court of Law that he did not believe in the Deity or in a future state of rewards and punishments; and that being so, the House was in a position at once to come to the conclusion that he ought not to be permitted to take the Oath. Her Majesty's Government ought, however, to have taken that responsibility upon themselves, and not to have thrown it upon the shoulders of their opponents.
MR. WALTERrose to throw out a suggestion towards the solution of the difficult and delicate subject, as it had been properly described, under consideration—the only solution, in his opinion, which he believed to be practicable, and towards which he was quite sure the discussion tended. If the vote which he was about to give turned upon the question whether or not the hon. Member for Northampton should be permitted to go to the Table and take the Oath, to which ho had openly declared he attached no value, he, for one, should decline to sanction his doing so. But
216
that was not the question, and he said so because he thought that so long as the House required its Members to declare their allegiance to the Crown under the sanction of an Oath, it ipso facto constituted itself the guardian of that outward decency and respect, at all events, with which such a solemn ceremony should be regarded. But his opinion was, and had long been, tending in the direction indicated in the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), that the time had come when they ought to consider, as he was sure they would yet consider, whether their allegiance to the Crown was at all strengthened by that form, whether a simple Affirmation, which every Member should take, would not be equally satisfactory. There was all the difference in the world between taking an oath to keep a certain promise and taking an oath in a Court of Justice with regard to a matter of fact, of which the person who took the oath was possibly the only witness. Substantially, they had no oath in the most solemn transaction which any one of them could perform — namely, the making of what was called the marriage vow. The obligation of that vow was not contracted under any form of oath; and he was of opinion that if a Member of that House was guilty of breaking the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, ho would be liable to be prosecuted in a Court of Justice, not for perjury, but for treason, or sedition, or some offence of that kind. He thought, therefore, it would be apparent to everyone that the analogy of an oath in a Court of Justice did not hold with regard to a promise of the character they made in that House; and he would vote for the appointment of the Committee simply and solely in the hope that its deliberations would tend to that conclusion, by which alone he believed the question could be settled in a manner at once honourable and satisfactory to them all.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was afraid he could not admit that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) to substitute a promise for an oath would entirely meet the delicacy of such a situation as the present. As an Irish Catholic, he always listened with pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John

217
Bright), and ho had not listened with any displeasure to his reminder that it was the Liberal Party which had emancipated the consciences of Catholics; hut ho certainly thought there was something more than poetic justice in the Act, for if ho read history aright the penal laws were the work of Whig Parliaments. The right hon. Gentleman deprecated the introduction of heated terms into the discussion; hut as ho had heard the right hon. Gentleman use words such as fanaticism and the like, he gladly concluded that the vigour of youth still burnt under the snows of his venerated and honoured age. In venturing to interpose in the former discussion, he thought ho was entitled to protest against the seemingly evasive manner in which the question was attempted to be met. It was, indeed, a difficult and delicate question, not only for the hon. Member for Northampton and the interesting electors of Northampton, but for the party which would evidently desire to get out of the difficulty by a side door. He entertained a sincere admiration for the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government; but he confessed that at times he felt that the resources of the right hon. Gentleman's mind enabled him to draw distinctions sometimes too fine for ordinary individuals, and on other occasions to ignore broad facts which struck the sense of almost all the rest of the world. In looking to the terms of the proposed Committee suggested to the House by the right hon. Gentleman, he could not but think that they distinctly ignored some broad facts which were patent to most of them. The question before the House was not as to the case of a man, sceptic, or Atheist, who came up and took the regulation Oath, considering it a merely idle and meaningless formality, but who did not obtrude his infidelity upon the House; it was that of a man who did so, and by doing so imposed upon the Legislature a corresponding duty. When the elected of Northampton claimed to make an Affirmation he gave the House references, and they were entitled to follow those references. The hon. Member referred the House to the Law Courts, before which on several questions, more or less savoury, he was required to appear. They were, then, entitled to go to the Law Courts, and
218
to learn the ground on which he claimed the right to make an affirmation; and the 'ground was that an oath was not binding on his conscience, as he did not believe in God or in the sanctions of morality, and that, at any rate, his word would be quite equal to his oath under any circumstances. The House had resorted to the records of the Law Courts on other occasions. He had referred before now to the case of the county of Tipperary and its election of the eminent Nationalist, John Mitchel, by an overwhelming majority. The House, nevertheless, went to the records of the Law Courts, according to which he had been convicted of felony, and very little regard was shown for the position in which the electors of Tipperary were placed. In this case, the House had similar rights and equal duties. He would not venture to prejudge the ultimate decision of Parliament when this question was brought fairly before it; but he protested against any attempt to keep the real question from coming before the House. He had great respect for a special Committee; ho had listened with the greatest interest to the Attorney General's description of the peculiar sanctity attaching to a special Committee, on which the legal element would be largely represented. Even with regard to the proceedings of the late Committee on another branch of the subject, it was a matter of public remark that those intensely legal consciences seemed to be largely following in the groove of well-known political convictions. With his opinions, he would have much more confidence in the result of a special Committee on this subject proposed by the present Government with the apprehensions which actuated them if, with a good majority on the Committee, the return of Mr. Bradlaugh had been previously secured. This was a most grave and difficult question; it was one of serious responsibility, which concerned the House on all sides. It was easy to say that a Gentleman had been returned by a constituency; but still the Government had said nothing to justify the belief that a wish expressed by an overwhelming majority of the Irish constituencies would be received forthwith as having the force of law by the united Liberal Party. Were they to suppose that any person pursuing any occupation, possessing any

219
kind of reputation, getting in for a constituency, under any auspices, was forthwith entitled in all cases to come into that House, even when he declared that the Forms of the House were an idle and meaningless mockery? Suppose that a man of unevitable notoriety, who went round the country preaching the most subversive and the most disgusting doctrines, dubious as his trade and calling were, felt it necessary, as more honest traffickers did, to obtain a larger advertisement; and suppose it occurred to that man, while still maintaining his pretences and audacity before his customers, that it would be a useful advertisement for that sort of business to be able to affix to his name the honourable designation of a Member of this Imperial Parliament upon the title-page of some vile and abominable pamphlet that was sold in the bye-ways and lanes of our great cities, that was addressed not only to the mature judgment of men and women, but was thrust by nameless agents into the hands of youths and maidens of tender years, that inculcated practices of the foulest debauchery upon the youngest and most susceptible minds, that, appealing to the community at largo, would reduce Christian, Jewish, and human wedlock and human love to something lower than the union of beast and beast; and suppose it occurred to this man that ho would be able to obtain that advertisement by writing in some paper of large circulation that he would only consider the Forms of the House as a meaningless mockery. This was what was involved in the casuistry of the responsible Government of a Christian people that such an open announcement of a most immoral course was to pass muster in that House with the oaths and solemn affirmations of honourable men. The subject was one which demanded at least the most mature and deliberate consideration. The Amendment submitted bore all the traces of a keen forensic mind engaged in turning corners; and in so grave a matter it ought to have been printed and placed in their hands, so that they might have had full time to consider it and propose Amendments. He felt strongly on the point; he felt sure his interference would not be resented by any Member; and for the reasons he had given he concluded by moving the adjournment of the debate.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLseconded the Motion, remarking that the hon. Member who had moved it had had a good deal of experience in moving adjournments; but he thought on the present occasion his experience and his judgment had guided him rightly. If the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had been able beforehand to place this Resolution on the Order Books of the House it would have been far more convenient, for there could be no doubt that when the Resolution and Amendment were in print various Amendments would suggest themselves to hon. Members on both sides of the House, which would lead to an important debate. He thought that, under these circumstances, the best course to pursue would be to adjourn this debate, in order that the subject might be fully considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
MR. GLADSTONE: I do not believe it would have been competent for the hon. Member for Portsmouth to have communicated his intentions to the House, and naturally it would have been still less competent for me to have given Notice of mine. Her Majesty's Government had no intention of interfering with the regular and usual course of proceeding; but the subject raised by the hon. Gentleman, a subject of the utmost gravity, has undoubtedly come before us for consideration. I regret there should be any indisposition to take the first step of dealing with the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth; yet I cannot deny the force of the arguments of hon. Members who desire further to consider the precise bearing of the subject, and, although it is an inconvenience, I will not take upon myself the responsibility of resisting the proposed adjournment. My desire is to obtain a careful consideration of all the steps we take, for the House may be in considerable danger if it takes a false stop; and, therefore, I shall not oppose the Motion for adjournment.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFagreed that an adjournment was desirable; but he hoped the debate might be resumed at the earliest opportunity.
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned till Monday next.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEdesired to ask a question, not that he had any doubt on the subject, but in order to satisfy the minds of others; and it was whether, in the present position of the question, the hon. Member for Northampton would be admissible to take the Oath until the debate was concluded?
MR. SPEAKER: I certainly should think it my duty to object to the hon. Member for Northampton taking the Oath until the debate is concluded.
Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.

QUESTIONS.

  FOREIGN POWERS—MR. GLADSTONE'S LETTER TO THE AUSTRIAN AMBASSADOR.
  MR. FORESTERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether ho has any objection to state the name of the Foreign Power or Powers alluded to in the following paragraph of his letter of the 4th of May, addressed to the Austrian Ambassador and laid upon the Table of this House:—
  "At the moment when I accepted from the Queen the duty of forming an Administration, I forthwith resolved that I would not, as a Minister, either repeat, or even defend in argument, polemical language in regard to more than one Foreign Power which I had used individually when in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility."
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also allow me to ask if he addressed to the Ambassadors of those Powers a similar letter to that addressed to the Austrian Ambassador?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no difficulty whatever in answering the Question of the hon. Member. The Power to which I alluded was Russia, and if the hon. Gentleman is desirous to have more particular information, I will not read the passage; but I can give him a general reference, which will, perhaps, be sufficient for his purpose. He will find the language to which I referred in an article published in The Nineteenth Century, dated January 19, 1879; and though I do not wish to repeat anything that refers to the past conduct of a foreign Power from which I, and many who think with me, may have differed, I
  222
  may say that the general purport of that article is to show that in all cases, excepting with reference to the case of Turkey and the subject-races of Turkey, the conduct of Russia has been generally adverse to liberty in Europe, and has, whether on that account or not, at any rate as a matter of fact generally, attracted and received great sympathy from the Tory Party of this country. No remonstrance whatever was made to me from any other quarter than the friendly representation of the Austrian Ambassador; and therefore I have not given any similar letter.

  TREATY OF WASHINGTON—THE FISHERY ARTICLES.
  MR. BROWNasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If ho will lay upon the Table the Correspondence which has passed between the American Government, the Dominion of Canada, the Foreign Office, and the Colonial Office, with respect to the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington and the disputes which have arisen respecting them?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir; Her Majesty's Government propose to lay upon the Table very soon the Papers upon this subject, and the matter is receiving their attention. If my hon. Friend will ask me again in a few days I will tell him exactly what Papers it is proposed to lay on the Table.

AFGHANISTAN—THE WAR.
MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary of State for India, What measures Her Majesty's Government intend adopting for the purpose of bringing about a speedy termination of the War in Afghanistan; further, if he will be good enough to inform the House what number of troops, British and Native, are now engaged in the War; and, also, the approximate cost of the Campaign down to the present time?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: With the permission of the House, I will answer the two latter Questions of my hon. Friend first. He asks me what number of troops, British and Native, are now engaged in the war? It would be evidently undesirable that I should give any detailed account of the distribution of the Forces now employed in

223
Afghanistan; but I do not think there can be any harm in stating, generally, that the force, including the reserves, now employed in warlike operations in Afghanistan, including also the garrison at Peshawur, which usually amounts to 5,000 men, numbers altogether nearly 60,000 British and Native troops. As to the expense down to the present time, I am afraid if I were to give the House any information of any value I should have to enter into longer details than is usual in answer to a Question. However, it may be convenient that the House should know at the earliest possible moment what is, according to our present information, the approximate cost of the war down to the present time. The cost of the whole military operations in 1878-9, according to the actual accounts, was £676,380; in 1879-80, according to the regular Estimate prepared in February last, the cost was —in India, £3,033,400; in England, £174,480, making a total of £3,207,880. In 1880-81, according to information we have received in a telegram dated 20th April, it is estimated the cost this year will be as follows: — In India, for February and March, for sums not brought into the account until the present year, £750,000 per month, that would be £1,500,000; for April and May, £500,000 per month. That brings it up to the present time as a total of £2,500,000, and adding £20,000 spent in England, the whole cost up to the present time for the present year would be £2,520,000. The total cost, therefore, from 1878 down to the present time amounts to £6,404,260. The telegram of April 20 does not, however, state whether the expenditure before February will fall into the New Year's accounts. In a private letter the arrears have been estimated at £2,250,000, which would involve an addition of £750,000, making a total cost for the whole war of £7,154,260, of which that of the present campaign would be £4,477,880. This is exclusive of the outlay on the frontier railways, determined upon after the outbreak of September, 1879, which is estimated for 1879-80 at £1,324,426, and for 1880-81 at £2,040,000—total, £3,364,426. As to the measures Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt to bring the war in Afghanistan to a termination, that is a question to which it would be impossible fur mo to give a
224
complete answer within the limits usually allowed to answers in this House. I can only state that Lord Ripon has gone out with full instructions and full knowledge of the intentions and wishes of Her Majesty's Government. It is the intention and anxious desire of Her Majesty's Government to bring the warlike operations in Afghanistan and the occupation of any part of Afghanistan to a close at the earliest possible moment. Negotiations are and have for some time been in progress with the object of inducing the Sirdars and people of Afghanistan to elect for themselves a Ruler at Cabul, whose authority may have some prospect of permanence and continuance. It is hoped that if such a Ruler can be found, the evacuation of Afghanistan and the termination of military operations may commence very speedily; and it is, I need not assure the House, the most anxious desire of the Government and of the Governor General that these proceedings should be brought to a close with as little delay as possible.

IRELAND—THE DUKE OF ABERCORN'S DONEGAL ESTATES.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I bog leave to ask the honourable Member for Donegal, in reference to a Question which has stood in his name for three weeks upon the Notice Paper, imputing to a Peer, contrary to the privileges of this House, an improper interference with the Parliamentary Voters upon his estates, If it is now his intention to ask that Question, which runs as follows:—
"To ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if it is true that, since the General Election, the Duke of Abercorn has issued notices to quit upon the tenants of his estates in Donegal;"
and, if so, when he proposes to ask it?
MR. LEA: In answer to the Question of the noble Lord I wish to take this opportunity of stating that when I gave Notice of the Question considerable excitement existed in Donegal and the neighbouring counties, from notices to quit, which were described in the Press as "wholesale," and about which there was a widespread belief that such notices would be general, and were consequent upon the result of the late General Election. Hence I was informed that it was very desirable that

225
some public statement should be made by which the true facts might come to light, and by which the general anxiety should be relieved, and I knew of no better plan than by applying to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. From inquiries that have since been made, I find that the notices to quit were only in certain districts on the noble Duke's estate —26 or 27 being served in the village of St. Johnstone—and I think it only just and fair to the noble Duke to state that those evictions do not appear to have had the slightest connection with the result of the General Election. Under these circumstances, as the noble Lord has given me an opportunity to make this statement, I do not intend to pursue the question further.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: As this is a personal question I wish, with the permission of the House, to add one or two words. The Question of the hon. Gentleman has attracted a great deal of notice in the North of Ireland; and in consequence of that Question a number of articles of a scurrilous nature have appeared, attributing all sorts of motives to the Duke of Abercorn, and charging him with giving wholesale notices to quit. His tenants number between 300 and 400, and it is needless for me to say that no notice of any kind whatever was issued on the Duke of Abercorn's tenants in consequence of the result of the General Election. His agent in this matter, who has had the management of this estate for 34 years, says there has not been a single eviction in any part of it during that time. In St. Johnstone certain improvements were desired by the tenants in the shape of cattle and corn markets, &c, and to carry out these and other improvements notices to quit were served on persons occupying for the most part tumbledown cottages. Not one of the occupiers was entitled to a vote through that occupation, and only two were qualified through other occupations, and their qualifications were in no wise interfered with. I would only add that if the hon. Member in future wishes— ["Order!"]—I only venture to suggest — ["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The House is always indulgent in any matter of personal explanation; but the noble Lord is not entitled to make any reflection on the hon. Member.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: If anybody wished to obtain any information concerning the management of the Duke of Abercorn's estate, he would be more likely to obtain it from primary than secondary sources.

TREATY OF BERLIN—THE GREEK FRONTIER.
MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress has been made towards securing the rectification of the Greco-Turkish frontier under the Berlin Treaty; and what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in regard to that question?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Papers were laid on the Table yesterday, and will be distributed immediately, showing the point which the negotiations on this subject had reached when the late Government left Office. The direct negotiations between the Turkish and Greek Governments having led to no result, the Powers agreed in March last, on the proposal of Lord Salisbury, that an International Commission should be appointed to examine the Frontier on the spot, whose decision should be by a majority and should be conclusive. This Commission has not been appointed owing to difficulties raised by the Porte; but Her Majesty's Government have invited the concert of the Powers to bring the whole question to an early solution.

BREACH OF PROMISE — LEGISLATION.
COLONEL MAKINSasked Mr. Solicitor General, If he intends to bring in a Bill to abolish actions at law for Breach of Promise of Marriage?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL), in reply, said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would at once understand that it was not now in his power to introduce a Bill amending the law in this respect unless it be one determined upon by Her Majesty's Government; and he was not aware that the subject to which the Question referred had been at all under their consideration. He did not think, with the pressing matters occupying their attention, any Bill on the subject would be introduced this Session.

THE GOVERNOR GENERAL OF INDIA— THE MARQUESS OF RIPON.
COLONEL BARNEasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Protestant Bishops and Clergy in India will have to take orders and directions from the Marquess of Ripon, who is a Roman Catholic?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have not been able to ascertain that the Protestant Bishops and Clergy in India will have to take orders and directions from the Governor General on any matters connected with their spiritual functions. It is true that certain directions and orders have to he given by the Government in regard to matters of administration; but it may be some consolation to the hon. and gallant Member to know that they cannot be given by the Governor General alone, but will have to be given by the Governor General in Council.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—PRESENCE OF TROOPS.
MR. SAVILE FOLJAMBEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state to the House at whose request troops were sent from Manchester to Whitwell, in Derbyshire, on the occasion of the recent Election for East Bet-ford; whether it is usual to send troops into the neighbourhood of a polling-place on the day of Election without a requisition from the magistrates, or a declaration from the chief constable that the civil force at his disposal is insufficient to preserve order, and that he cannot be responsible for the peace; and, whether, under these circumstances, it is intended to charge the district or the county with the expense of moving the troops and maintaining them at Whitwell for several days?
MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that if he will move for the Papers they shall be presented. They will show more clearly than can be shown in a verbal reply under what circumstances troops were sent from Manchester to Whitwell on the occasion in question. As to the second Question, I may say that it is not usual to send troops to the neighbourhood of polling-places without a requisition from the magistrates or other local
228
civil authority. As to the third Question, it is not intended to make any charge against the district or county.

