Sitting of 19 January 1897

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners by Black Rod.
The House went, and, having returned.
MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House that he had issued during the Recess Warrants for New Writs for,—
Borough of Bradford (East Division) v. Henry Byron Reed, esquire, deceased.
County of York, North Biding (Cleveland Division) v. Henry Fell Pease, esquire, deceased.

NEW WRITS.
For the City of Salisbury, v. Edward Henry Hulse, esquire, Manor of North-stead.—(Sir William Walrond.)
County of Forfar, v. James Martin White, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds,—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)

ELECTIONS.
Ordered,—That all Members who are returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom do make their election for which of the places they will serve, within one week after it shall appear that there is no question upon the Return for that place; and if anything shall come in question touching the Return or Election of any Member, he is to withdraw during the time the matter is in debate; and that all Members returned upon double Returns do withdraw till their Returns are determined.
Resolved,—That no Peer of the Realm, except such Peers of Ireland as shall for the time being be actually elected, and shall not have declined to serve, for any county, city, or borough of Great
38
Britain, hath any right to give his vote in the Election of any Member to serve in Parliament.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,), moved:—
"That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the Election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland, at such Elections in Great Britain respectively where such Peer shall appear as a candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the Election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament."
MR. JAMES LOWTHER, rising amid the cheers of the Irish Members, said he desired to ask the Government whether they were of opinion that any good object was served—[cheers]—by the retention upon the Order Book of the House of a Resolution which it was notorious must be evaded, which the House had no means of enforcing, and which he thought scarcely redounded to the credit or the dignity of the House. He questioned whether the House would do right to again assent to this Motion and expressed his readiness to take the sense of the House in regard to it. [Cheers.] He objected, to the House passing any resolution at all with regard to the alleged interference of peers in elections.
The House divided:—Ayes, 334; Noes, 68.—(Division List, No. 1.)
Resolved,—That if it shall appear that any person hath been elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by Bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such Bribery or other corrupt practices.

WITNESSES.
Resolved,—That if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any Witness, in respect of his evidence to

39
be given to this House, or any Committee thereof, or directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime and misdemeanour; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.
Resolved,—That if it shall appear that any person hath given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Ordered,—That the Commissioners of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that, during the Session of Parliament, the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall, or in the passages leading to this House, during the sitting of Parliament, and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts; and that the Serjeant at Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioners aforesaid.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS.
Ordered,—That the Votes and Proceedings of this House be printed, being first perused by Mr. Speaker; and that he do appoint the printing thereof; and that no person but such as he shall appoint do presume to print the same.
Ordered,—That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.
OUTLAWRIES BILL.
For the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries, read the first time; to be read a second time.

JOURNAL.
Ordered,—That the Journal of this House, from the end of the last Session to the end of the present Session, with an Index thereto, be printed.
Ordered,—That 750 copies of the said Journal and Index be printed by the appointment and under the direction of Sir Reginald Francis Douce Palgrave, K.C.B., the Clerk of this House.
Ordered,—That the said Journal and Index be printed by such Person as shall be licensed by Mr. Speaker, and that no other Person do presume to print the same.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Captain Ronald Henry Fulke Greville, commonly called the Hon. Ronald Henry Fulke Greville, for Borough of Bradford, (East Division).

COAL TABLES.
Copy ordered of Statement showing the production and consumption of Coal, and the number of persons employed in Coal production, in the principal countries of the world, in each year from 1883 to 1895, as far as the particulars can be stated.—(Mr. Ritchie.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 1.]

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1895–6.
Copy ordered.
"of Accounts stowing,—

(1.) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1896;

(2.) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year;

together with the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 1.]

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND).
Copy ordered,
"of Account of the Receipts and Payments of the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, in respect of the Funds

41
of Suitors in the said Court, in the year to the 30th day of September, 1896, together with a Statement of Liabilities and Assets and particulars of Securities in Court, on the 30th day of September, 1896."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 3.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (BALLOT FOR BILLS AND NOTICES OF MOTIONS).
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)gave notice that to-morrow he would move—
"That no Bills, other than Government Bills, be introduced in anticipation of the Ballot, and that all Members who desire to Ballot, whether for Bills or Motions for the first four Tuesdays of the Session, do hand in their names at the Table during the sitting of the House on the first or second day of the Session, and that a Copy of such Notices be handed in at the latest during the sitting of the House on the third day of the Session:
"That the Ballot for the precedence of the said Bills and Motions be taken on the third day of the Session at a convenient time and place to be appointed by Mr. Speaker:
"That this Resolution be a Standing Order of the House."