LAW AND JUSTICE—THE SOUTHPORT MAGISTRATES.
MR. A. ARNOLDasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether it is true that his predecessor, having on the 9th March last requested the Town Council of Southport to furnish a list of names representing "an equality of political opinions" from which he might select gentlemen to be placed upon a Commission of the Peace for that borough, received the names of eight Liberals and eight Conservatives, and on April 14th sent the Commission, bearing the names of eleven Conservatives and four Liberals; only one of the Conservatives named by the Council being selected, and the four Liberals being the Mayor and three gentlemen who were already in the Commission of the Peace for the county of Lancaster?
MR. JOHN BRIGHT: The statement made by my hon. Friend, as far as I have been able to ascertain, is, I believe, perfectly correct. I make no comment upon it whatsoever, except that I think I am justified in stating that the appointments have created great surprise and great disappointment in the borough of Southport.
COLONEL TAYLOR: Early in March I was made aware by the Home Office that it was intended to make Southport a borough under the Municipal Corporations Act. The usual letter was sent to the Town Council of Southport requesting them to send a list of those persons whom they desired to be made magistrates, from which the Chancellor of the Duchy might select certain names. The names were sent in about a fortnight later, but only such a number as would suffice for the population of the town; and the politics of the 14 persons whose names were sent in were not stated. I made it my business to get information from other sources, and from gentlemen possessing ample local knowledge, and in whom I have the utmost confidence; and the result was that on the 14th of April I signed a Commission appointing 14 gentlemen, five of whom were among the number sent in by the Town Council. The practice observed

229
in the Southport case is according to all precedent. Since I learned that this Question was to be asked by the hon. Member for Salford, I made it my business to institute fresh inquiries, and I am satisfied that my appointments were most excellent, and I am confident that every name will bear the closest inspection.

AUSTRIA—ME. GLADSTONE'S SPEECH —THE CORRESPONDENCE.
MR. RITCHIEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Letter of the Austrian Ambassador to him, his reply to which has been furnished to the Members of the House?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have given readily whatever information was in my power by the publication of my own letter, but I am not master of the letters of the Austrian Ambassador; and I have not received from the Austrian Ambassador any intimation of his desire that those letters should be made public. As far as I know his view, he does not consider them of such a nature as to require or warrant that step. I believe that in my letter I recited textually and accurately the parts that are material.
MR. RITCHIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if ho has made any application to the Austrian Ambassador as to whether ho has any objection to his letter being published along with the answer?
MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I have made no such application. I believe, however, the matter has been before the Austrian Ambassador; and, if ho in any way had wished for the publication of his letter, he would have had no difficulty in making his will known to me. I should certainly not feel justified in exercising any pressure in the matter.

TREATY OF BERLIN—THE MONTENEGRIN FRONTIER.
MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the present condition of affairs between Turkey and Montenegro as far as concerns the rectification of the Frontiers of those Countries upon the lines laid down by the Treaty of Berlin?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: An International Commission met last year and dealt with the boundary from the sea by the Scutari Lake up to the vicinity of Gussinje. This portion of the Frontier was settled as far as was practicable, but could not be finally determined until the question of an exchange of territory, which was started while the Commission was at work, should be arranged. An agreement under which the inland district of Gussinje-Plava is left to Turkey in exchange for the district of Kuni Kraina, known as the Corti compromise, was signed at Constantinople on the 12th of April; and a Protocol sanctioning this modification of the Treaty was signed by the Ambassadors at Constantinople on the 18th of April. The Porte proceeded on the 22nd to evacuate the positions to be ceded under this agreement; but before they could be taken possession of by the Montenegrins they were occupied by an Albanian force. The Montenegrins have made no attempt to take the positions by force, and negotiations are now going on which, it is hoped, may lead to a peaceful solution of this difficulty. The International Commission met according to agreement on the 1st instant; but the Prince of Montenegro has refused to allow his Commissioner to take part in the proceedings until the Albanian difficulty is settled, and the Commission has not yet resumed its labours.

INDIA (FINANCE).
MR. LAINGasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, in view of the grave errors discovered in the Financial Statement of the Government of India, he proposes to make any statement as to the actual financial position of India, and the amount and nature of the aid, if any, to be given by England towards defraying the cost of the Afghan War; and, if so, whether he can indicate any date when it is probable that such statement may be made?
MR. BAXTERasked the Secretary of State for India, If it is true that a very serious error has been made in estimating the expenses of the War in Afghanistan; that the Indian Financial Statement of the year, instead of showing a surplus, as was represented, will exhibit a very heavy deficit; if he is in a position to inform the House what the true

231
figures are, when the mistake was discovered in India, and on what date information was received of it by the Government at home; and, if he can further state what is the estimated monthly cost of the present campaign?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is a fact that the Viceroy has telegraphed from India to the effect that the cost of the Afghan War has been seriously under-estimated; and it is now stated that the charge for that war for the year 1880-81 will probably exceed the Estimate by about £4,000,000. In that case, the anticipated surplus of £417,000 will be turned into a deficit of nearly £3,000,000. The present monthly expenditure is estimated at £500,000. I am asked at what date these facts became known to the Home Government? The addition of £3,500,000 or £4,000,000 to the Estimates was announced in a telegram of the 20th of April as likely if the war continued for six months on the present scale; but a telegram of the 23rd of March had led to the belief that some excess was anticipated beyond the Estimates, and one of the 8th of April spoke of the outlay for the war as very alarming, and as far exceeding the Estimates. The communications that have passed between the Government of India and the Government at home have been, up to the present time, chiefly carried on by telegraph, although my Predecessor had already forwarded two important despatches to the Government of India on the subject. I expect that by the 26th of this month a despatch of an explanatory character will be received from the Government of India, and as soon as that despatch is received I propose to lay all the Papers that I possess upon the Table; and I hope the House will not be disposed to enter into any detailed discussion of this question until we are in possession of that information. I have received a telegram during the last day or two which leads me to believe that a further despatch—the receipt of which we cannot expect until the 10th of June—will contain further explanations, which the Government of India consider necessary. Under these circumstances, it will probably not be possible for me to make any statement as to the financial position of India until that despatch has been received; but I do not think it would be right to delay the production of the Papers any further
232
than till the receipt of the despatch which we expect on the 26th of May. I trust, however, that the House will be willing to postpone any formal discussion of this important question until the fullest information has been received from the Government of India.

PARLIAMENT—THE VACANT SEATS.
MR. WARTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill for the purpose of filling the Six Seats now vacant in this House; and, if so, when?
MR. GLADSTONE: This Question has not been under the consideration of the Government since they came into Office; but I venture to inform the hon. Gentleman that it is extremely unlikely we shall make any proposal on the subject during the present Session.

THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the office held by the late Lord Hampton is still vacant; and, if so, whether effect will now be given to the repeated expressions of opinion in this House by abolishing the office?
MR. GLADSTONE: Her Majesty's Government have considered the subject of this Question, and they have arrived at the conclusion that, in the existing state of affairs on the one hand, it is not desirable to abolish the office held by the late Lord Hampton; on the other hand, that the nature of the duties attaching to that office are not such as would warrant them in asking Parliament to vote a salary for the holder of it. Consequently, they have made arrangements which they are satisfied will secure the perfectly efficient discharge of the duties of the office. It is proposed—indeed, it has already been arranged—that Lord Enfield should become the head of the Commission in succession to Lord Hampton.

CYPRUS—TRANSFER TO THE COLONIAL OFFICE.
MR. RYLANDSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to transfer the administra

233
tion of Cyprus from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office, in accordance with the views expressed by Earl Granville on 21st March 1879?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Government have decided that a transfer of the administration of Cyprus shall be made from the Foreign to the Colonial Office; but there are some questions pending which had better be treated by the Foreign Office before the transfer is finally made. My noble Friend the Secretary of State hopes that the transfer may be accomplished before October, when the Estimates have to be prepared.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE CAPE COLONY-SIR BARTLE FRERE.
MR. DILLWYNasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is intended to continue Sir Bartle Frere in his post as Governor of the Cape Colonies?
MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that Sir Bartle Frere is now engaged in work of an entirely different kind from that on which he was engaged when the events occurred which led to the debate of March, 1879. Some time after that debate Sir Garnet Wolseley was appointed High Commissioner for Natal, the Transvaal, and all the adjoining territories north and south of those Colonies, including, of course, Zululand. His powers are continued to Sir George Colley, who was appointed by the late Government, and who will proceed to South Africa on the 28th. As regards the Cape Colony, Her Majesty's Government think it expedient that Sir Bartle Frere should remain for the present for the purpose of the work on which he is now specially engaged—namely, the promotion of a confederation of the South African Colonies.

NAVY—LOSS OF HER MAJESTY'S SHIP"ATALANTA."
MR. OTWAY (for Mr. GOURLEY)asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, to be good enough to inform the House the nature of the instructions issued to the commanders of the vessels ordered to cruize in search of Her Majesty's missing Training Ship "Atalanta;" and, if the Commander of the North American
234
Squadron has been requested to cruize in the course of the Gulf Stream, between the islands of Bermuda and Newfoundland, and, as far as practicable, all navigable approaches in the neighbourhood of the St. Lawrence; also, how Her Majesty's Ship "Atalanta" was ballasted, and if any and what proportion of the ballast consisted of moveable fresh water tanks?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: As soon as the late Board of Admiralty became alarmed about the safety of the Atalanta, they despatched the Salamis on the 13th of April from Gibraltar, with instructions to proceed to the Azores, and to inquire among the Islands of that group for any trace of the missing ship. On the same day the Channel Fleet started for the same destination, with orders to cruise from the Azores homeward to Bantry Bay on the track of vessels coming from Bermuda. The Squadron left Fayal, after receiving a report of the fruitless search of the Salamis on the 25th of February. Whenever the state of the weather permitted, the ships were placed in line abreast in extended order, and a good look-out was kept; but not the slightest trace of anything belonging to the Atalanta was found. The Fleet arrived at Berehaven on the 9th of May. On the 5th of May the Blanche was instructed to sail from Bermuda, and to cruise to the northward and eastward of the banks of Newfoundland. The French and Danish Governments were also requested to obtain any information from their cruises off Iceland and the Farce Islands. In the meantime, however, information of a very full character had gradually been accumulating at the Admiralty, obtained from the logs of vessels arriving in England and ports in the North of Europe, as to the state of the weather on the track of the Atalanta in February last. No less than 42 such logs have been examined, and they all show that between the 11th and 16th of February terrific gales occurred over a great extent of that part of the Atlantic. The various positions of these vessels on the 11th and 12th of February have been marked on a chart, giving also the state of the weather reported; and they show very distinctly the range of these gales. The vessel most nearly on the track of the Atalanta was the Norwegian barque Caspaei, on a voyage from New Orleans

235
to Falmouth. This vessel was in the longitude of Bermuda, and at no great distance, on the 3rd of February, three days after the Atalanta sailed from that Island. On the 12th she met with a most terrific gale, the worst her master had ever encountered. She was thrown on her beam ends, and remained in this position for 19 hours, and was only saved from sinking by the bouyancy of her cargo. Her master significantly reported that many ships wore in sight at the commencement of the gale, and were unable to lay to on account of its suddenness. We may fairly assume that the Atalanta had the same wind and weather as the Norwegian barque, and on the 12th of February she must have been about 300 miles to the eastward of the barque, and exposed to the same terrific gale. Had the Atalanta, been simply dismasted by the gale she could have rigged jury masts; and as we now know with certainty from the logs of the various vessels I have referred to, it is certain she must have been driven, even under the smallest amount of canvas, to the entrance of the channel by the end of February. Had she drifted about as a helpless wreck, she must still have been driven to the eastward, and must have passed over a part of the ocean which we know from various ships' logs was covered with shipping in the months of February and March, and could not have escaped observation. From the known state of the winds we are also justified in saying that she could not have drifted to the northward beyond the usual track of vessels on the Atlantic. The Blanche, however, is still searching for traces of her to the northward and eastward of the banks of Newfoundland. I may add here that the Admiralty have received from Lloyd's a list of 18 vessels which sailed from various ports in North America in January and February, and which are now missing and supposed to have foundered in the gales I have referred to. After a most careful consideration of all the facts thus brought under their notice, the Admiralty have come to the conclusion, which I state to the House with the deepest regret and the greatest sympathy for the relatives of those on board the Atalanta, that there is no longer any ground whatever for hope of the safety of the Atalanta or of her gallant officers and men. It is quite possible some small trace of the
236
vessel may yet be picked up by the numerous vessels that pass over her track; and, with a view of encouraging search, the Admiralty have offered a reward of £200 to anybody who may find and report to the Admiralty any such trace. On Monday, in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox), I will state to the House the nature of the inquiry which it is proposed to hold on the Atalanta, and I hope to be able to give the names of those who will serve on the inquiry. I will also to-morrow place in the Library a copy of the chart to which I have referred. I think a careful examination of it must justify the conclusions to which the Admiralty have so unwillingly come. At the date of the last report from the Atalanta, December 31, 1878, she had on board 40½ tons of iron ballast and about 2½ tons of cement. She would carry 109 tons of water in iron tanks, which weighed from 24 to 25 tons. These tanks were firmly fixed in the hold, and each tank could be filled up with salt water when the fresh water had been expended.
MR. OTWAYfurther inquired whether the Papers included any survey which was made of the ship?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No doubt the Committee of Inquiry will investigate that among other matters.

LIGHTS FOB FISHING VESSELS.
MR. BIRKBECKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will) grant a Select Committee, as promised by the late President, to inquire into the proposed Regulations for Lights for Fishing Vessels, and the objections urged against them by the fishing interest?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, the Regulations referred to had been very carefully considered by the Board of Trade, and had been the subject of negotiation with other maritime nations, by whom they were approved. It appeared, however, that his Predecessor, the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon), not only promised a Committee to consider the objections taken to the Regulations by some of the fishermen, but also arranged that the operation of the Regulations should be postponed till the year 1881. In these circumstances the proposed

237
Committee would not delay the operation of the Regulations; and, at the same time, it was desirable that the fishermen should feel assured that their objections had been fairly considered. Therefore, his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade would move the appointment of the Select Committee.

INDIA—THE VERNACULAR PRESS ACT AND THE LICENCES TAX.
MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is proposed to take immediate steps for the repeal of the Vernacular Press Act, India; and whether it is proposed to take immediate steps for the repeal of the Licences Tax, India?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I cannot give' any other' answer to the hon. Member than this—that those two important questions will have the immediate consideration of Lord Ripon on his arrival in India. Until he has had an opportunity of consulting his Council and forming his own judgment on the matter, I think it would be premature for the Government to come to any conclusion as to the repeal either of the Licences Tax or the Vernacular Press Act. I can only say that the whole matter will receive consideration.

TREATY OF BERLIN—THE MONTENEGRIN FRONTIER.
MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that the cession to Montenegro, under the Treaty of Berlin, of certain Albanian districts inhabited by Mahomedan tribes has been found hitherto impracticable owing to the objections of the population to be transferred to the Government of Prince Nikita, which they declared to be hostile to their race and religion; whether he is aware that in place of these Mahomedan districts it is now proposed to compensate the Montenegrin Prince by the cession of territories inhabited by various tribes of Catholic Albanians and others, who equally declare the Government of the Slave-Greek, Prince Nikita, to be hostile to their race and religion; whether Her Majesty's Government is not pledged to secure equal respect for the nationality and religion of all the inhabitants of the
238
Balkan Peninsula; and, whether he will assure the House that no cession or transfer of territory will be permitted to Montenegro which would do violence to the national and religious convictions of any section of the Albanian population—equally with Mahomedans and others?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, the subject was one of extreme importance, and was, at the present moment, the subject of repeated telegraphic communications between all the Powers. It would, therefore, be difficult for him to go into any details on the Questions asked by the hon. Member, and he must ask the hon. Member to excuse him from doing so. It was proposed to hand over some Catholic Albanians to Montenegro. At the same time, there were already a considerable number of Montenegrin subjects who were Catholics of the same race, and who were living on friendly terms with the other Montenegrin subjects. The reported compromise was agreed to by all the Powers of Europe before the present Government came into Office, and it had become equally binding on all the Powers that signed the Treaty of Berlin. The present Government, therefore, found themselves under the same obligations in regard to that point as they were under in regard to the other portions of that Treaty. In view of the difficulties which had arisen, Her Majesty's Government felt that they could only act in this matter in strict concert with the other Powers; and, at the present time, they were in concert with those Powers.

TELEGRAMS (INDIA).
MR. A. BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he can state the name of the official at the India Office who, "before the late Government had resigned," communicated to the Right honourable Gentleman the Postmaster General information as to the telegram from India received by Lord Cranbrook: and, if not, whether he will make enquiry into the matter?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have ascertained that the information which was the subject of the telegram was not received from any official. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) informs me that he found that the telegram had been the subject of common conversation

239
in Society, and that the information, whatever it was, appeared to be in possession of a great many persons. I have not thought it necessary to make any inquiry in the India Office as to the source of the information.
MR. A. BALFOUR: On Tuesday I shall ask the noble Lord, Whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent confidential communications between the Government of India and the Secretary of State in England becoming matters of common Club gossip?

THE ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
Report of Address brought up, and read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Address be now read a second time."
MR. A. BALFOURsaid, he did not desire to call attention to any particular passage in the Queen's gracious Speech; But he wished to put one or two questions to the Prime Minister, referring chiefly to the subject of Mr. Goschen's Mission to the Porte. In passing, he might say he had no intention of criticizing the expediency of the step thus taken; on the contrary, he saw a strong reason for the Government thus acting, especially when he remembered the attacks which the right hon. Gentleman had made on Sir Henry Layard when at Constantinople. That being so, he put his questions to the right hon. Gentleman in the hope of being reassured by him on one or two points which some of the utterances of the Prime Minister in the country seemed to render somewhat doubtful, and more particularly in reference to his criticisms upon Sir Henry Layard. It would appear, in the first place, that the object of Mr. Goschen's Mission was to induce the Porte to accept and carry into effect the Berlin Treaty. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked the Prime Minister a Question as to the nature of the pressure which was to be put upon the Porte; and the right hon. Gentleman was reported in The Times to have answered thus—
"With respect to the use of force, to "which reference was made in the speech of the Leader
240
of the Opposition, he may rest assured that Her Majesty's Government are a great deal too conscious of the gravity of all the principles and of all the results involved in such an idea to come to any conclusion of that kind, or to entertain any question of that kind, except when they are in the fullest possession of all the circumstances."
He understood from that reply that no immediate exercise of force was contemplated by Her Majesty's Government, but he could not conclude absolutely from it that they did not intend immediately to use a threat of force; and his ground for saying that was not the speech made by the Prime Minister last night, but the statements which had been made by that right hon. Gentleman at various times in regard to the policy which ought to be pursued towards Turkey. Those who had studied the right hon. Gentleman's utterances would know that he thought that in 1876 a solution of the Eastern Question might have been arrived at had the English Government, in concert with Europe, threatened Turkey with force unless she adopted certain reforms; and he had entertained the idea that if such a threat had been used the exercise of force would have been unnecessary. If the right hon. Gentleman imagined that in 1876 the Porte could have been coerced without difficulty and without danger of actual resort to force, he must hold that view still more strongly now, with Turkey in her present position. He had, therefore, listened with some alarm to the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman, because he saw in it a certain possibility that, although Her Majesty's Government did not intend to use force, they had no objection to threaten force, being under the firm conviction that the threat would never require to be carried into execution. That was the first question with regard to which he wished to have his anxiety allayed. But, further, he understood that Mr. Goschen was to deal with two subjects relating to Asia Minor. The first thing which had to be remedied was thus described by the Prime Minister—
"We do not desire to see foreign influences established in Turkey; we desire only to see the obligations of Turkey carefully and faithfully fulfilled under the sanction of European authority; but the separate foreign influence of this or of that Power we regard as a sure source of jealousy, disunion, or even of more acute mischief."