GOVERNMENT BILLS.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, amid Ministerial cheers, said: I beg to give notice that on Thursday next I will move for leave to bring in a Bill for aiding voluntary schools. (Cheers.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I beg to give notice that on an early day I will move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of compensation to workmen for injuries sustained in the exercise of their employment.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR RICHARD WEBSTER,): I beg to give notice that on Thursday I will ask for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of evidence in criminal cases.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. BRODRICK,): I beg to give notice that on Thursday next I will ask for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the expenses of
42
certain military works and other military services. [Cheers.]
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. GERALD BALFOUR,): I beg to give notice that on Thursday I will move for leave to bring in a Bill for the establishment of a Board of Agriculture in Ireland and for other purposes. [Cheers.]
THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I beg to give notice that on Thursday I will move for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to the public health in Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  [FIRST DAY.]
  MR. SPEAKERreported Her Majesty's Speech, and read it to the House.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE, who were the uniform of a major of the 1st Wilts Rifle Volunteers, rose to move an Address in reply to the Gracious Speech from the Throne. He said he desired at once to ask the kind indulgence of the House while he fulfilled the difficult task which had been placed in his hands, and he did so with the utmost sincerity and with the greater hope that the House would grant it since he had never yet intervened in its debates during the time he had had the honour of being a member of the House. The assurances which Her Majesty's Gracious Speech gave them as regarded foreign affairs were such as would, he felt sure, commend themselves to the House. They were, in every instance almost, satisfactory. There was, perhaps, one instance in which the epithet satisfactory could only be used in qualified terms, for while he thought the great majority of the people of this country were satisfied that Her Majesty's Government had adopted a wise and prudent policy with regard to the abominable massacres in Turkey, no one could look even on the present state of affairs in that unfortunate country

  43
  with satisfaction. [Cheers.] It was his hope, as, it was the expressed hope of every one, that the Powers might find means in a very short time to deal effectively with the questions which were troubling that country, and might be able to place before the Sultan such reforms as would secure to the people of his dominions, both Christian and Mahomedan, thorough peace and thorough security. [Cheers.] He felt sure the House would agree that the campaign which had recently been brought to a successful issue in the Soudan reflected the very greatest credit, not only upon the troops, but upon the officers of the force which undertook that campaign. [Cheers.] He thought it might be looked upon with the greatest gratification by the Khedive, who, with the advice of Her Majesty's Government, undertook the campaign, and with legitimate pride on their own parts since they knew that the efficiency of the force was largely, if not entirely, owing to the work done by British officers. [Cheers.] He was heartily glad to see in the Speech the reference to a further advance which might possibly occur in the future. [Cheers] Hon. Members would have noticed the report which General Kitchener had recently brought back from the province of Dongola, and which proved what a great blessing the occupation of the province had already become to the people living there. It showed also that there was a prospect of doing the very greatest amount of good in the country, and of bringing to the population there increased comfort and prosperity. He hoped, therefore, it might not be long before they saw the Egyptian troops carrying the advance further into the Soudan to recover those provinces which Egypt had lost in past times. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought they would be doing their duty in supporting that movement, because in that way they would be putting an end to perhaps one of the most barbarous tyrannies that any country had ever suffered under, and restoring to those fertile provinces the great blessings of peace and civilisation. [Cheers.] The whole country, he was sure, would congratulate Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States on the very felicitous ending to their negotiations in reference to Venezuela. [Cheers.] It
  44
  was not only of the utmost satisfaction to everyone that the question of boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana should be settled by arbitration, though that in itself was a most important matter, but he ventured to think that this country and the people of the world would have reason in the future to be proud of the steps which had been taken in the direction of international peace by this Treaty of Arbitration between themselves and the United States. [Cheers.] It was the fervent hope of everyone that the American Legislature would see fit to ratify the Treaty, and when they had done so he thought it possible that they might look forward to the time when other countries and nations would follow the example and give up altogether the bloody arbitrament of war in favour of universal peace, which would enable the peoples of the world to extend their civilisation and to improve their prospects for the comfort and well-being of all humanity. [Cheers.] In common with everyone else, he was heartily glad that the rebellion in Matabeleland and Mashonaland had come to an end. It was, of course, only a question of time as to when the rebellion would be put down, and the only thing they had to regret was that many noble lives which could ill be spared had been lost in its suppression. ["Hear, hear!"] Everybody must have heard with the deepest regret of the awful calamity which had fallen upon India, and, while at present, perhaps, he was hardly in a position to estimate the full intensity of the disaster, he felt convinced that Her Majesty's Government, both in this country and in India, would make every endeavour and take every possible step to mitigate the sufferings the poor people in India must endure. ["Hear, hear!"] Turning to the legislative measures mentioned in the Queen's Speech, he rejoiced greatly that in the forefront of the programme appeared the question of the Voluntary Schools. [Cheers.] Both sides of the House must share the feeling that it was necessary that something should be done to maintain these schools in their position—["hear "]—and he hoped that the controversies which had taken place would allow the completion within a short period of time of the work to which the Government had set their

  45
  hands. He held it to be absolutely necessary that something should be done to save those schools from extinction, and in the action they were taking Her Majesty's Government were only fulfilling pledges which many Members on that side of the House gave to their supporters at the last General Election. ["Hear, hear!"] There would be agreement, no doubt, on both sides of the House as to the necessity for a measure which would protect the workman from the results of accident in his employment, and he had confidence the Government would deal with the subject of Employers' Liability in a spirit fair to employers and employed, yet not interfering with the freedom of workpeople. The first duty of a Government was to provide adequately for the defence of the country—["hear, hear"]—and, inasmuch as the Government had devoted a large portion of last Session to the needs of the Navy, it was only right now to turn to the Army and complete our defensive system. Whatever might be the future of this country, and though he might hope that treaties of arbitration might avert the probabilities of war, it was nevertheless under present circumstances absolutely necessary that we should make ourselves strong in a position of defence, so that our commerce should proceed unimpeded and our resources should not fail. As Member for an agricultural constituency he recognised the advantages of the institution of a Board of Agriculture. In extending such an institution to Ireland the Government were acting in a wise and statesmanlike manner, and he felt sure that Irish agriculturists would benefit by this action. Fully he acknowledged the great benefit which the Government had given to agriculture in this country by the work of last Session. ["Hear, hear," and laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he ventured to think that one who spent most of his time among agricultural people had better opportunity of forming a judgment on the subject than those whose experience and interest were chiefly concerned with towns. ["Hear!"] He fully recognised the magnanimous spirit of the Government towards agriculture, and, at the risk of being thought presumptious, he hoped that time and the general disposition of the House would allow of the measures indicated in the latter part of
  46
  the Queen's Speech being proceeded with. There was much in the Speech that would give general satisfaction, including the statement as to the present state of foreign affairs and the modesty of the programme of measures to be proceeded with. He was extremely proud of being intrusted with the duty of moving the Address in reply to the Speech at this period so near the completion of the 60th year of Her Majesty's reign. ["Hear, hear!"] He moved that Address with the most sincere feelings of loyal affection towards Her Majesty, fully sensible as he was that the feelings of the people of this country and of Her Majesty's subjects all over the world were of the deepest reverence and loyalty. [Cheers.] It was his ardent wish that Her Majesty might long be spared to reign over her great Empire wisely and justly as in the past. [Cheers.] He formally moved the Address in reply to the Speech.
  MR. ALFRED LYTTELTON, who was attired in Court dress, seconded the motion. It was difficult, he said, at such a moment not to think of the great changes which had passed over the country during the long and illustrious reign of Her Majesty, and by contrast the present legislative proposals might appear unheroic when the great changes of this long reign were remembered. This was, however, but a superficial view. The reign had seen the establishment of the power of democracy, and naturally enough the problems of to-day differed widely from the problems which confronted the Statesmen of the past. At the present time there was no great fear of privilege, and no Briton had any substantial fear of the action of an imperious nobility or the influence of a tyrannous Church. Few would deny the importance of the group of subjects the Government proposed to deal with. It would be generally agreed that it was important to improve our system of national education without impairing religious individuality, to maintain our industrial greatness, and yet continue to improve the lot of the craftsman, and consolidate national strength and yet increase respect for the rights of other countries. The Government struck at the heart of such problems by Bills to maintain Voluntary Schools, regulating Employers' Liability, and increasing National Arma-