241
It appeared, then, that Mr. Goschen was, in the first place, to prevent or stop separate interference in the affairs of Turkey, and especially with respect to Turkey in Asia. He could, therefore, hardly believe that the Government did not intend greatly to modify, if not altogether to destroy, the Anglo-Turkish Convention. By that Convention the Turks were pledged to reform Asia Minor; we wore pledged, if they reformed it, to defend Asia Minor from Russia; and Cyprus was also given over to this country under the Convention. These three different provisions the present Prime Minister had, at various times, attacked in the country; but the two which he had attacked most violently were the cession of Cyprus and the defence of Asia Minor. When, therefore, he found the right hon. Gentleman directing his new special Ambassador at Constantinople to abrogate or modify the one provision of the Anglo-Turkish Convention which he had least criticized, he could not but believe that it was intended also to modify the others. If every provision except that by which we acquired Cyprus was to be modified, we might be left in the position of having obtained from the Turks what Gentlemen on his side of the House thought a valuable acquisition, and of having given nothing to them in return. Again, the Prime Minister said—
"There is also another impression, which lies deep in the minds of Ottoman statesmen, and which we are anxious to remove—the impression, namely, that England is disposed to trespass on Turkey's rights of sovereignty in Asia."
Therefore, we might be placed in this curious position—that Mr. Goschen would go to Constantinople to re-assure the Turks on the subject of their possessions in Asia Minor by telling them that we should no longer defend them from the only Power by which they were ever likely to be invaded. He quite admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had taught them that the statements which he made while an irresponsible candidate were not to be taken too literally when in Office; and, in a speech which the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday, he seemed to directly contradict the opinions he more than once expressed before large and popular audiences. But though he admitted that they ought not to regard these utterances as authoritative illus-
242
trations of policy now that the right hon. Gentleman was in Office, he could not altogether ignore them; and therefore it was that he asked the right hon. Gentleman to re-assure them on the points to which attention had been called.
MR. GLADSTONE: Apart from the questions which my hon. Friend put to me, there are a few remarks of his on which I offer an observation. In the first place, he said he was not surprised at the despatch of a special Ambassador to Turkey, when he recollected the attacks more than once made by me on the present Ambassador, Sir Henry Layard. He did not specify those attacks; he did not give me any means of reference to them. I should wish to know when and how those attacks were made. I do not wish to refer to a matter in which I have been, unfortunately, involved in a rather marked manner with Sir Henry Layard; but most certainly I am not aware that on any occasion I made any attack of that kind on Sir Henry Layard.
MR. A. BALFOURsaid, if he were asked to specify what he had in his mind he would state that he referred to an assertion more than once made by the right hon. Gentleman that Sir Henry Elliot and Sir Henry Layard induced the Porte to believe that England would support them in case of war, though all the official communications of Sir Henry Layard pointed to an opposite direction.
MR. GLADSTONE: I do not hold or adopt at all the language which my hon. Friend attributes to me; and I should be obliged if, when he charges me with making an attack on anyone, he will more carefully and accurately specify what I have done. I do not consider that what I did was to make an attack on Sir Henry Layard. I had referred to, and commented upon, a passage in a despatch of Sir Henry Layard —I am now obliged to refer to it from memory—in which he conveys to the world his own most conscientious belief that England has interests of so vital a character in the maintenance of the Turkish Empire that ultimate interference on behalf of Turkey would be a necessity of her position. I believe I refer with substantial accuracy to that passage of the despatch. If I do not, I shall gladly make correction at any

243
future time; but the citation of a despatch from an Ambassador is not to be considered an attack upon him. Secondly, my hon. Friend at the close of his speech cited me as claiming what I conceive to be a most dangerous licence —a licence which he has treated with greater tenderness than it deserves. It was a claim that statements made in Opposition were not to be taken too literally when the persons who made them had come into Office. I think I see the nature of the error into which ho has fallen. What I have said is this —that there are things which may properly be said, may becomingly be said —nay, which it may be a positive duty to say, when the person is not a Minister, and particularly neither a Minister nor a Leader of the Party, which, at the same time, would not be becoming or proper to say if he were in a position of responsibility. With regard to my statements in Mid Lothian, my hon. Friend is perfectly free to quote them to whatever extent he pleases, and ho will never find me disposed to shelter myself behind such a claim as he has kindly ascribed to me. There was another matter broached before he referred to the Anglo-Turkish Convention. He stated that I had ridiculed the idea that if a threat of coercion had been delivered to Turkey by united Europe in 1876, Turkey would have resisted the threat of force so used. I think that is a little beyond the mark. I do not recollect to have ridiculed that idea, or thought it ridiculous to hold it. I did undoubtedly hold the opinion that Turkey would have yielded to the threat; and I supported that opinion by saying that there had never been an instance in which Europe had been united with respect to Turkey when Turkey had not acted in accordance with the wishes of Europe. To that extent I go, and no further. But, as my hon. Friend has drawn from that supposed idea the impression that Her Majesty's Government were about to use threats to Turkey, relying on their calculation that those threats were never to be executed, and that, consequently, they might use threats with levity, without the intention to act on them, I assure him I hold no practice more culpable on the part of a Government—if, indeed, it has ever been pursued—than that of resorting lightly to menaces, and pledging the honour of the country to
244
those menaces, without the intention to carry them into execution. Then with respect to the supposed instructions of my right hon. Friend Mr. Goschen, I should wish to explain what I think was a misapprehension, perhaps not unnaturally growing out of my speech to which reference was made. My hon. Friend stated truly that I stated that in the view of the present Government it is not desirable to encourage, either on our own part or on behalf of any other Power, the exercise of separate and solo influences in Turkey upon the Turkish question. We look upon the concert of Europe, the united influence of Europe, as the main, perhaps the sole, instrument by which there is a prospect of obtaining beneficial results; and, consequently, we look with jealousy upon the attempt to set up separate influences in Turkey, apart from the influence of Europe united and at large. I laid down that principle, not with special reference to the Anglo-Turkish Convention, but with regard to the general policy in connection with the Turkish Empire. With regard to the Anglo-Turkish Convention, any general principle that may be laid down by the present Government, or any Member of it, must necessarily be understood to be subject to the obligations — whatever those obligations may be, and upon them I pronounce no opinion at present—which may grow out of positive and definite contracts already made by a responsible Government on the part of the country, and binding on us in honour, whatever we may have thought of the policy that led to the conclusion of those contracts. There was one other point in regard to which I cannot admit the accuracy of my hon. Friend's description of the Anglo-Turkish Convention. He says England has undertaken to defend Asia Minor and to reform Asia Minor. One statement is a great deal more than the truth, and the other a great deal less. We have not undertaken to defend Asia Minor. We have not undertaken to defend any part of Asia Minor; but we have undertaken, subject to a provision, to defend a particular Frontier against a particular Power; and with regard to the undertaking to reform Asia Minor, it is not to reform Asia Minor, but to reform Syria, Arabia, and Egypt—the whole of the Turkish Empire.
MR. A. BALFOURdenied that he had said England had undertaken to reform Asia Minor.
MR. GLADSTONE: Now, my hon. Friend supposes that there is, on the part of the Government, an intention concealed from the House, which intention has, at the same time, been conveyed in the shape of instructions to Mr. Goschen, to abrogate or modify that Convention. I think I may say that Mr. Goschen carried with him no special instructions on that subject. We have not received, as yet, some most important Reports which are in course of preparation with regard to Asiatic Turkey; and undoubtedly as respects our course under the Anglo-Turkish Convention, it is not in our power to arrive at such accurate and minute information as would lead us at present to the formation of any definite and precise view of the course we should take. I think I may not go too far in saying this—that, as we greatly objected to the conclusion in secret of Conventions of very great importance binding this country in a most vital manner, and in a manner which might be most onerous, without any prior knowledge on the part of this country or of Parliament, and as we do not think that method of using the Treaty power of the Crown is, on the whole, advantageous, whatever course we may think it right hereafter to take with regard to any of the provisions of the Anglo-Turkish Convention, our desire will be to ascertain or assure ourselves, before taking that course, that we are not about to do anything strange and foreign to the intentions and knowledge of the people of this country; but we should desire to the very utmost degree possible to associate Parliament and the nation with whatever course we may think proper to propose. The hon. Member may, therefore, rely upon it that any policy we may recommend with respect to engagements that were formed by the legitimate authorities of the country, and which we acknowledge to be in force, will be a policy most maturely considered by us, and I hope a policy not involving merely ideas or wishes of our own considered as a section of politicians, but such as will be congenial to the general views and convictions of the country.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he had no intention of troubling the House with allu-
246
sions to the various topics in the Address in answer to the Queen's Speech; but he wished to notice one or two points to which little or no reference had been made by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. His right hon. Friend had referred to two questions in relation to the Treaty of Berlin, one of which he described as critical, and the other as urgent. The critical point was the one relating to the new Frontier between Turkey and Greece, as indicated at the Berlin Congress. Now, whatever might be thought by other hon. Members, he held that the question having been once raised, and Greece encouraged, not only by this country, but by other European Powers, to hope for the rectification of her Frontier, it would be most unfair and improper if the efforts of the countries in question on her behalf were not to correspond with the words of their Plenipotentiaries. He went even further, and believed that it would conduce to the welfare of Turkey herself if the purely Greek populations that had for a long time sought union with the Kingdom of Greece were by European sanction to be united with that country. He hoped, as did vast numbers of people in this country and in the other countries of Europe, that the question to which he had referred might be settled in the way indicated by the Congress of Berlin, and that European Turkey might for the future be free of all danger of disturbance. The question which his right hon. Friend had described as one of great urgency was of far more serious character. A proposition had been made for the delimitation of the Frontier between Turkey and Montenegro, the effect of which, if carried out, would be to hand over certain populations—Maho-medan and Christian—to Montenegro; and he understood from the guarded Answer given that evening by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a Question relating to the subject, that the influence of our Government, in concert with that of other Powers, was about to be exerted for the purpose of effecting the transfer. Well, a European concert on Eastern questions was about the most difficult and delicate matter that any Ministry could possibly try to bring about. In his recollection, many efforts had been made to establish such a concert; but not one had ever succeeded. If, however,

247
the Governments of Europe, in concert, should hand over to the semi-savages of Montenegro the warlike Christian and Mahomedan populations of Albania, they would repeat the error which concerted Europe committed in 1815, when the Roman Catholics of Belgium were handed over to the Government of the Protestant Kingdom of Holland. He would recommend his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to weigh well every step that might be taken which should identify the name of England with action of that kind. They had always professed to promote freedom, and to endeavour to bring about a state of things that should cause the populations with whom he was immediately concerned to fulfil their national destiny; and to ask that a warlike race, composed of Mahomedans and Christians, should be cast into the arms of a people whom they abhorred—to use the force of arms to compel them to accept so hateful a connection would be a most unwise proceeding on our part. It seemed to him that we ought to know whether, in our endeavours to establish a European concert on the subject to which he was referring, the Government contemplated advocating force in order to compel certain populations to accept the rule of Montenegro. Turning to another matter, he said that there was a question of great delicacy pending between Roumania and the Bulgarian Government. The question of the delimitation of Frontier between Roumania and Bulgaria had received the attention of two International Commissions. The opinions of the Russian official alone interfered with the unanimity of the first of these Commissions. The second Commission reported in almost identical terms with the first, the Russian Commissioner alone, as before, dissenting. Now, he wished to hear from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any effect was to be given to the decision of those Commissions or not. There was no country more deserving of sympathy or more entitled to credit than Roumania for the part she had taken during, and since, the Russo-Turkish War; and, considering the wrong she suffered by the cession of Bessarabia, it was doubly our duty to see that she obtained her rights. An allusion had been made in the Queen's Speech to the ap-
248
pointment of a special Ambassador to Constantinople. No great importance should be attached to that word. He had been present more than once in foreign countries to which special Ambassadors had been sent, and had remarked that such 'arrivals only led to points of disputed precedence with the Ambassador already on the ground. Having had an intimate personal friendship for many years with Sir Henry Layard, having entered Parliament at the same time, and combated together with him on many momentous questions, he was anxious to state what was due to his character. Whatever differences there might be as to his policy, a more able and devoted public servant could not be found. He was a man of unsurpassed energy and of great courage, who had never acted in opposition to the Government he served, but, on the contrary, always faithfully obeyed his instructions. A great compliment was paid to these high qualities by the late Government, who, although opposed to them in all their political views, selected him as the Ambassador of this country at Constantinople. Sir Henry Layard had been called a Philo-Turk; but that conveyed a wrong impression. With his immense knowledge of the country he was able to appreciate the many great qualities of the Ottoman people; but no man was better acquainted with the defects of Ottoman government, and no man ever made those defects known in plainer language to the Ottoman Government. He did this repeatedly in conversations with the Ottoman authorities, and in personal interviews with the Sultan himself. It was due to Sir Henry Layard, now that he was about to retire from one of the most difficult of posts, that his great services should be brought before the people of this country.
MR. CHAPLIN, after listening attentively to the various speeches which had been delivered from the Treasury Bench, confessed to having some doubts as to whether the present Administration could not be most fittingly described as the "Government of Recantations." Those doubts had not been lessened by the observations which had just fallen from the Prime Minister. It was often difficult to follow the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman; but it would appear, from the observations which had fallen

249
from him that evening, the Government had not yet made up their minds at all with regard to the Anglo-Turkish Convention. This was the more remarkable because the right hon. Gentleman in his Mid Lothian campaign denounced the three main propositions of that Convention. Nay, he even went further, and denounced it as a whole in language of exceptional vigour, for he spoke of it as an "insane Convention." The right hon. Gentleman had said that his Mid Lothian speeches might still be taken as expressing literally his present opinions; and it certainly was a remarkable occurrence that an able, powerful, and wise Administration could not make up its mind whether or not to uphold an "insane Convention." The Government had, however, made up its mind not to renew the Peace Preservation Act in Ireland. Considering the present state of that country; considering the state of things that prevailed there not many months ago, and the speeches which were uttered by some hon. Members of that House, it was, to say the least of it, a great responsibility. Lest it should be said he exaggerated the serious condition of that country, he would adduce the evidence of a witness whose friendship for Ireland no one would dispute. In a remarkable and recent speech he found this passage—
"The revolt is really against the proprietors; hut it is also against the tenants. If a tenant pays rent, he comes under the condemnation of his brother tenants; and if a tenant he evicted and a farm vacant, and some other farmer enters upon the occupation of that farm, his peace, and even his life, are in danger."
The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of the same speech to which he was referring, said—
"Now, what is the position of things in that country? This, I think, will meet with no contest whatsoever—that there is in Ireland at this moment an amount of discontent, of suffering, and of what we call disloyalty, which is not to he found in any other portion of the United Kingdom.…In the West of Ireland, in the Province of Connaught, you find there is something like a general social revolt. Rents are refused to be paid even by tenants who could pay them, and this course is recommended and encouraged by multitudes of persons. If evictions take place, if notices are given to tenants who do not pay their rents that they will he ejected from their farms, the officers who serve the processes are met by crowds of men and women prepared to hoot them, to condemn them, and in some cases actually by force to resist them,"
250
That was the language not of an enemy or opponent. It was spoken by a right hon. Member of the last Liberal Government and right hon. Member of this—the trusted friend and ally of the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright). That was a description of Ireland at the present time, and the House had a right to know on what grounds the Government felt itself justified in dispensing with the Peace Preservation Act. A proposition had been made to suspend by law the power of eviction for two years; and he was far from satisfied with the reply which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given to that suggestion. His language appeared to him (Mr. Chaplin) to give rise to the impression that he was prepared to entertain and consider the arguments which might be adduced in favour of such a proposition. If an impression was allowed to go forth in Ireland that the Government was prepared to entertain such a proposition, it would lead to disastrous consequences; and he could not believe that an English Administration would do anything of the kind.
MR. O'DONNELLremarked, that some very important questions had been raised in the Address, and he had ventured to express an opinion upon some of them; and he might say that one very important branch of the subject which the House was called upon to entertain was the question of India, and he hoped and trusted that the question raised by the unforseen deficit in the Indian Exchequer would be considered on both sides of the House without any intervention of a Party spirit. He had great respect for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), now the Postmaster General, who had so well and ably defended the interests of India in Parliament, and he (Mr. O'Donnell) had recognized his well-meaning attempt to draw certain Party profit out of it. He was satisfied the question of Indian finance was a question that equally concerned both sides of the House, and that its deplorable condition was the result of the administration of Indian affairs. Both sides of the House felt their responsibility, and he was sure he could appeal with confidence to his fellow-Members below the Gangway in opposition, in seeing that the discussion of Indian finance