  47
  ments, and at the same time concluding a Treaty of Arbitration with America. Upon this and other subjects mentioned he was sanguine enough to hope that the discussions would be in the spirit of those mentioned by Carlyle as having taken place between himself and Sterling—" Except in opinion not disagreeing." [Laughter.] The discussions of last year on the Bill, conducted with so much ability by the Vice-President of the Council, seemed to him to win some questions affecting Education and Reform from the region of controversy. He did not think after the discussions that had taken place that anyone would say that Voluntary Schools should not be subsidised. Nor would anyone deny that the process euphemistically termed the painless extinction of the Voluntary Schools was really the painful extinction of the efficient education of several generations of children, for it was obvious that if they allowed their schools to be extinguished in this way, the children who attended them must during that time be lamentably impaired in their education. The immense difficulty and complexity of the subject should persuade reasonable men that even with the best Government legitimate grievances might be left. But at least they might expect and might hope that the debates upon the subject might not provoke the satire which Bishop Warburton was heard to mutter after hearing a debate on the Test Acts:—
  "It seems to me orthodoxy is my doxy, and heterodoxy is another man's doxy."
  With regard to the Employers' Liability question it was well known that the Bill of 1880 modified the doctrine of common employment and increased the responsibilities of employers, but the result had been to suggest many questions of very great difficulty for the Courts. There had been an immense increase of litigation on this subject, and a measure which in point of fact was designed to compensate meritorious and suffering workmen has been a source of great benefit to a class, meritorious indeed, and alleged to be suffering—he meant the members of the legal profession. For himself he remembered the way in which the historian Gibbon when in a dilemma caused by conflict between the tenderest passion and the
  48
  most elementary duty solved the problem—he sighed like a lover, but obeyed like a son. If the Government succeeded in passing a measure diminishing litigation he should sigh as a lawyer, but would rejoice as a citizen. He wished to say a single word upon the important subject of the Treaty of Arbitration. He was not one of those who supposed that the Treaty for a moment indicated that Englishmen respected their country less than they did formerly. He believed that the spirit of the old toast that was prevalent at the beginning of the century was present still: "Our Country; may she in her relations with foreign Countries be always right, but our Country whether right or wrong." He did not think that spirit was in any sense mitigated or diminished by the fact that we were willing to submit differences to peaceful arbitration, and the fame of the authors of this Treaty which had for the first time placed upon a permanent basis of arbitration the relations of two great countries, should indeed be undying. He thought there were few of them, when they had seen the papers upon the subject, but would feel that upon our side the credit of this great act was mainly due to the sustained exertions and great ability of Lord Salisbury. There was one other subject he would like to mention. It was the proposal to establish a Board of Agriculture in Ireland. That was a tribute to the exertions of the Recess Committee, initiated and presided over with such signal ability by the right hon. Member for Dublin. He was aware that events had occurred which made hon. Members less inclined to regard that as a benefit than they would have done before, and that the attention of Irish Members was engaged on another and a far more serious matter. Whatever respect they might pay to the Report of the Royal Commission, few men who had really studied that Report would say that that Report was absolutely complete, and that there were not matters which should be fairly and fully investigated and discussed before a final opinion was formed. But he would like to say, that if it were really shown upon complete materials that Ireland ought under the circumstances to receive some exemption or abatement in taxation, the Unionist Party would be perfectly

  49
  willing and desirous not merely to accord Ireland that justice which was her due but a generosity which it ought to be the privilege of the wealthier country to accord. Concluding, he said he felt it a great honour to have had even a small part in approaching. Her Majesty in this the sixtieth year of her reign—a reign which had, by our exceeding good fortune, proved a stately bulwark against time, and every year of which had recorded royal deeds worthy of our example and our memory, deeds penetrated by a living sympathy with her subjects, especially the poorest of them, the fruit in a noble character of suffering nobly borne. If that Parliament could catch something of the simplicity and the loftiness of her spirit he thought they might indeed feel and hope that the aspiration of the national prayer might be in part fulfilled, and that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety might be forwarded by its labours. [Cheers.]
  SIR W. HARCOURT, who was received with cheers, said: The first and most agreeable task that I have to perform is to acknowledge, I am sure on the part of this side of the House no less than upon that, our sense of the manner in which this Address has been moved and seconded to-night. [Cheers.] The noble Lord who in so graceful and excellent a manner went through the topics of the Speech, represents a name well known and long esteemed in this House—[cheers]—and we are glad that that name should again be present amongst us. As for my hon. and learned friend, I cannot treat him as a neophyte. [Laughter.] It is a name well known to fame in many a field—[laughter]—and in every exercise he has hitherto attempted he has always been in the first rank. I doubt not in the new arena upon which he has entered he will be as distinguished in that field to which we are so happy to welcome him. [Cheers.] The first topic in the Speech to which I would desire to address myself is that which I think is the most important and the most satisfactory. I mean the relations of this country to the United States of America. [Cheers.] Friendship and goodwill between Great Britain and the United States must always be a first and a cardinal principle of English policy. I con-
  50
  gratulate the Government upon the conclusion of the differences which have arisen in regard to Venezuela. I feel confident that in the progress of these negotiations the right hon. Gentleman opposite will acknowledge that nothing has been done from this side of the House to embarrass the Government or make any difficulties in the way of bringing that matter to a satisfactory conclusion. [Cheers.] Therefore, I will not upon this occasion indulge in any criticisms as to the position which might have been occupied at an earlier stage of the negotiations, because I rejoice so much at the settlement which has been finally arrived at. With regard to the general treaty, that is a matter of still greater congratulation, because that is a measure which is intended, and I trust will have, the result of establishing peace and good will with America upon a permanent footing, and not only that, but that it will be an example, as is said in the Speech, and was so well said by the noble Lord, to the rest of the world, and that it will have a beneficent effect. [Cheers.] Whatever else the Government may do, or may have done, this at least is a work upon which they may be congratulated, I think, by everyone, and it is a work for which we may give them unstinted praise. [Cheers.] If it does anything to remove or to eradicate the spirit of suspicion, of jealousy, of hatred, in international relations, which appears to me to be the besetting sin of our day and generation—["hear, hear!"]—it may do something to relieve us from the burden of these senseless armaments which oppress the world—[cheers]—and which, I presume, is that state of the world which is referred to in the economical paragraph of the Speech. [A laugh.] As President Cleveland has properly said, it removes not only the danger of war, but it removes the apprehension of war, when we know that there is a peaceful tribunal whenever quarrels arise—[" hear, hear!"]—and, referring to what has been said by the mover and seconder of the reign of Her Gracious Majesty, I think we may congratulate ourselves that the century, which opened with universal war, concludes at least with this omen of peace. [Cheers.] I think that no better commemoration of the 60th year of the Queen's reign can be found than that the Government of