251
would be conducted not only with a view of examining into the best way of obtaining a large profit, but also of ascertaining the cause of the serious and growing discontent and misery pervading tens of millions of the agricultural classes of India. The House had no conception of the wasting misery, which would disgrace a Turkish Province, and which was laying waste the Provinces of India. He hoard with pleasure that day the Question addressed to the Administration of the country by his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn)—always true to his principles, whether sitting on the Opposition or on the Ministerial side of the House. He heard also with the greatest pleasure the Question addressed to the Government to know whether it would continue to retain the services of Sir Bartle Frere, who was held responsible by the late Government for letting them into errors they did not hesitate to deplore. Sir Bartle Frere was condemned by the then Opposition—now the present Government—of being the provoking cause of the shocking bloodshed in South Africa. He had no desire to say hard words of Sir Bartle Frere, but there were natural prejudices against the man, who was naturally associated with great suffering. There was blood upon the administration of Sir Bartle Frere, and it was due to the very conscience of Great Britain and Ireland that that man should be removed as early as possible from a scene which, through his misfortune, if not his fault, had been deluged with the blood of the innocent populations. He (Mr. O'Donnell) had asked a Question with regard to the condition of Roumelia, and he was well satisfied with the frank and open answer of the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but he believed there would be no more grievous mistake committed than if, in their zeal for the freedom of the Slav and the Greek, they were to shut their eyes to the claim of the Albanian. However, the thing he sought to bring out was brought out in the Answer of the hon. Baronet, and that was that early steps would be taken to remedy the mistakes which had been made by Her Majesty's late Government in regard to other branches of foreign policy, particularly concerning Albania. The Plenipotentiaries had ceded to the
252
Prince of Montenegro a quantity of land round Scutari, the most fertile in North Albania, inhabited by Catholic Albanians, and he trusted that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who had often shown his sympathy with suffering nationalities, would see that the arrangement—a most unjust and oppressive one—would not be carried out. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had raised a very important question with regard to Irish affairs, with respect to the agrarian condition of Ireland, and he (Mr. O'Donnell) thanked the hon. Member for the weight which he attached to this question. It was true the hon. Member did not discuss it from the point of view which he (Mr. O'Donnell) ventured to say was just to the people of Ireland; but at that particular time credit was due to every Member of that House who, whether in a hostile or friendly spirit, approached the Irish question with a due idea of its overwhelming gravity. Her Majesty's Government had proposed not to renew the Peace Preservation Act, and he thanked them for the spirit which had doubtless actuated them in making that concession, though, at the same time, he wished to be allowed to observe that the most of the Coercion Code had been practically repealed by the Predecessors of the present Government. To tell the truth, there was not much left of the Peace Preservation Act after the emendation which the recent Government were induced to make. One provision of the Act was directed against the free distribution of arms, and another provision provided that in cases of murder or apparent murder attributed to agrarian motives, the grand jury might charge the inhabitants of the district where the murder took place with compensation to the relatives of the murdered persons. On the subject of agrarian outrages, he ventured to think that the prohibition of firearms had very little to do with the commission of agrarian assassination. He thought in cases where an assassination had taken place, it would be found that the blunderbuss, or the pistol, or the rifle which did to death the victim, or otherwise the unpopular landlord or agent, had in very few cases passed the examination of the examining magistrates. When a murder was to be committed, he did not think the most

253
careful examination would prevent the smuggling of arms in small quantities required to commit these occasional assassinations. With regard to the second provision—namely, that which permitted the grand juries to levy compensation on districts, to be applied to the families of the persons alleged to be murdered for agrarian causes, he thought that that provision, so far from being in any way a provision for the preservation of the peace, only served to spread and exaggerate existing discontent, as the assassin had in all probability been brought from a great distance, and thus the really guilty persons did not suffer. But Her Majesty's Government had informed the House that they were prepared to enforce with firmness the existing law. He was one of those men who said out of the House what he would say in it, and he ventured to say, on his responsibility as a Member of Parliament, that if the Government were resolved to enforce with vigour the existing law against offenders, while they refused to take into consideration the miserably distressed condition of the country, then the Judges of Assize would have heavy work on their hands; and, further, he said that the offenders would possess the enthusiastic sympathy of the Irish race throughout the world. It would be perfectly impossible for the Irish peasantry to pay their contract rents for many a day to come; but the contract rents could be extorted by law, and the tenants could be cast out on the road side by law. If many of the landlords of Ireland used their legal rights to extort their contract rents, then there would be bad work in Ireland this year. Furthermore, he said, and he was not afraid to say it, that in any resistance which a desperate people might be driven to have recourse to, owing to the neglect of the responsible Government to meet the facts of the situation, it was the Government ten times more than the people that would be responsible for the consequences. It was all very easy to talk about the sacredness of contract, but there were many other things sacred as well, and human life was sacred too, and when the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire denounced as confiscation the proposal to suspend the right of ejectment for two years, he (Mr. O'Donnell) did not attach much value to the word confiscation when
254
used by the hereditary and habitual defenders of the rights of property. But was it confiscation to tell a landlord that he must not enforce his contract rent at a season of great distress? Why, it was a principle recognized by the law of the land. In the case of estate after estate the Courts of Equity had ordered the rents to be lowered much below the contract rent; and were the Government going to support by the law a landlord who held to his contract rent like a Shylock claiming Christian blood, when the Courts held that to do so would be inequitable? If the Government continued to arm the landlords of Ireland— proverbially so zealous as to the rights of property—and thus enabled them to exact their contract rents, then, he said, insurrection in Bosnia or Bulgaria was never so blessed as the insurrection of the Irish peasantry, armed he cared not whether with firearms or with scythes in defence of their homes. He spoke in no spirit of bravado, and he hoped he had sympathizers on both sides of the House when he appealed to every Liberal principle for justice to those Irish cultivators. He sat among the ranks of the Imperial Party, who were foremost in proposing a Vote of Thanks to Imperial soldiers for victories; and surely he should not appeal to hard or insensible hearts when he said he expected that they who recognized the valour of our soldiers would not be willing agents in bringing misery and desolation to the already hardly-tried homes of the Irish soldiers. The non-renewal of the Peace Preservation Act, the introduction of electoral equality in boroughs as between England and Ireland, and similar concessions, had nothing to do with the settlement of such pressing Irish difficulties as the inability of the contract tenants of Ireland to pay anything like their contract debts. It was all very well to talk about these men having entered into bargains with their eyes open, to say that if farms were over-rented it was the result of mad competition. It was not by an Imperial Parliament and a British Government which had robbed Ireland of its native Legislature that such a plea should be advanced. If the Irish people were reduced to this scramble for a miserable livelihood, it was partly because in many eases the best land had been taken from the Irish people to supply

255
bullocks for the English market. If the Irish people were reduced to this condition, that there were no manufactures in the land, and that even their fisheries and other industries had withered under Imperial misgovernment, it did not lie with the Imperial Parliament to twit the Irish peasantry with their scramble for the means of subsistence left them by Imperial legislation. Any general attempt of the Irish landlords to extort from the so-called contract tenants of Ireland the full amount of their contract rents or anything like it in this time of fearful distress, would only lead to disgraceful and dreadful scenes that might bring sorrow and mourning to hundreds of Irish homes, would cover with disgrace the Imperial Legislature, and would awaken—he said it in warning and not in menace—a flame in the breasts of Irishmen in America; and a conflagration begun in America might reach much further than was at present open to the ken of English Statesmen.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he should not have thought it necessary to say anything at all, on the present occasion, if it were not probable that the last speech would be fully reported and read in Ireland. He understood the hon. Member, in the strength of his sympathy with the distress of the Irish peasantry, to say that, under certain circumstances, the sympathy of this country ought to go with them in the resistance to the law.
MR. O'DONNELL: I beg pardon of the right hon. Gentleman. Might I venture to say unamended law?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, they must always take the law as it stood; resistance to the unamended law would also constitute resistance to the law, and therefore he was right in saying resistance to the law. He understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the indignation which he should feel, and the people of Ireland should feel, in ease the Irish landlords were not considerate during the present distress would be great, and he went further, and said the people of America would feel indignant if the Irish tenant did not receive considerate treatment. It was quite sufficient, however, if they confined their views of the matter to what the people of Great Britain and Ireland might think. If it were necessary for the Government to enforce the laws, he must really tell the
256
hon. Member that, having himself the strongest possible sympathy with the people of Ireland, he did not think any Government, of either side or any Party, could for a moment admit the notion that the law was not to be obeyed. He trusted that what the hon. Member appeared to foresee in the way of calamity to Ireland would not happen. He had no proof himself that there was any desire on the part of the landlords of Ireland to take advantage of the present distressed condition of the tenantry to enforce their rents, and he should deeply lament it if that should be the case. He should consider that harsh conduct on their part at any time, and more especially in a season of distress like the present, would call for the moral reprobation of the people of these Islands. But he must beg the hon. Gentleman and those who sat with him to remember the responsible position of the Executive Government. If the existing law were allowed to be disobeyed in one case, it would be disobeyed in many cases, if not in all. It was impossible even for those who were very anxious to reform the laws to allow them to be trampled under foot and to be defied. An illustration was furnished by the case of a process server, serving processes under circumstances of which he knew nothing, who had been stopped and searched and robbed of a number of processes, those for debt being ten times the number of those for rent. That showed that, if the Government were to allow the recovery of rent to be defied, it would soon be impossible to recover any debt at all. The hon. Member spoke of the sacred-ness of human life—a subject which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) had been compelled to think of anxiously ever since he took his responsible office, for the chief difficulty, or the only really questionable thing involved in the non-renewal of the Peace Preservation Act was the abandonment of the clauses relating to arms licences. He came to the conclusion that they might be abandoned, and he remained at that conclusion; but he was sure that the Government and himself would be showing an utter disregard of human life if they were to allow the process servers to go about, carrying out the law as it stood, with the possibility of resistance, without such a force as would make that resistance almost impossible. He must state that he should

257
feel it his duty, and he was sure his Colleagues would feel it to be their duty, to show in the clearest possible manner that they took the side neither of landlords nor of tenants in these unfortunate circumstances; to lose no opportunity of advising landlords, if it should be necessary, to show moderation and forbearance in consideration of the distress; and, in addition to that, while claiming moral influence with the people of Ireland on account of their wish to amend the law, to make it clear that after all they were an Executive for the administration of the law; and if he saw reason to believe that the law was likely to be disobeyed, he should feel, out of regard to human life, for the life of those who had to execute the law, and with regard also to those who unfortunately might have been encouraged to resist the law, that the kindest and most merciful thing he could do—the only thing the Government had a right to do—would be to accompany the officers with such force as to make resistance almost impossible. He did not look forward to any of these scenes happening, and he saw great reason to hope for some diminution of the distress. There had been very great and keen distress; but in some cases the accounts of it might have been exaggerated, and there might have been instances of imposition, as there always were when there was great distress. It was most likely to be keenly felt in the month or two preceding harvest, when the resources of the small tenantry were becoming exhausted. The permanent officials of the Department had worked with great intelligence, in no way sparing themselves, and he believed the arrangements made earlier in the year, in the provision of relief works, would meet the pressure between now and harvest and to some extent compensate for the exhaustion of the charitable funds. The permanent officers had determined to direct that the Inspectors should watch with the greatest care the most distressed Unions, so that the Guardians might be encouraged, and even obliged, to give out-door relief if necessary. Many of the small ratepayers were very much distressed, and it was determined that the order for their relief should be accompanied by the offer of a loan, the early payment of which it would be unreasonable to expect. He trusted they would be blessed
258
with a better havest. There was already some relief in a greater demand for employment in England. Every landlord in Ireland who had not got his rent paid, and was considering whether he should put the law into action or not by serving ejectment processes, should, he thought, pause; and if his words could reach such a man he would most earnestly beg him to wait until after the next harvest, and this for his own sake as much as for the good of the country. He would go further—he had no right to appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan and those who sat by his side; but he would entreat them by all the sympathy they had for their poor fellow-countrymen to exercise their influence in favour of peace and order for the next few months. The hon. Member spoke of the Government getting the law obeyed while they were neglecting the miseries of the people. That was not true.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He had put the case strictly in a hypothetical form; and he said if the Government neglected the miseries of the people while the landlords exercised the full vigour of the law, then the Government would be responsible for the recurrence of evils. He fully recognized the excellent spirit of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. W. E. FORSTERwas much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that remark. He could only say that he and his Colleagues would be unworthy to occupy the position they did if they could be justly accused of neglecting the miseries of the people. The Government would not neglect their duty; but he was sorry they had not been in the position they held long enough to be able to frame a measure which might meet the difficulties of Ireland at the present moment, and show the amount of preparation which would obtain the approval of the country. But if the Government could not bring forward any measure until next year, he asked that the difficulties of the position should not be made greater by scenes of disorder in the meantime. Would they let their hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches be in a position to taunt them with having given up the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act with regard to arms? Without the slightest feeling

259
of antagonism to any past Government, he was firmly impressed with the conviction that the distress existing in Ireland, whether exaggerated or not, was of that severity that it was a lesson and a warning to the Imperial Parliament of this country, and that no Government ought to he content without doing its utmost, as much as the law could possibly do, to make the distress almost impossible to occur again. In what he had said he had only spoken what he had felt, and he gratefully acknowledged the general marks of approval with which what he said had been greeted. He had no intention of returning to the debate of last night. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had complained that he (Mr. W. E. Forster) had not spoken with sufficient clearness about the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) of an ad interim Bill. It was quite true he had not pointed out all the objections he had, for they were various, to such a measure. Neither did he wish to give the impression that he would be able to support such a Bill; but in the present state of Ireland, in the present state of its representation, it would ill become him and the Government not to give a fair, full, and considerate hearing to any proposal that might he brought forward.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that all the evils of the Irish peasant were laid at the door of the landlord; but he (Mr. Macartney), as one of them, had no doubt that Ireland contained good and bad landlords; and the vast majority of them were as long-suffering and patient with their tenantry, as gentle-hearted and forbearing to those in distress, as any landlords could be. Like the peasantry of the country, they had one great fault in past generations — the want of thrift and due consideration in regard to their expenditure, and they suffered accordingly. Landlords suffered from non-payment of their rents, and tenants suffered from the over-indulgence of being allowed to fall into arrears and from the extravagance of their landlords. But customs were altering, and both parties were now looking after the pounds, shillings, and pence like their Saxon brethren. It was said, if the Government did not intervene, the peasantry would become the victims of their tyrant landlords,
260
and next winter there would be disturbances and bloodshed. Where were the ejectments to come from? In the North of Ireland there was hardly an ejectment this year or last. They never were so few. There were, no doubt, an immense number of civil bills; small traders, having given enormous credits, got alarmed, they seized everything, and nothing was left for the landlords. They had to forbear. In 1878 some tenants of his own, who resided 60 miles from where he lived, came over as a deputation to him, asking what deduction ho was going to give from their rents owing to the two bad seasons. They said they saw by the newspapers that the English landlords were giving reductions of at least 10 per cent. He showed that they had received a reduction of 12½ per cent since 1847; that from that year to 1854 they had received 25 per cent, and he had given instructions to his agent to report to him any case of distress, and abstain from enforcing payment of the rent. This year they made another application, which was signed by seven names. He referred to his rental list, and found that, of these seven persecuted men, none owed less than two years' rent, and three of them owed three-and-a-half years' rent. He, therefore, could pay very little attention to their remonstrance. A great many cases of that kind, he believed, had occurred in different parts of the country, and yet if he were to attempt to enforce a year's rent he should be considered a barbarian. He hoped, as the right hon. Gentleman had asked, that landlords would show forbearance and patience; but it must be remembered that landlords had to pay as well as to receive, and if they did not receive they could not pay. They had many of them extremely heavy mortgages to keep down, and the banks were not very willing to extend accommodation in times like these. If the Government maintained a firm hand, and were able by the ordinary law to preserve life and property, he hoped the evils predicted by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan would not take place.
MR. W. CARTWRIGHTwished to say a few words with reference to that portion of Her Majesty's Speech which referred to the Treaty of Berlin. He would throw no reflections on Sir Henry

261
Layard, whom he had known for many years, and to whoso public services he was prepared to pay the highest tribute of respect. It was important not only that the clauses of the Treaty of Berlin should be effective in writing, they must be carried out in practice. There were three points which were most essential —the first related to the rectification of the Montenegrin Frontier, the second to the Greek Frontier, and the third was the 23rd Article of the Treaty. With regard to the Albanian Frontier, it was difficult to ascertain what was genuine and what was spurious Albanian nationality. From the information he had received, he was led to believe that a good deal of what was called Albanian nationality was spurious. It was factitious, and inspired from Constantinople. It was essential that there should be a development of what was truly national in the people, that they might one day take the place of the Turkish Empire. When the Roman Empire disappeared, what saved the world was the municipal institutions which were put forth. Let those institutions be developed, and good service would be done; but to try to maintain the semblance of a Turkish Empire was a real waste of power. It was desirable that the truth should be let in on Constantinople as soon as possible. Let it be known that, while no hand of a British statesman would be put forth to topple the Turkish Empire over, so neither would any hand be put forth to impart to it an artificial existence when it was no longer able to assert itself. In his opinion, it was not the upholding of the position of the Sultan, but the independence of the Balkan Peninsula, that was of essential interest to this country.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, in rising to address the House on the subject of foreign affairs, and to reply to the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Otway), the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), and the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), he wished, in the first place, to point out that there was one question raised by those hon. Gentlemen which was of peculiar delicacy. He alluded to the question of the Albanian Frontier. The hon. Member for Rochester, before he touched on this delicate and serious question, said, with regard to the Greek Frontier,
262
that it would be unfair towards Greece if, after having been encouraged as she had been by the reception of her claims by the Powers of Europe, she should find those Powers unable or unwilling to act up to the promises which they had made. Now, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) hoped that the Powers of Europe were neither unable nor unwilling to act up to those promises; and he entirely concurred in the remark made by his hon. Friend that it was in the interest of the Turkish Empire itself that those promises should be performed. His own impression, derived from the latest information, was that there was every prospect of the Greek Frontier question being settled, and speedily settled, in the manner contemplated by the Protocol drawn up at Berlin. With regard to the Albanian question and that of the Frontier of Montenegro, he was not able to add anything to the replies he had made in the early part of the evening to the Questions of the hon. Member for Dungarvan and the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson). He pointed out that, though there was a difficulty in obtaining an absolute concert of the European Powers on a question in which several of them were specially interested, nevertheless all the Powers had agreed on what was known as the "Corti compromise," which he had described to the House. The hon. Member for Rochester pointed out the extreme difficulty of inducing Austria, Italy, and other Powers exactly to agree to any plans with respect to the arrangement of the Montenegrin Frontier. But he would point out that the compromise suggested or proposed by Count Corti was agreed to by all the Powers of Europe. His hon. Friend spoke of the difficulty of handing over Catholic populations to Montenegro. But he must again point out, what he had pointed out in the early part of the evening, that the Prince of Montenegro already possessed, and possessed on that very Frontier, a considerable number of Catholic subjects exactly similar to those whom it was proposed to annex. His hon. Friend had spoken of the Albanian nationality. Nobody would for a moment deny that there was such a nationality, and that it deserved to be considered by the Powers of Europe. But there was a great deal in the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Oxfordshire,