  51
  the Empire over which she rules should have been among the first to set the example which is established by this Treaty of Arbitration. [Cheers.] There is infinite credit due, I think, to those who have accomplished this great work—first of all to the Governments by which it was conceived, and also to the agents by whom it has been accomplished. Those who have had to watch, as I have had to watch, the conduct throughout these matters of Mr. Secretary Olney will have recognised his real desire for peace and the great ability he has shown—[cheers]—and when I speak of Sir Julian Pauncefote I speak of a man of unrivalled abilities, of one of the most helpful and accomplished servants of the Crown. If these are the men who have taken part in this great transaction, I think we ought not to forget the labourers under the heat and burden of the day who prepared that opinion which has been finally accomplished. [Cheers.] I cannot forget the name of a gentleman no longer, I am sorry to say, a member of this House—I mean Mr. Cremer—[cheers]—who, through good report and evil report, when this matter was the subject too frequently of ridicule, did so much good in this country and in foreign countries to forward the cause of arbitration. [Cheers.] I now turn to a topic, I am sorry to say, much less auspicious, and that is the condition of South Africa. The Speech refers to the deplorable events which have there occurred and the lives which have been so unfortunately lost. The House of Commons is going to undertake an inquiry into the condition of things in South Africa—a most important and responsible inquiry. What the nature and object of that inquiry are have been stated by the Colonial Minister in language which leaves no doubt upon this subject. He said:
  "The true character of the action of those who broke into a foreign State which is in friendly Treaty relations with Her Majesty in time of peace, is an act of war, or rather of filibustering. If it can be proved that the British South Africa Company set this invasion in motion, or were privy to this marauding action, Her Majesty's Government would at once have to face a demand that the charter should be revoked and the corporation dissolved."
  Upon that statement by the Government the South Africa Company demanded
  52
  an inquiry in these words. They requested Her Majesty's Government
  "to institute an Inquiry, with authority to call for papers and examine witnesses on oath, into the circumstances under which Dr. Jameson burst into the South African Republic."
  That was the demand of the company, and that, of course, will be one of the main subjects of inquiry by the Committee. A great deal has happened since that time, a great deal that is much to be deplored. The native rising has been suppressed, as is stated in the Speech, but of the condition of that country at present very little is authentically known in this country. The authority of the Chartered Company has been suspended for the present in regard to all its police and military authority, and the Committee, of course, will have to consider the future government and organisation of that gigantic territory. These will be amongst the things into which they will have to inquire, but of this I feel confident, that the Committee will address itself to two main objects. One object is to restore the good feeling and the cordiality between the two races which occupy South Africa, which have been so rudely shaken, and upon whose good will and friendship the future of South Africa depends. That, I think, will be their first object. Their second object will be to vindicate in the face of the world the character of this nation's good faith in its dealings with neighbouring countries, and we shall repudiate the charge which has been too often, and I believe falsely, brought against us—that we are willing for aggrandisement and gain to encourage proceedings which we are unable to defend. [Cheers.] There are, I believe, the principles upon which a Committee of this House would act in a matter of this description. Then, Sir, there is another subject which is referred to in the Speech upon which we should desire, and I think are entitled to request, some further information from the Government—I mean with respect to their Egyptian policy. [Cheers.] I can cordially concur in and associate myself with the praise the noble Lord has bestowed upon the military aspect of that expedition, which has been conducted with great skill, with great ability, and with

  53
  great success by the officers and the men who were engaged in that expedition; but as to the policy of that expedition and as to the necessity for it, I for one, and I believe many on this side of the House, entertain exactly the same objection we have always entertained. ["Hear, hear!"] What is its real aim and end? That is a thing upon which there has been an amount of obscurity and mystery which I think has been extremely injurious, and we ought to have some much clearer explanation of what it is the Government are really aiming at. ["Hear, hear!"] We know what was the beginning, and we want to know what is to be the end of this Egyptian policy. The nearest thing to an explanation of the meaning of that expedition I have seen was given by Lord Cromer in October last at the dinner given to the Sirdar on his return. This is what Lord Cromer said:—
  "In truth, the primary object of the campaign has been accomplished. That object, I need hardly remind you, was to relieve the pressure on the Army of a friendly nation."
  That object, according to Lord Cromer, has been accomplished. Therefore, there is nothing more to do with respect to it. But there remains the question, What are the English and Egyptian interests in this matter? First of all as to the English interests, I read another speech in the recess with great interest and great satisfaction. When I want a good piece of hard common sense I generally look out for the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Cheers.] I find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking at Darlington in October, said:—
  "What has been the history of our rule in Egypt? I do not hesitate to say that, in the interests of England alone. I wish we were not in Egypt. It imposes on us a responsibility which in very conceivable circumstances might become a very grave responsibility indeed; and unquestionably it has not improved the relations between ourselves and our neighbours in France."
  That is perfectly correct. That is a very mild way of stating it. I desire to say nothing more upon the subject of English interests in the matter. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer then diverged into general philanthropy—[laughter]—and I want to ask now what is the Egyptian interest in the matter. We are told first that a better frontier was wanted, that there was an alarming
  54
  enemy on the border of the old frontier; but the enemy does not seem to have been alarming at all. I do not profess to be a judge in these matters, but I am told by those who are that, from the point of view of a military frontier, at this moment you have a worse frontier than you had before. Then it is said that a fertile province has been given back to civilisation; but Egypt has already fertile provinces which are within the borders of civilisation, but they want one thing, and that is a good deal of money to be spent on them. I have read that projects for irrigation and drainage in these provinces have been stopped for want of money. Therefore, in the Egyptian interest you have to consider what is to be done. ["Hear, hear!"] You have landed Egypt in a very bad financial position, from which I understand it is to be redeemed by the assistance of the English purse. But when you talk of what you are going to do I should like to ask, Are you going to reconquer the Soudan? The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, told us last Session that that was not in contemplation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I spoke of last year. [Cheers.]
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Very well; then are you going to reconquer it this year—[cheers]—and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for he ought to know, are you going to do so at the cost of Egypt or of England.' Everybody knows, and every prudent Statesman feels, as the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in the passage I have read, the difficulties and perils which surround this Egyptian question in connection with our international relations with the other Powers. A man must indeed be a fool who shuts his eyes to those difficulties. It is not the few hundreds of thousands of pounds that this expedition has cost you; it is the attitude of hostility in which you have placed yourselves towards some at least of the greatest Powers of Europe that costs you, not hundreds of thousands of pounds, but the millions which are involved in those armaments to which the Speech from the Throne refers, and which says the "state of the world" makes it necessary for us to keep up. But what is that "state of the world" caused by?

  55
  Can you say that the Egyptian question is not one of the elements which has brought about that "state of the world?" ["Hear, hear!"] No wonder the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes, from the point of view of British interests, that we were not in Egypt, because if we were not there he would have a great many more millions to dispose of than he has at the present moment. [A gesture of dissent from the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.] That may be a matter of opinion, and my opinion is that your armaments are largely affected by the occupation of Egypt, and I believe that this is a conclusion that cannot be denied. How has this enterprise in the Soudan improved your European relations? I have heard the false pretence put forward that it will accelerate the evacuation of Egypt. But does anyone believe that? [Cheers.] Why, the people who applaud that statement most are those who insist most on our continued occupation of Egypt. In the Drummond Wolff Convention Lord Salisbury signed a Treaty to evacuate Egypt without any thought of conquering the Soudan. At that time the idea did not exist for a moment that the recovery of the Soudan was a condition precedent to evacuation, and if that Treaty had been carried out Egypt would have been evacuated without the Soudan being conquered some six or seven years ago. ["Hear, hear!"] What has been the immediate effect of this transaction upon your relations with the European Powers? I will give the answer on the infallible authority of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] This is what he said at Southport:—
  "You will remember what our position in Egypt is. We have for ten years been in Egypt, so to speak, not merely as the guardians or protectors of Egypt, but I might almost say as the trustees for Europe of Egyptian administration."
  [Cheers from the Government Benches.] You are the trustees for Europe. What do some of the greatest Powers in Europe say to your administration of that trust? You have appropriated, as you supposed, these trust funds for certain purposes; but Russia and Franco have taken you into Court
  56
  upon that appropriation, and the decree of the Court has gone against you. ["Hear, hear!"] We have a right to ask you what you are going to do next? ["Hear, hear!"] Are you going to proceed to reconquer the Soudan out of the funds of Egypt contrary to the opinion of two of the greatest Powers in Europe, for whom you say you are the trustees in the administration of Egypt? That is a question on which some light ought to be thrown by Her Majesty's Government. ["Hear, hear!"] Now I pass to a subject which has deeply moved the heart and conscience of this nation, upon which I must say I think the language of the Speech referring to the massacres in Constantinople and Armenia is extremely unsatisfactory. [Cheers.] It does not express all that the country desired to hear on this subject from the Government of the Queen. [Cheers.] The massacres first began more than twelve months ago, and have been going on, more or less, constantly ever since, and what the Speech says is that the Government have called the special attention of the Powers to them. Well, they have done that for a very long time, and have induced the Powers to make the present condition of the Ottoman Empire the subject of special consideration. We know that special consideration has been going on for months—I might almost say for years—and all we are told at the end is that the conferences which the six Ambassadors have been instructed to hold are still proceeding. Twelve months ago we were led to believe—I have no doubt with perfect conviction on his part—by the Prime Minister that there was a prospect of effective action to restrain Turkey from the cruel oppression of the Armenians, but those hopes have not been fulfilled. On the contrary, in the year just concluded we have witnessed the most atrocious crimes, both in Asia and Constantinople, of which recent history affords no similar examples. The Powers of Europe have remonstrated with Turkey on the subject. Those remonstrances have been treated with contempt and defiance by the principal offender. Those who perpetrated the massacres of the past have enjoyed, and are still enjoying, perfect immunity, and for anything we know to the contrary