263
that there was a tendency to exaggeration with respect to that nationality. His hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire pointed out last year that a claim had been set up to the town of Janina which could not be maintained. Another claim had been set up with regard to geographical limits; but that claim ought to be very carefully examined before accepting the statements put forth on behalf of the Turkish Government, because in the early part of the Albanian movement the Turkish Government made itself responsible for those statements. Of late, however, the Turkish Government had found itself altogether unable to control this movement, and now, no doubt, it had entirely escaped the control of the Porte. The hon. Member for Dungarvan spoke of the claims of the Roman Catholics of Albania. But he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) must point out that, though the British Government was always anxious to respect the religious opinions of all others, yet there were Catholic Powers which cordially agreed to recommend the very compromise which the hon. Member denounced. Without expressing any opinion of his own with regard to the nature of the compromise which was agreed upon before the present Government came into power, he could not but think that if it were damaging to the interests of the Catholic people it was very probable that such Powers as Austria and Prance would have raised objections to it. It might be said that the Government of France at present did not possess the confidence of Catholics. But everyone knew that in her foreign policy France had always taken a great interest in everything that concerned the Catholic Church. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire alluded to what was called the Arab Tabia question, and his hon. Friend pointed out that no one had mentioned it of late. It was singular that that question had not been referred to, because it had been commented on at some length in the newspapers, and had been the subject of negotiations between the Powers. That question, however, if not actually solved as yet, was on the brink of a satisfactory solution, and the Roumanian Envoy, M. Bratiano, who had come over to settle it, had found his work all but done before he reached our shores. The Roumanian Government had expressed itself satisfied at the
264
conclusion of these very difficult negotiations. His hon. Friend had asked whether the fortresses had been demolished in accordance with the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin? He could only say that they were in process of demolition, and that repeated inquiries had been made on the subject by the Powers, to whom answer had been given that the difficulty of the work of demolition was due only to the expense, and that that reason alone had delayed the action of the small Principalities. However, as the work was proceeding, the Berlin Treaty was substantially being observed. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochester had criticized the appointment of Mr. Goschen to Constantinople, and had doubted the wisdom of sending thither a special Ambassador. With reference to that appointment, the phrase "Special Ambassador" was not that which was actually made use of. In sending Mr. Goschen to the Porte he was described as Ambassador Extraordinary. There was, however, as he would admit, no great difference between the two; and he might point out that the mission of Sir Henry Layard when he first went to Constantinople was precisely the same as that now undertaken by Mr. Goschen. At that time Sir Henry Elliot was on leave, but continued to hold the post of Ambassador for nine months after the appointment of Sir Henry Layard, so that at one time there were two Ambassadors to the same Court—one on leave, and the other sent specially. Again, precisely the same course had been taken by the Government of France, and he was glad to know that Mr. Goschen would be able to act harmoniously with the special French Envoy. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochester had very justly praised Sir Henry Layard for his unsurpassed energy and ability, and, in saying that Sir Henry Layard was not very strongly pro-Turkish in his sympathies, had only stated a well-known fact. His despatches showed that his patience had become exhausted, particularly as he was well aware that the inability of Turkey to execute reforms seemed highly dangerous to her future existence. Sir Henry Layard had, in fact, pointed out in strong terms how great a risk Turkey incurred by the refusal to reform her administration. Sir Henry Layard had

265
to some extent exhausted his influence at Constantinople, and he himself would no doubt be disposed to think that a new man of great ability and courage coming to Constantinople would have considerable advantages in pressing the will of united Europe on the consideration of the Porte. His hon. Friend had specially spoken of the great importance of the reforms specified in the 23rd Article of the Treaty of Berlin. Now those reforms were not in the same position as those which concerned Armenia, as they were to be supervised by the European Commission at Constantinople. It was hardly possible to exaggerate the importance attaching to the duties of that Commission, and the Government would never be a party to any attempts to minimize them. The Commission, as had been pointed out last July by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), had to exercise more control with regard to the other Provinces than towards Eastern Roumelia, because the Porte had the right of keeping troops in them at all times, so as to make itself respected. He believed that all hon. Members would feel confidence in his noble Friend who had been sent to represent the Government on that Commission (Lord Edmond Fitz-maurice), and who had, indeed, on one occasion made a speech to the House which served as an admirable text-book of the proceedings of the Commission. He believed that the execution of the reforms agreed to in the 23rd Article of the Treaty of Berlin, the accomplishment of reforms in Armenia, and of the will of Europe with regard to Montenegro, would, if loyally executed by the Porte, place the Turkish Empire in a safer and stronger position than it had occupied for many years.
MR. COURTNEYcalled attention to the paragraph in the Queen's Speech which related to South Africa, and observed that he was not surprised at the way in which the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had commended the expressions it contained, seeing that the Prime Minister had distinctly accepted the South African policy of the late Government. This evening the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had stated that Her Majesty's Government had no intention of withdrawing Sir Bartle Frere, whose presence in the Colony was
266
necessary for the purpose of pursuing the policy which the Government had now adopted as their own. Therefore both the Agent of the late Government and the policy he pursued had been adopted—an Agent whom the Members of the present Administration condemned when they were sitting on the other side of the House, and whose policy the late Government excused on the ground that he had exceeded his orders, but that his presence in South Africa was so necessary that he could not be withdrawn. The present Government now adopted the same policy. That struck him as a very extraordinary position of affairs, and he regretted that the doctrine of accepted facts had not been expressed earlier, as its revelation might probably have influenced the language of some candidates at the General Election and also the votes of some of the electors. But, of course, we must take the thing as it stood, and study it as a curious problem in political history. The Motion brought forward at the beginning of last year by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) concluded with an expression of regret that Sir Bartle Frere had not been recalled. That Motion was also made in identical terms in the other House, and he believed all the 14 Members of the present Cabinet voted in one or the other House in favour of it. Moreover, most of the Members of the present Cabinet then expressed their reasons, which were to a great extent independent of the particular action which had occurred. His noble Friend the Secretary of State for India insisted that Sir Bartle Frere ought to be recalled because of the very bad example which would be given to our Colonial service if a Colonial Governor were allowed to remain at his post after he had shown flagrant disregard of his instructions. That, of course, was as good a reason now as then. For his own part, he should at all times be reluctant to interfere with the administration of a Colony to which we had given responsible self-government; but self-government in a Colony was always modified by the individuality of the Governor who represented the Home Government in the Colony. The individuality of Sir Bartle Frere in the Cape Colony was most marked in its effect soon after he arrived there. Sir Bartle Frere, the Cape Par-

267
liament not being in Session, ventured on the extraordinary step of dismissing the Minister who had until then possessed the confidence of that Parliament. When the Cape Parliament again assembled in Session, it accepted the dismissal of the late Minister, and accepted the appointment of the new Minister who had been called into power. This circumstance showed the enormous influence which Sir Bartle Frere's individuality exercised in the Colony. It was the sending of Sir Bartle Frere to the Cape which changed the majority in the Cape Parliament itself. It was the sending out of this "apostle of extension and advance" that rallied round him those people at the Capo who were ready for adventure and movement, and who were ready to run the risks and to accept the chances of extension of frontier and annexation of territory. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies knew perfectly well that there was a great deal of difficulty lying before them in the future. If they withdrew Sir Bartle Frere, the difficulty of the future would disappear, because Sir Bartle Frere's policy would have been abandoned. In keeping Sir Bartle Frere in the Cape Colony, Her Majesty's Government made his policy their own. It was said that he was to be kept there in order that he might promote Confederation, and because he had no longer anything to do with Zulu-land or the Transvaal. These statements were not quite consistent with one another, as it was impossible that Confederation could be promoted without having to do with Zululand and the Transvaal. It was a matter of great regret that the present Government should keep this Confederation scheme going. He should have thought they would have found that Confederation was a mere fancy of a Colonial Minister who thought he could transfer to South Africa a scheme of policy which had been most successful in North America, without paying attention to the dissimilarity of the facts in North America and in South Africa. In North America you had people coming to ask for Confederation; whereas in South Africa no people asked for, but refused Confederation. If there was any feeling in these Colonies in favour of Confederation, if they were ripe for it, did not the House think that any Governor could
268
accomplish what the needs of these Colonies would demand? The whole scheme of Confederation had no relation to the facts of the Colonies which the Government wished to confederate. He should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) had to say about Sir Bartle Frere and Confederation. Two years ago the right hon. Gentleman congratulated the late Government upon having sent out Sir Bartle Frere as the very best man that could go. Last year the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman had so changed, that he said the late Government ought to have known that Sir Bartle Frere would have his own way. Perhaps he had a third opinion now; but these changes were puzzling to plain people. The people of the Transvaal had many virtues, and, no doubt, they had many faults. They were a very simple-minded people, and they would certainly be very much puzzled when they read the paragraph in the Royal Speech with regard to South Africa. The last thing he heard from the Transvaal was that a meeting of Boers passed certain resolutions and a vote of thanks to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, and to other Members of Parliament who had denounced the annexation of the Transvaal, and advocated the restoration of the liberties of the Boers. And he found that in the Cape Colony Dutch people had got up a large Address to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, inspired by remarks he made in Mid Lothian; and he (Mr. Courtney) wondered what would be the feeling of these people when, in the course of a few weeks, they read this paragraph in the Royal Speech and the report of the declaration which the Prime Minister made last night. They would remember how the Prime Minister denounced the annexation of a territory inhabited by a population including some 8,000 male adults, of whom 6,600 signed a protest against annexation. The Boers said—"Here is a great statesman who has taken up our cause, and he may be trusted to help us to regain our independence." That was the feeling which animated them in sending that Address to the right hon. Gentleman. But now they heard something very different from the Royal Speech, and also orally from the right hon. Gentleman himself.

269
The Royal Speech spoke of the diversified population of the Transvaal, and that language must be traced to the influence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who appeared to have been much struck with the claims upon us of the Natives of that Province. Now, the late Government had expressly repudiated having been actuated at all by a consideration of the interests of the Native population of the Transvaal, but rested the annexation simply on the ground of self-defence. They annexed that country, not because of the sufferings of the Natives, but because its independence was a danger to ourselves. But now that annexation was to be maintained on totally different grounds. The Boers would not be able to understand all that; they were too simple; their minds did not move in such a complex fashion as to comprehend the change which seemed to have occurred. They would ask why it happened that their wrongs, which were made so much of a few months ago, were not even recognized now. And he confessed that he did not know what good answer could be given to that question. There was another point to which he might incidentally call attention. When the Transvaal was annexed, Sir Theophilus Shepstone, the agent in doing it, issued a proclamation containing many statements and promises. He was also at the time in communication with Mr. Burgers, the President of the Transvaal, up to the date of its annexation; and Mr. Burgers produced to him a paper of questions respecting the conditions of the annexation. Sir Theophilus Shepstone answered those questions with as much care as possible, desiring to commit himself as little as he could. But those who read the Proclamation of Annexation, with the conditions attached to it, and also the questions with the answers given, would agree with him at least as far as this—that there was great ground for saying that the Commissioner who annexed the Transvaal did it with the promise and on the condition that the autonomy of the Transvaal should be preserved, with an independent Legislature of its own. Soon afterwards, while the troubles were going on in the Transvaal, our Administrator issued certain police orders which were questioned before the Law
270
Courts there, and the High Judge of the Transvaal delivered a judgment as to the validity of those orders in connection with the conditions on which the Transvaal had been annexed. Many months ago he had asked the right hon. Baronet the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) to lay a copy of that judgment on the Table, and he had promised to do so; but it had not yet been produced. The High Judge laid down in his judgment that the Proclamation of Annexation contained within it a condition irrevocably granting to the Transvaal the maintenance of the representative institutions and the autonomy it possessed. The late Government had, however, issued Letters Patent from the Crown depriving the Transvaal altogether of its representative Government. Now, when the Colony of New Grenada was taken by us from the French in the last century, in the act of capitulation promises were made that its liberties should be respected, and that the people should be governed on the same conditions as the other Colonies of Great Britain in the West Indies, and that a representative assembly should, as soon as convenient, be called. Before any such assembly had been called, the Administration there, by an act of its own, made an alteration in the Customs duties of the Island. The validity of that proceeding was brought before the Court of Queen's Bench, and Lord Mansfield gave the unanimous judgment of that tribunal, which decided that since New Grenada had been taken over under capitulations, promising representative institutions and the same liberties and franchises as were enjoyed by the other West India Colonies of the King, that was an irrevocable abdication of the power of the King, and thereafter no alteration could be made in the constitution of Grenada except by Act of Parliament. It would be a question hereafter whether the issue of Letters Patent he had referred to was not altogether void. There was another difficulty with regard to the design mentioned in the Royal Speech to "extend to the European settlers institutions based on large and liberal principles of self-government," that the moment representative institutions were established, they would pass a unanimous vote repudiating the Imperial authority. If that, then, were the probable condition of the future, he

271
was at a loss to understand the retirement of the Prime Minister from his declarations on this subject in his Mid Lothian campaign. He (Mr. Courtney) was addressing a House which contained a larger number of new Members than any newly elected Parliament since the first Reform Act; and he would ask those new Members whether in their election addresses and speeches—free as they were from all complicity with the last Parliament, or recollections of having been led into the wrong Lobby —they did not denounce the conduct of the late Government in South Africa, and whether they did not feel great embarrassment now they were in this House to find that the grounds to which they appealed for the confidence of the electors was taken away from them by the action of the present Government? They were now asked to support in Parliament that which they condemned and denounced in the country; and their position would be one of extreme embarrassment when they went to make their annual address, unless they could throw a convenient veil of forget fulness over all they had said at the General Election. But more serious than that was what remained. Very few thoughtful Liberals could see the result of the last three elections without great anxiety and concern. He did not like to see these big turn-over majorities; they were unpleasant; they showed great instability in the public mind: but he asked whether they could expect any other result, if they made an appeal to the people on one ground—that of the policy of the existing Government being bad—and, having got into power, forgot all their pledges, and deserted that ground? In 1874 the constituencies deserted the Liberal Party, because they thought the Liberal Government was not acting up to, and was not true to, its principles; and if they had another General Election within the next few years, and if the public found that they had not done in Parliament that which they promised before getting into power, they would find the popular wave which had now borne them to power would leave them stranded high and dry. If so, they would not be able to complain of the mobility of the popular sentiment. The Prime Minister last night lamented that the old Constitutional practice of the existing Ministry meeting a new Parlia-
272
ment and taking a vote on their policy was abandoned, and he (Mr. Courtney) was beginning to share that regret. If the Government had not exercised an act of premature resignation, and had met Parliament, there would have been some necessity for a repetition here of the speeches on the hustings; and as those statements would then be made from one side of the House to the other, it would be difficult to forget, the audience being exactly the same, on the right side of the Speaker what had been said -in Opposition. He was very sorry to have to speak in this way. [Laughter.] He did not understand that laugh. It was no comfort for him to find the old bad policy persisted in.
MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, that he would first deal with the question of Confederation. He would admit that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had always been consistent in himself upon the point; but he would remind the hon. Member that for many years the Confederation of South Africa had been an object of desire to statesmen. He would not rake up the embers of controversy by inquiring whether that object had always been pursued wisely; but, whether or not that was so, in the year 1877 Parliament, by very large majorities, affirmed that Confederation was a desirable object, and passed the South Africa Act. After passing the South Africa Act, a considerable period elapsed, which was filled up by the disastrous events which had called so much recent attention to South Africa; but, in the month of June last, the late Secretary of State for the Colonies invited, through the Governor, the attention of the Cape Ministers and Parliament to the subject. A good deal of correspondence followed; but eventually, in the month of January in this year, the Ministers of the Cape Colony themselves proposed that a Conference should be assembled to consider and report upon the practicability of the union of the South African Colonies; and, further, they broached a plan by which they suggested it should be carried out. The late Secretary of State replied, in the month of March, accepting the proposal. That, then, was the position in which the present Government found this matter when it acceded to Office; and it would be seen at a glance that whatever difficulties there might be in the

273
way of Confederation, it could not be said that if we held our hand and adopted an expectative treatment we could be accused of forcing Confederation upon an unwilling1 Colony, especially when the proposal came from the Colony itself, which suggested the means by which Confederation could be brought about. There were forces in the Cape Colony itself which made against, as well as forces which made in favour of Confederation; but Her Majesty's Government certainly did not go in any way beyond what was right and wise if they took no step which could in any way frustrate, or expose to the risk of being frustrated, the project of a Confederation. They wished it well, and awaited events in all hopefulness. With regard to Sir Bartle Frere, they were blamed, and blamed by some of their own friends, for not recalling him; but those who blamed them had not sufficiently clearly before their minds the state of affairs in South Africa. Sir Bartle Frere was no longer exercising those powers in the exercise of which he committed, as those who sat on that side of the House believed, very grave errors. Sir Bartle Frere was exercising other and much less extensive powers, powers in the exercise of which he might, no doubt, commit errors, as all men might, but in which he could by no possibility commit the kind of errors which were attributed to him in the debates of last year. Sir Bartle Frere was engaged in work of an essentially pacific sort, and in work which both sides of the House, with very few exceptions, desired to see accomplished—the union of South Africa in a Confederation by the wish and on the initiative of South Africa. His efforts might fail, though many in South Africa who disliked his Zulu policy were sanguine about the result. The proposed Conference might never meet, or having met, might lead to no settlement; but there was at least a fair chance that the Conference might succeed, and they would indeed be taking a grave responsibility upon themselves if, by removing Sir Bartle Frere at this moment, they sacrificed, as they undoubtedly would sacrifice, this reasonable chance of early Confederation. Besides, what would be gained by the recall of Sir Bartle Frere at this moment? It might be replied that it would emphasise our condemnation of
274
the Zulu War. Well, he thought the condemnation of that war by the Liberal Party and the vast majority of the electorate needed no emphasising. But it was said Sir Bartle Frere deserved to be punished. To that he answered that the object of punishment in civilized States was not vengeance on an individual, but the prevention of mischief; and if the mischief could be effectually prevented without punishment, then punishment was, in Bentham's words, "mere misery in waste." Nor should he be at all prepared to admit that the unhappy Zulu War was so completely the act of Sir Bartle Frere that his recall would be an act of what is called poetical justice. The Zulu War would never have taken place if Sir Bartle Frere had not seen that the doctrines of his school in India, the so-called "forward school," were in favour with some very powerful persons at home, and were supported by a certain amount of noisy opinion. The Zulu War was a mere bastard slip of the Afghan policy; and he thought the justice which had overtaken the authors of that policy at the late Elections was sufficiently poetical to be a warning to all future Governors and Ministers. Sir Bartle Frere had at various periods of his life done very good service to the State in several capacities; and he (Mr. Grant Duff) did not think he was over-sanguine in hoping that, under the auspices of the present Cabinet, whose tendencies were assuredly not in the direction of the faults which were with justice attributed to Sir Bartle Frere's policy in reference to the North-West Frontier of India and Zululand, he might yet do very good service. Coming next to the Transvaal, hon. Members would not, he thought, expect him to go into the question whether that country should or should not have been annexed. The present Government had, of course, to deal with things as it found them, and it found the Transvaal part of the Dominions of Her Majesty. The only question for it to determine was whether it should or should not reverse the policy of its Predecessors as to that country? That policy, however, had been accepted by Parliament and sanctioned by the advice of various prominent politicians on both sides. Nor could they in any way replace the state of things which existed before annexation. That state of things was bad,

275
very bad; but, deplorable as by his own showing was the position of President Burgers in the beginning of 1877, the Government could not re-create in Boer hands even as strong a Government as that over which he presided. What the Boers disliked was, not so much a foreign government, as any government which attempted to exercise authority at all. Supposing the Government were to give back the Transvaal, not only would all the old difficulties revive, but to them would be added the danger of a civil war between English settlers and the Boers. It must be remembered that though the latter were the more numerous, the former were more concentrated and more able to act together. They would, it was highly probable, if the strong hand of the British Government were now removed, refuse to accept Boer ascendency without a struggle, and they would be joined by desperadoes of all sorts from the neighbouring countries. That was not a pleasant prospect, and he would be a rash man who would be responsible for bringing it about. They should remember also that the English settlers would be backed by the moneyed interests throughout South Africa, in so far as it was concerned with the Transvaal. All the merchants who did business with that country, all the persons who had their means invested in landed property there, including probably many of the Boers themselves, would tremble for their fortunes if the country were left to Boer rule. Then, nothing that had occurred would prevent troubles rising once more between the Boers and the Zulus; and though the Zulus were far weaker than they were formerly, yet they were not weak enough to submit for an indefinite time to aggression on the part of the Boers, and such aggression would be inevitable. Further, the Government had to consider the position of those Boers who had been throughout partisans of the English, and whose interests must not be entirely overlooked. The determination of the Government of this country not to give up the Transvaal had been so often and so distinctly asserted, by so many different authorities, in so many different ways, that it would be difficult to recede, even if the old Government could be set up. And there were other things to be considered. There was the feeling of the vast mass of the Native inhabitants of the Trans-
276
vaal, who outnumbered the Boors by much more than 20 to 1, of whom there were, indeed, something like 800,000. It was quite impossible that after what had passed they should be quietly handed back to Boer rule. To do so would be to invite commotion, and would not be just in itself. It must not be forgotten that the Transvaal was a country nearly as large as France; and it was certainly a strong thing to assert that the will of even a considerable majority of the 34,000 Boers, for that was their number, all told, men, women, and children, should be final as to the future of so vast a territory. Under the very difficult circumstances of the case, the plan which seemed likely best to conciliate the interests at once of the Boers, the Natives, and the English population, was that the Transvaal should receive, and receive with promptitude as a portion of a Confederation, the largest possible measure of local liberties that could be granted, and that was the direction in which Her Majesty's present Advisers meant to move both in the Transvaal and in Natal. The Government wished, in short, so far as what had passed would permit, to take up the question of Confederation, so far as it affected the Transvaal, just where President Burgers left it in the remarkable speech which he delivered before annexation, pointing out to his countrymen that their only way out of the frightful calamities in which they were involved was a frank and honourable union with the English. He did not pretend to say that the course which Her Majesty's Government had determined to take would necessarily bring early prosperity to the Transvaal; but he thought there was a reasonable hope that agitation would gradually die out when it was clearly seen that to return to the old state of things was impossible, and the last accounts which had been received were certainly good. The revenue was coming in far better than it did, and altogether matters wore a more cheerful aspect. The hon. Member for Liskeard raised a further question about the validity of the Letters Patent issued with reference to the Transvaal. Ho was, of course, quite at liberty to do so, and it was right that the attention of the House should be called to the subject; but it concerned the late Secretary of State more than the present, and he

277
supposed that, although they might discuss such a question, no authoritative decision could possibly be given upon it, unless it were regularly raised and formally decided by a competent legal tribunal. As at present advised, the Government believed that the high legal authorities who were consulted by their Predecessors were right, and that the Letters Patent were perfectly valid.
MR. PELLsaid, that the time of the House had been so much taken up at an earlier period in the evening by the discussion of other topics that but little time had been left for the consideration of what was evidently a most important question. Prom the able and conscientious speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard, it was obvious that a new view of the subject had been presented to the House, and upon the questions raised many hon. Members would wish to have the opportunity of speaking. He hoped that the House would not regard him as an obstructive if he asked that a little time might be given for the consideration of the questions raised. He did not think that the debate could be properly concluded on that occasion; and therefore, in order that the great questions before the House might be adequately considered at a future period, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Pell.)
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that if there were a disposition on the part of any considerable number of Members to have the debate adjourned in order that further consideration might be given to the subject, the Government would not desire to stand in the way of that feeling. He had not, however, during the course of the evening, been able to observe that there was any great disposition on the part of any section of the House to enter into a much fuller discussion of this subject than had already taken place. The hon. Member who had moved the adjournment of the debate had expressed himself desirous of hearing more upon the subject raised by the hon. Member for Liskeard. It appeared to him that if there were any disposition on the part of the House generally to hear more upon that subject on the present occasion, there would be some
278
manifestation of that feeling. He had not, however, observed any great disposition to pursue the discussion; and he did not think that, under those circumstances, the Government should assent to the adjournment of the debate.
MR. CHAPLINsaid, that when the hon. Member for Liskeard rose to address the House, four or five hon. Members on the same side also rose. The noble Lord said that he had not observed any great disposition to continue the discussion of this matter. In his opinion, there was a very considerable desire on the part of many Gentlemen who had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard. to hear a reply of a somewhat more convincing character than that given by the Under Secretary. There had been a good many recantations on the part of Her Majesty's Government during the short time since the House had re-assembled. When he remembered a speech made upon the very spot on which he was now standing by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, attacking Sir Bartle Frere, and when he remembered the language in which he denounced the conduct of Sir Bartle Frere, he must say that of all the recantations made by Her Majesty's Government this one was by far the greatest, and required a more ample and detailed explanation. He hoped that the noble Lord would not refuse the request of his hon. Friend that the debate should be adjourned. It was then past 12 o'clock, and there was a great deal of Business before the House. The questions to be discussed on the Report of the Address were of so important a character that he trusted the adjournment would be agreed to.
MR. DILLWYNsaid that, in his opinion, the statements of the hon. Member for Liskeard were deserving of a very serious reply, and they certainly were deserving of a more serious answer than had been already given by the Under Secretary for the Colonies. He did not think that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was either sufficiently full or sufficiently satisfactory. At the same time, even if the debate were adjourned, the Prime Minister would not have an opportunity of speaking, as he had already spoken on the question. That being so, he did not see any reason why the debate should not be concluded then.
Question put.
The House divided: —Ayes 40; Noes 122: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 3.)
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Address agreed to: —To be presented by Privy Councillors.

SUPPLY.
Resolved, That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
WAYS AND MEANS.
Resolved, That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (REMISSIONS AND ADVANCES).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  1. Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the remission of all interest which has or may become due before the 1st day of January 1892 upon a loan of £16,500 made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, to the Commissioners of Anstruther Union Harbour, and to authorise the suspension of payment of instalments of principal of the said Loan until the said 1st day of January 1892.

  2. Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the remission of certain instalments, amounting with outstanding interest to £1,539 14s. id. of a Loan made by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom for the execution of works for the improvement of the water-power of certain mills on each side of the River Corrib, in the county of Galway.

  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  3. "That it is expedient to authorise further advances out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or out of moneys in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners held on account of Savings Banks, of any sum or sums of money, not exceeding £5,000,000 in the whole, to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and not exceeding £1,100,000 in the whole, to enable the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to make advances in promotion of Public Works."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  MR. GRAYsaid, he should like to know for what purposes these advances were to be made. Were they, amongst other purposes, to enable loans to be
  280
  made under the Sanitary and Public Health Acts?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that in 1875 the Public Works Loan Act was passed authorizing advances to the Public Works Loans Commissioners to execute works in Ireland. The local authorities were required to send, before the 31st of December in each year, to the Commissioners estimates of the amounts they would require. It had been found that those estimates were usually largely in excess of the amounts actually required. With respect to the question of the hon. Member, he could inform him that the sum of £1,100,000 to be advanced to Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, for the purpose of making advances to pub-lie bodies in promotion of public works, had nothing to do with the Relief Vote authorized by the Relief Act of last Session. The general purposes of these loans was to provide for advances to be made under the Sanitary Acts. It was not proposed that these advances should be made for the relief of the distress in Ireland.
  MR. GRAYsaid, that he thought he should be in order in calling attention to the system under which advances authorized by the Sanitary and Public Act were made by the Treasury in Ireland and in England. His attention was more particularly called to this subject by an application from the City of Dublin for an advance under the Public Health Act of 1878. The Corporation of Dublin applied for an advance in the usual manner, but were refused by the Treasury. He was anxious to call attention to the circumstances under which that refusal was given. The Public Health Act of 1878 purported to extend to Ireland the same means of making sanitary improvements that wore conferred on England by the Public Health Act of 1875. That Act provided inter alia for advances to public bodies for paving purposes. The English Act provided for advances for similar purposes, and the Irish Act purported to be drawn on the same lines, and to extend the same advantages to Ireland. When that Act was intended to be put into operation, it was found to be so clumsily drafted—whether intentionally or not he did not know—that the facilities for obtaining the advantages were practically denied to Ireland. The attention of the late Government having

  281
  been called to the matter, and other defects having been discovered in the Act, special provision was last Session made for meeting the case of loans for paving and sanitary purposes in Ireland. The moment that the power was given them, the Dublin Corporation applied to the Treasury for a loan for paving purposes. The Treasury refused that loan, notwithstanding that all the preliminaries had been complied with. There had been an investigation in Dublin by the Local Government Board Inspector, who had recommended the Board of Public Works to grant the loan, and the Public Works Commissioners had recommended it to the Treasury. The Commission sitting in Dublin which investigated the matter was strongly in favour of the loan, and one of the most eminent sanitarians, Dr. Rawlinson, also advocated it. The necessity of giving employment in Dublin was also very severely felt. A deputation of working men waited upon Her Grace the Duchess of Marlborough, with respect to the necessity of giving relief work in Dublin. It was remarked by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant to the working men forming that deputation, that the Corporation of Dublin was the proper body to provide relief works. The loan, therefore, came before the Treasury with the sanction of the Board of Public Works in Ireland, and with the necessity of providing relief works urged upon the Corporation by the Viceroy. The Corporation of Dublin, never dreaming that the Treasury would stop the way, actually entered into contracts for carrying out these works. Then came a note from the Treasury, informing them that the loan could not be granted. Dublin, it was said, was already so over-burdened with debt, that the Treasury could not think of adding to that debt by sanctioning another loan. Under those circumstances, they thought in Dublin that they would like to know what was done in English towns, and what proportion the advances bore to the rates. They found that in some English towns the advances under the Sanitary Acts and under the general Municipal Acts amounted, in some cases, to four times the valuation, sometimes to three times, and, in many cases, to twice the rateable value. In Dublin, on the other hand, the advances which they had received
  282
  only amounted to a small decimal over the single value of the property. They were also able in Dublin to show that the greater portion of their debt was secured, not as in the case of Manchester and Liverpool and other English towns, upon the rates, but upon property which actually yielded a surplus of revenue greater than the amount of interest payable from it. Thus it would be seen that the debt of the Dublin Corporation was, practically, next to nothing. Notwithstanding, therefore, that the debt of the Dublin Corporation was not secured upon rates, and that they were perfectly free to offer as security for the loan required, the Treasury discredited them by saying that their financial condition was so bad that they could not grant them an advance. Dublin was in a position to prove that its financial condition was perfectly sound, and the purpose for which the loan was required had been sanctioned by the Commissioners. The refusal of the Treasury was a discredit upon its own Commissioner, and was a direct hindrance to the Corporation giving that employment in the relief of distress which the Government officials had said that it ought to give. The Treasury had caused the Corporation to break its contract, and had interfered with its discretion in the disposition of its fund through, as he believed, an utter and crass ignorance of the whole case. Doubtless, if they had condescended to go in deputation to Sir It. Lingen they might have been able to persuade his mightiness to change his decision; but he, for one, had no idea of doing anything of the kind. They had a right to the advance, and they wanted to know why it had been refused. He would ask the noble Lord whether he could state anything with regard to this particular case; and, further, whether he could inform him if it were the intention of the Government to give Irish towns the like facility for obtaining loans as was enjoyed under the same circumstances by English towns? During the last Session the Public Loans Bill was forced through the House by the Government. Anyone who was present then would know that the Government determined to force it through owing to the efforts, successful in its earlier stages, of some Irish Members to obstruct it. That Bill limited very much the facilities enjoyed for obtaining loans

  283
  from the Treasury, under the Sanitary and similar Acts. At the time, he complained very bitterly that in 1875 an Act was passed for England, by means of which Birmingham and other towns had borrowed enormous sums of money, and then it was proposed to pass a law restricting the advances, before Ireland had had any benefit from them. On that occasion he stated that so far as Dublin was concerned, if facilities were only given them for borrowing on their own credit, they would not come to the Treasury at all. If they enjoyed the same power of borrowing as the Metropolitan Board of Works in London possessed, they would not require to come to the Treasury. If they were able to issue a consolidated debt secured upon their own property, in the shares of which trustees would be permitted to invest, they would not have to apply to the Treasury at all, because their own credit was sufficiently good to enable them to obtain all the money they required from the Irish market. Some promise was given them on the occasion to which he had alluded that they should be enabled to issue such a debt; but whether the present Government intended to carry out that promise he did not know. As it was, the Treasury had so obstructed them in obtaining the money they required that they wanted power to borrow upon their own credit. Through the passing of the Public Health Act great responsibility was thrown upon public bodies in Ireland, and it was not right to refuse them facilities for carrying out the Act. He thought that the matter was one which concerned not only Dublin, but the whole of Ireland; and he hoped, therefore, that the House would excuse him for occupying its time upon this question. He should like to know whether the Government would state whether it was its intention to give the same facilities to Ireland in the matter of obtaining advances as was possessed by towns in England?
  MR. M. BROOKSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow had accurately stated the circumstances of this case. It would be convenient if the noble Lord would lay upon the Table of the House the details of the advances made for Irish works. He thought it would be found that the refusal of the Government to grant an advance in the case of Dublin was made under a misapprehension.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that he regretted his inability to give a full explanation of the circumstances of the case alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow; but he had been so short a time in Office that he was unable at that time to afford any information with regard to it. He would, however, take care to obtain full information upon the subject before the next stage of the Bill, and if the question were again raised he would endeavour to go fully into it. He would only say, on that occasion, that he thought the right hon. Gentleman was in error with regard to Sir E. Lingen. He was a most able and excellent public servant; but he was not responsible for the action of the Treasury. It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being who was responsible. With respect to the details of the expenditure of this sum of £1,100,000, he could not promise at present to give any exact details as to the actual manner in which it was to be employed?
  SIR. STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that he was not aware that this question was to be raised, and he regretted that the circumstances had somewhat slipped from his memory. He could, however, endorse what had been said by the noble Lord, to the effect that this was not a matter which was disposed of by Sir E. Lingen upon his sole authority. He recollected the papers in the case being brought before him, and he was satisfied that the decision taken upon the subject was one which, under the circumstances, it was inevitable that they should take. Of course, in the case of these loans it was necessary for those who were responsible to look at the security, and to satisfy themselves that the loan was one which could properly be granted. Without now going into details, he believed that the report made on this application showed that the amount that had already been raised upon the security of the Dublin Corporation rates was so large as not to render it proper to make any further advance. He should be glad to look again into the papers. He also wished to take that opportunity of stating that he entirely agreed with what had been said as to the desirability of looking carefully into this question of public loans. In his opinion, every facility that could be required should be given to the Corporations in Great Britain

  285
  and Ireland to borrow upon their own account without coming to the Treasury for advances. He was in hopes that the Act passed recently—namely, the Local Authorities Loan Act, had produced that effect; but up to the present the facilities given by it had not been made use of. When this question came to be considered, among other matters the question of the facilities 'given by that Act would be inquired into, and how far it was necessary to amend that Act, so as to give Municipal Corporations power to use their own credit in the open market. The late Government had intended to appoint a Committee to inquire into those questions; and he hoped that the present Government would see the propriety of appointing such a Committee to look carefully into this subject. So far as he was concerned in dealing with these loans, he had not the slightest idea of making any distinction between Ireland and England with respect to them. Each loan was considered upon its own merits by the Treasury, which granted or refused the application as it thought most desirable. If it were desired in the present case, he should be happy to look through the papers, and to state the grounds upon which the refusal to grant the loan to Dublin were based.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that he must be allowed to express his thanks to the Lord Mayor of Dublin for calling attention to this matter. The public officials in Dublin were very skilful in getting hold of the Chief Secretary when he came amongst them; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman who now occupied that position was too wide awake to be caught by them. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had, with his usual generosity, taken over the whole responsibility of the refusal of this loan, which the Lord Mayor was attributing to his subordinate. He had accompanied his explanation with the statement that there was no intention on his part to treat Ireland different from England. But the allegation was, that whatever the intention the fact was there. The grievance was manifest, and the intimate knowledge of his right hon. Friend with the financial condition of Dublin might be relied upon as absolutely accurate. He thought that it would be well if the noble Lord would
  286
  state definitely whether towns in the same condition of solvency in England and Ireland were to be treated alike. He should urge his right hon. Friend to press for an answer to that question.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he had no hesitation in stating that it was the desire of the Treasury in every respect as regarded these loans to treat England and Ireland in the same way.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, that very great ignorance existed amongst English officials with respect to the affairs of Dublin. Recently the mistake had been made of confusing the port of Dublin with the Corporation. And in the present case, acting upon information thoroughly inaccurate, they had refused to make the loan to the Corporation of Dublin. In common with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow County, he was a member of the Corporation of Dublin; and he could state that the inability of the Corporation to execute the works in question would entail very grave consequences upon the Irish Metropolis. One of the most prominent diseases—one which made the death rate in Dublin so exceptionally heavy—was pulmonary or chest disease. That disease was caused, in a great measure, by the absence of good paving and the consequent prevalence of damp exhalations. There was in Dublin a very scanty supply of good macadam to be obtained; and the only remedy was to lay down continuous pavement, and thus to save them from the reproach of being called "dirty Dublin," and still more important to preserve the lives of the people. The refusal of the Treasury to make this loan had, therefore, entailed very grave consequences upon the health of the people of Dublin.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

MERCHANT SHIPPING.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed, to make inquiry concerning the losses of British Ships, missing and foundered, since the passing

  287
  of 'The Merchant Shipping Act, 1873;"to ascertain the causes of such losses; to inquire into the operation of legislation as affecting them; and to report whether any change in the Law affecting Merchant Shipping or Maritime Insurance is required to prevent such losses."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that he did not wish to oppose the appointment of this Committee; but the right hon. Gentleman would not be surprised at his observing that there was a considerable change in the direction to the Committee. The Reference to the Committee of last Session was a very limited one, and excluded altogether the question of maritime insurance. They hoped last Session that the Committee would be formed in a short space of time, so as to enable the House to form an opinion as to the desirability of passing the Bill with respect to cargoes in bulk, brought forward by the then hon. Member for Derby. It was clear that the broad Reference now given to the Committee would make it impossible for them to report within a limited period. The single subject of maritime insurance would require very long consideration. He wished, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, whether there was any intention to depart from the determination arrived at by both sides not to legislate with respect to cargoes in bulk until the Committee had reported? He trusted that no legislation with regard to this subject would take place without due deliberation. He had no wish in any way to oppose the appointment of this Committee. He wished only to know whether the large Reference implied any change in policy with regard to legislation as to cargoes in bulk?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that it was true that the Reference to the Select Committee was now wider than it was during the last Session. He thought there was very good reason for the altertion which he proposed. He wished that the inquiries of the Committee should include not only the cases of those vessels which had foundered, but also those merchant ships which were missing; because it was now found that the list of missing ships was larger, and the circumstances generally were more serious, than in the case of vessels which had foundered. Moreover, owing to the action of the Board of Trade, under the
  288
  auspices of the noble Lord, a series of inquiries had been instituted into accidents to vessels, which had yielded most instructive information. For that reason alone he hoped that the House would think that he had come to a most reasonable conclusion in extending the scope of the inquiry. He had also decided to include in the Reference the subject of maritime insurance. His reason for doing so was, that on the last occasion when the noble Lord moved for the Committee, several hon. Members, and especially Mr. Samuda, declared that no Reference had been satisfactory which did not include the subject at the bottom of the matter—namely, maritime insurance. After that expression of opinion from such an authority, he would ask the House whether he could do otherwise than extend the scope of the inquiry. The subject was one which was, to some extent, considered by a Select Committee in 1858, and again, in 1873, by an important Commission, presided over by the Duke of Somerset, and there was urgent need to deal with it. The Commission was not charged to consider the revision of the whole law upon the subject; but it made some important suggestions, which were embodied in a Bill by the late Government. But that Bill, for some reason or another, was not proceeded with. Under those circumstances, it must be felt by the House that it would be right that the Committee to be appointed should not shrink from investigating this most important question connected with merchant shipping. The result would be, no doubt, that inquiry would not terminate for a length of time; and it might be that the Committee would have to report upon the question as to cargoes in bulk before its final Report was prepared. If the Committee was of opinion that it could deal with a certain branch of the subject separately it could make a preliminary Report, and the Government would then legislate upon the subject before the issue of the final Report.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, to make inquiry concerning the losses of British Ships, missing and foundered, since the passing of "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1873;"to ascertain the causes of such losses; to inquire into the operation of legislation as affecting them; and to report "whether any change in the Law affecting Merchant Shipping or Maritime Insurance is required to prevent such losses."

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Bill to extend and regulate the Liability of Employers to make Compensation for personal injuries suffered by workmen in their service, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, and Mr. BRASSEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 118.]

  MERCHANT SEAMEN (PAYMENT OF WAGES, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ASHLEY, Bill to amend the Law relating to the payment of wages and the rating of Merchant Seamen, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ASHLEY and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 119.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT HIGHWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDER (SALOP) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878,"relating to the county of Salop, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 124.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GAS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870,"and "The Public Health Act, 1875,"relating to the borough of Conway, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 123.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1867,"relating to the city of Canterbury, and an Order of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876,"relating to the parishes of Bepton, Chilhurst, Farnhurst, Iping, Kirdford, Linch, Linchmere, Lodsworth, Lurgashall, Selham, Stedham, Terwick, Trotton, and Woolbeding, and to the tything of North Ambersham, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.' [Bill 121.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ABERAVON, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the borough of Aber-
  290
  avon, the Local Government District of Ashton in Makerfield, the city of Canterbury, the Local Government District of Cleator Moor, the borough of Congleton, the Local Government District of Horncastle, the city of Lincoln, the Local Government District of Littlehampton, the Improvement Act District of Llandudno, the Local Government Districts of Ossett cum Gawthorpe and Oswaldtwistle, the city of Saint Alban (two), and the borough of Sunderland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 125.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ABERGAVENNY, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Improvement Act District of Abergavenny (two), the Local Government Districts of Baldock, Bredbury, Bromsgrove, Cuckfield, and Ebbw Vale, the Hanley, Stoke, and Fenton Joint Hospital District, the Local Government District of Heck, mondwike, the borough of Pembroke, and the Local Government Districts of Swindon New Town and Withington, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 127.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ALNWICK UNION, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Rural Sanitary District of the Alnwick Union, the borough of Barnsley (two), Local Government District of Brentford, the Rural Sanitary District of the Durham Union, the Local Government Districts of Ealing, East Dereham, and Mountain Ash (two), the boroughs of Newcastle under Lyme and Penzance, the Rural Sanitary Districts of the Rothbury and Settle Unions, and the Local Government District of Torquay, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 120.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (AMERSHAM UNION, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Rural Sanitary Districts of the Amersham, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, and Basford Unions, the borough of Chard, the Local Government District of Croydon, the borough of Cheltenham, the Rural Sanitary District of the Hendon Union, the Local Government Districts of Hornsey and Leyton, the city of Lincoln, the borough of Plymouth, the Local Government District of Redditch, the Rural Sanitary District of the Shardlow Union, and the Local Board of Health District of Woolwich, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 126.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ASHFORD, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Local Government District of Ashford, the Improvement Act District of Bournemouth, the Urban Sanitary District of Folkestone, the Local Government Districts of Ilfracombe and Mirfield, the Rural Sanitary Districts of the Reigate and Steyning Unions, and the port of Wisbech, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 122.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ABINGDON, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the boroughs of Abingdon and Beverley, the Local Government District of Briton Ferry, the borough of Burnley, the Local Government District of Buxton, the borough of Cardigan, the town of Hove, the city of Manchester, the Improvement Act District of Middleton and Tonge, the boroughs of Newbury and Southport, the Improvement Act District of West Hartlepool, and the Local Government District of Wirksworth, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 129.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BETHESDA, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Improvement Act District of Bethesda, the borough of Birmingham, the Local Government District of Haworth, the Lower Thames Valley Main Sewerage District, the borough of Rochdale, the Rochester and Chatham Joint Hospital District, the boroughs of Rotherham, Stockton, and Middlesbrough, and the city of York (two), ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 128.]

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863,"and the Acts amnding the same, ordered to be brought in by Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH and Mr. FORSTER.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MACDONALD, Bill to amend the Law in respect to Employers' Liability for Injuries to their Workmen, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MACDONALD, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. MELDON, Mr. EARP Mr. BURT, and Mr. BROAD-HURST.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 130.]

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY ("WALES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ROBERTS, Bill to prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday in Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. RICHARD, Mr. SAMUEL HOLLAND, Mr. HUSSEY VIVIAN, and Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 131.]

  LOCAL INQUIRIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. FAY, Bill to provide for the establishment of a tribunal for the conduct of local inquiries relating to Private Bills in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. FAY, Sir HARCOURT JOHNSTONE, Mr. JOSEPH COVYEN, Dr. CAMERON, and Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 132.]

  TOWN COUNCILS (ALDERMEN) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. JAMES, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Election of Aldermen in Municipal Boroughs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JAMES, Lord RAMSAY, and Mr. DILL-WYN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 133.]

  HOURS OF POLLING (BOROUGHS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ASHTON DILKE, Bill for the extension of the Hours of Polling at Elections in Boroughs, ordered to he brought in by Mr. ASHTON DILKE, Dr. CAMERON, Major NOLAN, Mr. HENRY SAMUBLSON, Mr. FIRTH, and Mr. BARRAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 134.]

  SEA FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. COLLINS, Bill for the regulation and encouragement of the Coast and Deep Sea Fisheries of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COLLINS, Colonel COLTHURST, Mr. WILLIAM CORBETT, Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR, and Mr. BLENNERHASSETT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 135.]

  ULSTER TENANT RIGHT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MACARTNEY, Bill for the better securing of the Tenant Right custom in the Province of Ulster, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MACARTNEY and Mr. CHARLES LEWIS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 136.]

  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir JOSEPH BAILEY, Bill to consolidate and amend the Salmon and Freshwater Fishery Laws of England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOSEPH BAILEY,, Mr. DILLWYN, Mr. DODDS, and Mr. STAFFORD HOWARD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 137.]

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT (187.5) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHAPLIN, Bill to amend "The" Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875,"and to secure to tenants compensation for their improvements in all cases, ordered to he brought in by Mr. CHAPLIN, Mr. PELL, Mr. JOSEPH COVEN, Mr. BIRKBECK, and Mr. J. C. LAWRENCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 138.]

  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACTS CONSOLIDATION RILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HINDE PALMER, Bill to consolidate and amend the Married Women's Property Acts, 1870 and 1874, ordered to he brought in by Mr. HINDE PALMER, Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY, Mr. JACOB BRIGHT, and Mr. WATKIN"WILLIAMS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 139.]

  MARRIAGES REGISTRATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, Bill to alter and amend the Law with regard to the Registration of Marriages of persons not members of the Established Church, ordered to he brought in by Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, Mr. MONK, and Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 140.]

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) (NOTICE OF REMOVAL) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Bill to extend the time of Notice of Removal in the case of Agricultural Holdings in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Mr. M'LAGAN, and Mr. BARCLAY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 141.]

  MIDDLESEX LAND REGISTRY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HOT-WOOD, Bill to improve the constitution and extend the district of the Middlesex Land Registry, and to amend the Law relating to the registration and transfer of land in Middlesex and the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HOPWOOD, Mr. GREGORY, and Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 142.]

  VALUATION OF LAND BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RAMSAY, Bill to provide for the Valuation of Lands and Hereditaments in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAMSAY, Mr. BAXTER, Mr. PELL, Mr. MUNTZ, and Mr. JOSEPH COWEN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 143.]

  FIXITY OF TENURE (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. LITTON, Bill to secure to tenants of agricultural holdings in Ireland Fixity of Tenure at fair rents, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LITTON, Mr. DICKSON, Mr. GIVAN, Mr. FINDLATER, and Mr. JAMES RICHARDSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 144.]

  WASTE LANDS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MARTIN, Bill for the amendment of the Laws relating to the drainage and reclamation of Waste Lands in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MARTIN, Mr. MARUM, Mr. PARNELL, and Major NOLAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 145.]

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STEVENSON, Bill to prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STEVENSON, Mr. BIRLEY, Mr. JAMES, Mr. CHARLES WILSON, and Mr. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 146.]

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. O'CONNOR POWER, Bill to amend the relations between Landlord and Tenant in Ireland, ordered to he brought in by Mr. O'CONNOR POWER, Mr. PARNELL, and Mr, MARUM.
  Bill presented, and road the first time. [Bill 147.]

  LUNACY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DILLWYN, Bill to amend the Laws relating to Lunatics, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DILLWYN, Sir GEORGE BALFOUR, and Mr. BENJAMIN WILLIAMS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time, [Bill 148

  LIMITATION OF COSTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ERRINGTON, Bill to relieve tenants in Ireland by limiting the Costs which may be incurred, and facilitating the redemption of lands in certain cases of ejectment, ordered to he brought in by Mr. ERRINGTON and Mr. BLENNERHASSETT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 149.]

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MELDON, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Registration of Voters in Ireland, ordered to he brought in by Mr. MELDON, Mr. SHAW, Mr. MITCHELL HENRY, Mr. FIND-LATER, and Mr. DAWSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 150.]

  MERCHANT SEAMEN (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) BILL.
  On Motion of Viscount SANDON, Bill to amend the Law relating to the conditions of service of Merchant Seamen; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Viscount SANDON and Mr. TALBOT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 151.]

  ELECTIVE COUNTY BOARDS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Major NOLAN, Bill for the establishment of Elective County Boards in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Major NOLAN, Mr. MARTIN, Mr. PAY, Mr. MELDON, Mr. O'SULLIVAN, Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, and Mr. O'CONNOR POWER.
  Bill presented and read the first time. [Bill 152.]

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT (1875) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SAMUELSON, Bill to amend "The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875,"ordered to be brought in by Mr. SAMUEL-BON, Mr. JAMES HOWARD, Sir HARCOURT JOHNSTONE, Mr. HARDCASTLE, and Mr. HANBURY-TRACY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 153.]

  MARIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ANDERSON, Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Property of Married Women in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. DUNCAN M'LAREN, Sir DAVID WEDDERBURN, and Mr. JAMES STEWART.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 154.]

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  On Motion of Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS, Bill to legalise Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, ordered to be brought in by Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS, Mr. COLLINS, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. Alderman COTTON, Sir HARCOURT JOHNSTONE, Mr. MORLBY, Mr. TREVELYAN, and Mr. STUART-WORTLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 155.]

  POOR REMOVAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MARTIN, Bill for the further amendment of the Laws relating to the removal of poor persons natives of Ireland from England to Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MARTIN, Mr. SHAW, and Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 156.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS (COMMISSION) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. PELL, Bill to appoint a Commission for the alteration of areas of Local Government in certain cases, and for the rearrangement of the boundaries thereof, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PELL, Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE, Mr. YORKE, and Mr. ROUNDELL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 157.]

  CONGE D'ELIRE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MONK, Bill to abolish the Conge d'élire, and to make provision for the appointment of Archbishops and Bishops by Her Majesty by Letters Patent under the Great Seal, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MONK and Sir HENRY JACKSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 158.]

  INHABITED HOUSE DUTY AND INCOME TAX BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HUBBARD, Bill to amend the Administration of the Inhabited House Duty and Income Tax, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HUBBARD, Mr. WHITLEY, Mr. LEATHAM, and Sir CHARLES FORSTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 159.]

  MARRIAGE RITE (EXTENSION OF HOURS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, Bill to extend the hours in which Marriages may lawfully be solemnised, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, Mr. MONK, and Mr. OTWAY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 160.]

  MARRIAGE (DIVORCED PERSONS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, Bill to alter and amend the Law with regard to the Marriage of Divorced Persons, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BLENNERHASSETT and Mr. MONK.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 161.]

  JUDICIAL FACTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RAMSAY, Bill to provide for the appointment of Judicial Factors in Sheriff Courts in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAMSAY, Mr. BAXTER, Lord ELCHO, and Dr. CAMERON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 162.]

  POTATO CROP.
  Select Committee appointed," to inquire into the best means of diminishing the frequency and the extent of failures in the Potato Crop."—(Major Nolan.)
  And, on June 4, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. ARTHUR MOORE, Sir HERVEY BRUCE, Mr. MACDONALD, Sir EDMUND FILMER, Mr. EARP, Mr. MACARTNEY, Mr. BARCLAY, Mr. STEWART, Lord MORETON, Mr. STORER, Mr. COLMAN, Mr. ROUND, Mr. EVANS, Mr. TOT. TENHAM, and Major NOLAN:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records:—Five to be the quorum.

  BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WHITWELL, Bill to amend "The Bankruptcy Act, 1869,"ordered to be brought in by Mr. WHITWELL, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. MONK, and Mr. WILLS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 163.]

  PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave bo given to bring in a Bill to Consolidate the Law of Partnerships.
  Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. WHITWELL, Mr. MONK, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. M'INTYRE, and Mr. LEWIS FRY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 164.]

  BILLS OF SALE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend "The Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act."
  Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. WHITWELL, Mr. MONK, Mr. Serjeant SIMON, Mr. LEWIS FRY, and Mr. BARRAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 165.]

  MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MELDON, Bill to amend the Law relating to Medical Charities in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MELDON, Mr. MAURICE BROOKS, and Mr. ERRINGTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 167.]

  BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MELDON, Bill to amend the Law in Ireland relating to the Registration of Births and Deaths, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MELDON, Mr. MAURICE BROOKS, and Mr. ERRINGTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 166.]

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (GRAIN CARGOES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts and regulate the stowing of Grain Cargoes in Merchant Ships.
  Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. GORST, Mr. JOSEPH COWEN, Mr. CHARLES WILSON, Mr. MAC IVER, and Mr. GOURLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 168.]

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RICHARD POWER, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Municipal Franchise in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RICHARD POWER, Mr. LEAMY, Mr. DALY, Mr. GRAY, and Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 169.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
TOOK THE OATH—Several Lords-PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading —Second Reading—Committee negatived — Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Banbridge, &c)*(66).
PEIVATE BILLS.
Resolutions of the 16th of March last respecting, read.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BANBRIDGE, &C.) BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House, That (pursuant to the said Resolutions) a print of the Bill, together with a declaration from the Local Government Board for Ireland, had been lodged in the Private Bill Office: Bill presented; read 1a; to be printed; read 2"; and Committee negatived. (No. 66.)
AUSTRIA—MR. GLADSTONE'S SPEECH—THE CORRESPONDENCE.

  OBSERVATTONS. QUESTION.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: In rising to put the Question which stands in my name on the Paper to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), I have no intention of recalling too vividly to the minds of your Lordships all the strong things which the present Prime Minister uttered during what I may call his Mid Lothian campaign, which, as your Lordships are aware, commenced on the 16th of March, at the platform of the King's Cross Station, was renewed at intervals along the line of railway, was further proceeded with at the residence of a distinguished nobleman, well known in this House, and finally terminated only on the 6th of April, in a speech delivered in London from a window in Harley Street. Now that the heat of conflict is over, I cannot help thinking that in those various speeches there are many things which the right hon. Gentleman deeply and sincerely regrets— none, probably, more so than the paragraphs in which, in no measured terms, he alluded to the Austrian Government and to the Ruler of the Austrian Empire —language which he now confesses himself to have been—using his own words—"of a painful and wounding character." When these grave and heavy charges

  171
  were brought against a friendly Power, I could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman must have known that, if his campaign were successful, it would not only result in the return of the Liberal Party to power, but that he himself would be called upon very soon to fill the highest position in this country. Under these circumstances, I was astonished to read such language—more particularly as it was applied to a friendly country, and to, I might say, one of our oldest, truest, and staunchest of Allies. When those words were uttered they were received with enthusiastic plaudits; but I cannot help thinking that the audience, when they read later on the letter of the Prime Minister of the 4th of May, must have observed with feelings of astonishment—perhaps not un-mingled with sarcasm—how readily the Prime Minister of to-day could abjure and repudiate the sentiments of the candidate of yesterday. I might add that the letter to which I allude is one which is without precedent in the annals of the history of the country. I therefore think it most desirable that your Lordships should be made acquainted with the whole of this correspondence; and, holding these opinions, I venture to ask the noble Earl (Earl Granville) the following Question:—Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the whole of the correspondence which has recently passed between the Austrian Ambassador and the First Lord of the Treasury?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in answer to the Question into which the noble Lord has entered so fully, I think it hardly necessary to go over the description which I have seen before, given by certain hostile critics, of what he describes as the electoral campaign in Mid Lothian—how it was fought and how it was won. But with regard to this correspondence, I can only say that I presented yesterday the letter which Mr. Gladstone wrote to Count Karolyi. As to the remarks of which the noble Lord complains as having been made by Mr. Gladstone in Mid Lothian with respect to Austria, my right hon. Friend's observations were caused by two misapprehensions. One was the uncontradicted report of certain observations of a hostile character alleged to have been addressed to the British Ambassador by the Emperor of Austria; the other was
  172
  the belief which extensively prevailed, and which was rather encouraged by the language of some Members of the late Government, that Austria was on the road to Constantinople. Twice, I think, but certainly once, Mr. Gladstone in Mid Lothian said, that, if those circumstances were not as so stated to him, he should at once withdraw the observations he had made upon them. Subsequently, personal communications passed between Count Karolyi and Mr. Gladstone, the result of which was the letter which I presented to your Lordships, and which your Lordships have already had an opportunity of reading in the newspapers. I can only say, with regard to this letter, that Mr. Gladstone professed his readiness to give his withdrawal of the statements he had made as much publicity as those statements themselves had received in Mid Lothian —and Count Karolyi having entirely repudiated, entirely denied, the statement that the Emperor had used the language which had been imputed to him, and having also given assurances that the policy of the Austrian Government was not to go beyond the Treaty of Berlin— I say that, under these circumstances, Mr. Gladstone offered to give any publicity he possibly could to his letter. It has been stated that when sitting on the other side of the House we exhibited violent opposition to the foreign policy of the late Government. At all events, we were two years there before the slightest attack was made by us on that policy; but two weeks after the present Government was formed a Member of the late Administration—a friend of mine, one whose ability and power of speech are well known, and whose office in the late Government placed him on the very threshold of the Cabinet—made one of the most violent attacks which it is possible to conceive on Mr. Gladstone in respect of this letter, stating that he thought it shameful and shameless, and giving as his reason for that extraordinary epithet that the Government of Lord Beaconsfield had known for more than a year of the assurance which Mr. Gladstone had only just received from Count Karolyi. I must say, with regard to the mild criticism of the noble Lord (Lord De L'Isle and Dudley), and the very strong language used by Lord George Hamilton, that the observation of the Emperor of Austria when he read

  173
  Mr. Gladstone's letter—"This is the letter of an English gentleman"—describes that letter better.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I was somewhat surprised to hear, in the course of the remarks which the noble Earl has just made, the statement that some observations on the part of Members of the late Government had led to a belief—had confirmed a belief— that, as the noble Earl puts it, Austria was on the way to Constantinople. I should be glad if the noble Earl would put in more precise language the ground of that accusation, because it was no slight accusation; it was an accusation against us that we imputed to a friendly Power with which we had recently concluded an important Treaty, the ink of the signature to which was scarcely dry, that the Government and the people of that country were already meditating a breach of the engagements into which they had entered. If we had made any such imputation against a friendly Power we should have been doubly to blame; and, therefore, I think the noble Earl, when he puts on record such an accusation, should state more precisely the grounds on which he makes it. The noble Earl is much exercised in his mind at the language in which my noble Friend, Lord George Hamilton, described the letter of the Prime Minister to Count Karolyi. I venture to say that when that letter first appeared the general sentiment among men of all parties did not very greatly differ from that to which Lord George Hamilton gave expression. Lord George Hamilton said that the accusation made by Mr. Gladstone against Austria was shameful, because it was made against a friendly Power, without any justification from facts, and was made by one who was at that moment a candidate for the Office of Prime Minister. What was the accusation? That you could not put your finger on any part of the map and say "Here Austria has done good." That Austria had boon everywhere the enemy of freedom, while Russia, though sometimes not the friend of freedom, had shown herself the friend of Slavonic freedom; but Austria was not the friend even of Slavonic freedom. It is astounding that any man who has read the history of Poland and knows that even now the government of Poland is a terrible blot on the civilization of the 19th century
  174
  should make such a statement; but it is still stranger that a man who was about to become Prime Minister should say that Russia was the friend of Slavonic freedom. But what seemed, and what was utterly unfitting the position of anyone who had held high office, and what was still more unfitting the position of one who had the aspirations which Mr. Gladstone had, was that he made against Austria charges which, oven as applied to the old government of that country, were unjust, because it was not true that the old Austrian Metternich was hostile to freedom, while the allegation was utterly out of place as applied to the Austria which has existed since 1867. Austria is now, and has been since 1867, a free Constitutional State, and, instead of being the enemy of Slavonic freedom, has been the friend of that freedom. She has given what Russia never will give, Parliamentary institutions to 10,000,000 Slavs. The institutions of Austria are so liberal that they go even beyond what the Liberal Party here will grant. Austria has given Home Rule to her subjects; and I believe the Liberal Party—or, at least, their Leaders—do not profess to go so far as that. I do not understand on what possible basis of fact this accusation against Austria could have been raised; but that which made it, in Lord George Hamilton's phrase shameful, was that it was made by a man who had undertaken political operations which, in his belief, were certain to lead to victory—a victory which he knew full well would place him at the head of the Councils of the Queen. My Lords, I thought I gathered in some of the language that fell from the noble Earl opposite that Mr. Gladstone had withdrawn the accusation he had made. Mr. Gladstone did nothing of the kind. Mr. Gladstone only promised not to make the accusation again, and said ho would not defend it; but the gist of his letter was this:—"I believe that Austria, in spite of her recent signature, intended to seek territorial advantages beyond those given her by the Treaty. I thought I was justified in acting on that belief until the statement on which it was founded was contradicted; and because that statement was not contradicted, and because I entertained that belief, therefore I accused Austria of being everywhere hostile to freedom." But he does not withdraw

  175
  the statement that Austria was hostile to freedom. He does not cancel this imputation. The imputation remains where it was. He only promises, in recognition of the assurance given him by Count Karolyi that Austria does not desire to advance beyond where she now stands, that he will not renew the accusation. I do not question the discretion of the Austrian Government in accepting that apology, however unsatisfactory its character and form. I think if it was necessary, Mr. Gladstone having made this mistake, that he should apologize for it; he should have apologized in a manner less humiliating to England and more satisfactory to Austria. He might have simply said in his place in Parliament that he had been hurried away—as he undoubtedly was — by the heat of electioneering speeches. However, though the Austrian Government is wise in not raising any further questions leading to further controversy on this unfortunate occurrence, we here in England have some cause to look with apprehension and suspicion on the terms in which Mr. Gladstone made this apology. He promises that he will make no further reference to Austria's misdeeds. He admits that he made the original accusation as a kind of weapon against Austria to prevent her from making further territorial advances; but at the same time that he made this accusation against Austria he went out of his way to exculpate Russia, and put aside the use of any such weapon by her. Are we, then, to infer that the motive which actuated him in making this accusation against Austria is one of which he does not recognize the cogency when Russia is in question? Does he mean to say that he put Russian misdeeds entirely aside, because that which he fears in the case of Austria he does not object to in the case of Russia— namely, the advance beyond the position which the Treaty of Berlin has accorded? The very conspicuous and significant oblivion of all historical facts with reference to Russia rather seems to imply that to his mind what would be only a fair advance on the part of Russia would be intolerable in the case of Austria. I am very sorry if that is the attitude which the present Government desire to adopt. I do not wish them to. make special or exclusive alliances with any
  176
  nation. I do not think that would be an advisable policy for this country. Exclusive alliances, as we know, are apt to be offensive to those who are not included in them, and can only be justified when there is a complete identity of interests. It appears to me that cannot be the case with this country. The noble Earl said yesterday that he had entered into some considerable diplomatic operations in the hope of bringing about a concert of all the European Powers. That would be a very noble result, and one greatly to be desired. How far it is practicable remains in the future to be proved. On the other hand, as far as our experience goes, it has shown that the European concert is performed by an orchestra of which the various members have not the slightest intention of playing the same tune; and I fear that what has happened in the past may recur in the future. The noble Earl says that this policy of proceeding by the concert of the European Powers is one that England has specially cultivated. I do not know that that boast has been justified by the policy of the Liberal Party. It was not in concert with all the European Powers the Crimean War was undertaken. It was not in concert with all the European Powers they set up the Kingdom of Italy. I think the concert of the European Powers was only once obtained, and that only for a brief period, during the Conference at Constantinople. And its duration then was speedily brought to an end. Though all the Powers agreed in making certain recommendations to Turkey and urging them very strongly, all were not agreed as to the mode in which they should be pressed. Before two months Russia broke away from the European concert and pressed her recommendations on Turkey by war. So long as it is a question of mere recommendations the concert may be preserved; but if, unhappily, it should ever come to measures more active than diplomatic communications, I am afraid the concert will disappear in an inharmonious crash. But the danger of this effort of carrying all the Powers with you is that when the disagreement ultimately arises, that disagreement is apt to produce greater alienation, and to end in greater estrangement, than if the apparent unanimity had never been attempted. I do not for that reason blame the noble Earl

  177
  for making the attempt; but there is one point on which I wish to lay stress, and it is this—that it would be a matter of great detriment to this country if the policy of which I see traces in Mr. Gladstone's letter should be brought into effect whenever the moment for the disappearance of this concerted action should arrive. If the spirit in which the Government are guided in this negotiation is to lean rather to the side of Russia than to that of Austria—to look at Austria with special and exceptional suspicion and close your eyes when they are turned to Russia—it will be a very grievous matter to this country. Although we have no reason to be bound by any special alliance with Austria, yet she is, undoubtedly, the country to whom every consideration of interest should draw us most closely, because she is the one country whose interests cannot by any possible contingency clash with our own. If, in deference to any mere sentimental view in recollection of struggles long gone by—struggles in which Italian freedom was gained, and of which I fear the recollection has far too great an influence in governing the feelings and framing the policy of the Prime Minister—if the result of these feelings should be that we depart from that close friendliness with Austria which it certainly was the object of the late Government to sustain, and which we believe to be in the highest interest of this country, I think the policy of this country will greatly suffer, and that we shall have ground greatly to regret the incident which has occurred.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, it appears to me that the object of the noble Marquess who has just addressed your Lordships was twofold— to do as much harm as he possibly can to the Prime Minister, and to damage as far as he can, by anticipation, the foreign policy of the present Government. The noble Marquess evidently desires to raise a prejudice against all the proceedings of the Government, by fixing upon them, through a side attack, occasioned by the letter of the Prime Minister, an imputation, even before he knows what their action has been, that their policy is pro-Russian. It would be well for him to wait to see whether our policy is Russian, or whether it is impartially directed, as we believe it will be, to the interests of this country
  178
  and to the peace of Europe. But the noble Marquess is too eager to wait. Fresh from the Foreign Office, an Office of which I formerly had some experience in a subordinate capacity, I should have thought that he would have been sufficiently prudent, or, if not sufficiently prudent, sufficiently patriotic, not to make such an attack before the Government had had an opportunity of developing its policy. See what that attack is. The noble Marquess knows that the object of the Government is to obtain the concert of the European Powers in order to procure a settlement of the question in the East. The noble Marquess sneered at that kind of concert, and said that it was a difficult thing to obtain, and further compared it to an orchestra, all the members of which played different tunes. No doubt the concert of the European Powers is a difficult thing to secure, and the peace of Europe is not always to be maintained. But are we to say that because that concert has frequently failed that we are not to endeavour to obtain it? and are we to anticipate that there will be no concerted action because it has been sometimes unsuccessful? If that concert be successful, it cannot but be productive of good. I maintain that in this matter the Government deserves encouragement in an effort which, if even unsuccessful, is both praiseworthy and laudable. I ask your Lordships to consider whether it is a prudent or a patriotic course to constantly encourage jealousy and suspicion against one of the Great Powers of Europe—I mean Russia. My Lords, I am not Russian in tendency. I believe there is much in Russia of which this country will disapprove—much in her past policy—and that the position of Russia is, in some respects, such as to cause disquietude to this country. But one thing is certain—Russia is likely to remain one of the chief Powers of Europe; and I ask, is it wise, is it prudent, to raise up suspicions and enmity between this country and Russia? My Lords, I believe that to be an unworthy policy, as well as an unwise course to take. There has been a great diplomatic instrument to settle the affairs of the East. Russia has been a party to that instrument, and not an inconsiderable party. That Treaty arose out of the quarrel between Turkey and

  179
  Russia. Russia will be called upon, and is called upon, to carry out the provisions of that Treaty. Indeed, it cannot be carried into effect without Russia's co-operation and consent. Noble Lords opposite may think that that Treaty will be fulfilled by trying to excite animosity against Russia; but it cannot be fulfilled unless it has the assent of that Power. Mr. Gladstone has not in his speeches—and certainly not in his letter—said that because he disapproves of some of the past actions of Austria he is about to throw himself into the arms of Russia. The two things are totally different. What does this attack mean, unless it is an attempt to sow dissension amongst the Great Powers? The noble Marquess talks of historical opinion; but all the world knows what Austria once was, and knows that in the time of Prince Metternich Austria certainly was not the advocate of freedom, and that she was a Power which, in many respects, acted against the general opinion of this country. Russia also did so in the affairs of Poland. But I cannot see that the Prime Minister should be so greatly blamed for remembering the history of Austria; and I am glad to find that the noble Marquess disclaimed any feeling of favour to the extension of Austrian territory beyond what was provided by the Treaty of Berlin. The noble Marquess lectured the Prime Minister. Does the noble Marquess remember the speech at Manchester? Does he remember that he spoke of the alliance between Germany and Austria as "tidings of great joy?" My Lords, I believe a more imprudent statement was never made by a Minister — made not by one who was expecting Office, but who was in Office. I think what the noble Marquess has said to-night shows that his opinion is that we should have formed an exclusive alliance with Austria. My Lords, I believe it is greatly to the interest of this country to act with Austria and in concert with Austria, but not to the exclusion of the other Powers. If we cannot co-operate with all the Powers, our object is to co-operate with as many as we can get to act with us. I trust we may succeed in effacing, to some extent, the constant hostility between this country and Russia, which is a source of danger to the peace of Europe
  180
  and to our possessions in Asia, and which we believe a more prudent policy may do a great deal to remove and relieve. I regret that the noble Marquess should have extended the discussion on the letter which the Prime Minister wrote to Count Karolyi; because I believe he has been hasty in making an attack upon Her Majesty's Government before he knew what policy they intend to pursue.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, one would suppose, coming down to the House suddenly, and not being aware of the facts of the case, that we had made an attack on the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Earl who has just addressed us has scarcely noticed the origin of this conversation. Does the noble Earl wish us to believe that no such document exists as that which took the shape of a letter from the Prime Minister to Count Karolyi? And yet is it to be supposed that so remarkable a document should have been made public, and that no notice of it should have been taken in your Lordships' House? I am surprised that so long a period as 24 hours should have elapsed after the meeting of the House without some reference having been made to it. I myself should have made allusion to the letter yesterday if I did not think it desirable that as little controversy as possible should be introduced in the discussion on the Motion for the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne. What is the document in question? Does the noble Earl who has just addressed us mean to say that it does not imply a policy hostile to Austria? What was the declaration of the Prime Minister originally, and what was the spirit of the vindicating letter to which attention has been properly called by my noble Friend who asked the Question? The right hon. Gentleman has not withdrawn that original interpretation which he put upon the character and conduct of Austria which is now before us. The noble Earl seems to think that we have nothing whatever to do with the original speech of the Prime Minister, because it was, in fact, delivered during the heat of an election contest. Whether it were the passionate expression of a vindictive memory which recalled the past of many years ago with reference to the history of Austria I cannot stop to inquire. That

  181
  would be an argument which, really does not alter the state of the case. We are told that the policy of Austria and the general principles of its government at the time of Prince Metternich were different from what they are now. That is a rather extraordinary way of meeting the statement of my noble Friend. It is now between 30 and 40 years since Prince Metternich retired from official life; and, therefore, the explanation of the expressions of the Prime Minister, that they were prompted by a too lively recollection of the policy and conduct of Prince Metternich, is one of the most trifling statements I have ever heard in your Lordships' House. The fact remains before us that a Minister of the highest position in this country, at a time very critical, during negotiations on which ultimately the peace of Europe may depend, has spoken of one of the Great Powers of Europe in a manner which, if it faithfully represents the sentiments of that individual, must be most injurious to the course of the negotiations, so far as the influence of that Power, which, at least, was once the Ally of England, is concerned. The noble Earl who has just addressed us has made no answer whatever to the statement of my noble Friend. What my noble Friend put before the House—-and most usefully put before the House—was that the country must not be deceived, and suppose that because, by the interference and interposition of Count Karolyi, certain assurances have been extracted from the Prime Minister on this matter, the affair is entirely closed. There is nothing in that answer—though there are many expressions in the letter which are humiliating to this country, though there are many expressions which may be satisfactory to the honour of Austria —there is nothing in that answer which at all guards this country from future action on the part of that Minister which may imperil the peace of Europe.
  THE DUKE OP ARGYLL: I am very sorry that so early in the Session the noble Marquess and the noble Earl should have taken an opportunity to make a most severe and a very bitter attack, not upon the foreign policy of the Government, because they do not know what that foreign policy is, but upon a speech made by the present Prime Minister before he was in Office,
  182
  and upon a construction of that speech which I believe to be entirely erroneous as regards the foreign policy of this country. I have never expressed any hostile feeling against Austria; and I think the distinction which the noble Marquess drew between Austria in the days of Prince Metternich and Austria in the present time is a just and legitimate one. I, for one, regretted the terms in which my right hon. Friend referred in Mid Lothian to the Austrian Empire; but I am bound to say this on behalf of Mr. Gladstone, that there had been recent circumstances and recent communications — apparently authentic, more or less connected with the Conservative Press — which did give the impression to many persons that Austria was to be pushed forward by Her Majesty's late Government in opposition to Russia, and that an exclusive alliance was to be made between this country and Austria with regard to the Balkan Peninsula. It has always been the declared policy of my right hon. Friend that no exclusive alliance in regard to the East of Europe should be made between this country and either Austria or Russia; he has uniformly declared that he wished to see the freedom of the Native populations in the Balkan Peninsula. He has also uniformly objected to extending the dominion of either Austria or Russia over those populations. My Lords, I think Her Majesty's Government have a right to complain of the speeches of both the noble Marquess and the noble Earl at the head of the late Government. Immediately before the Dissolution of Parliament the noble Earl assured your Lordships that if the General Election should result in a verdict against himself and his friends he would give the succeeding Government a loyal support so far as he was able to do so. Now, so far, that loyal support consists in a most embittered attack on a policy which the noble Earl constructed out of his own heated imagination, and which he founded upon a letter which did not bear the construction he gave it. Her Majesty's Government are now in most active and friendly co-operation with the Austrian Government; and I trust that co-operation may soon extend to the whole of Europe. My Lords, I cannot help remarking that it would be more seemly in the Members of the late Government to talk a little more

  183
  modestly with regard to the results of their foreign policy. They are very proud of the Treaty of Berlin, and their supporters in the country have been twitting Her Majesty's Government with taking up the policy of the late Administration. This is because Her Majesty's Government are desirous of seeing the Treaty of Berlin carried out. But, my Lords, I am one of those who have more than once pointed out that ninety-nine hundredths of that Treaty were due, not to the English Government, but to the sword of Russia—that ninety-nine hundredths of it were literally copied from the Treaty of San Stefano; and that, while the late Government seemed to take under their special protection all the clauses of the Treaty which were really their own work, they had been very languid in their support of the other clauses which had been due entirely to the efforts of Russia, and which secured the liberties of the Christian populations in the Balkan Peninsula. Those clauses, in so far as the Turkish Government are concerned, have hitherto remained absolutely a dead letter; and it will be the first duty of Her Majesty's Government to endeavour, if they can, to unite all the Powers of Europe in favour of the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin which had not the special patronage of noble Lords opposite.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.