  57
  there may be massacres to-morrow perpetrated with equal security. ["Hear, hear!"] I am far from charging the Government with indifference to these horrible events. I believe that they have been sincerely desirous to do what in them lay to restrain a ruler who is restrained by no sentiments of humanity or of policy. ["Hear, hear" from the Government Benches.] But the country has a right to expect, and it is expecting from the Government an explanation why the influence of Great Britain has proved so ineffectual. But beyond a few vague statements we know nothing at all with regard to the subject. We are told by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs that we must restrain our troublesome curiosity. But this is a matter which touches too deeply the heart and the honour of the country to be allowed to repose in the secret recesses of the bosom of the Under-Secretary, or in the red boxes by which be is surrounded. ["Hear, hear!"] We must have some statement as to what has been done, what is being done, and what is likely to be the consequence of our action. We have no very good grounds for trusting the policy of the Foreign Office in this matter. I am not speaking of the present policy of the Foreign Office alone, but of the Eastern policy of the last 40 years. We see now what has become of that policy. The Government, so far as they have spoken, have pleaded their inaction in this matter as a consequence of the paralysis of Europe. But what is the cause of that paralysis. I think we are bound to ask ourselves how far our own policy is responsible for that paralysis. ["Hear, hear!"] It is stated that the inaction of the Powers of Europe is due to the reluctance of Russia to act in this matter. But there was a time when Russia was perfectly prepared to act, when Russia was the natural protector of the Armenians in Asia Minor, and it was by the action of this country that that natural protectorate was taken out of the hands of Russia and was assumed by ourselves. Therefore, when you are talking, of the paralysis of Europe you have to consider how it has arisen. I would state that view in the words of one certainly not a hostile critic of the present Government. The Duke of
  58
  Argyle in his recent publication says this:—
  "But there was one portion of the helpless Christian population subject to Turkey for which, at the Congress of Berlin, we did ourselves most unfortunately undertake to improve on what Russia had done in the Treaty of San Stefano. And that Christian population is the only one which has, consequently, not only failed to benefit, but has now become the special victim of Turkish ferocity and spoliation. Let us look for a moment how this occurred. The change which the new words effected in the Treaty of San Stefano wounded the pride and the most justifiable ambition of Russia to be the protector of her co-religionists in provinces with which no other Christian Power had any natural connection. On the other hand it delighted the low cunning of the Turk in constituting another 'rift within the lute,' which by-and-by would be quite sure to 'make the music mute' of any effective concert by the Powers of Europe. The Turk could see at a glance that, whilst it relieved him of the dangerous pressure of Russia, it substituted no other pressure which his own infinite dexterity in delays could not easily make abortive. As for the unfortunate Armenians, the change was simply one which must tend to expose them to the increased enmity of their tyrants, whilst it damaged and discouraged the only protection which was possible under the inexorable conditions of the physical geography of the country."
  Of course, it was not necessary for Russia, as Lord Salisbury says, to take a fleet across the mountains of Taurus. That is the condition of things which you changed in 1878. Lord Beaconsfield boasted of the territory and the population that he had restored to Turkey—I think he said 30,000 square miles and 2,000,000 people. Happily that broke down, and Lord Beaconsfield's great achievement, Eastern Roumelia, escaped from the clutches of the Turk, and we all now rejoice at it. But your work in Asia Minor, unfortunately, remained. You had abolished, you had destroyed, the natural protectorate of Russia there, and the consequence we now see. No one knew better than Lord Salisbury at the time that you could not rely upon the general stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin. Why in the Speech do you speak of the Treaty of Paris rather than of the Treaty of Berlin? ["Hear, hear!"] I suppose there is some reason for it; but no doubt they were both chapters in the same policy, chapters in the policy of hostility to Russia, and of patronage of Turkey. I do not know what the distinction is—whether it is because in the Treaty of Paris there is a

  59
  guarantee of the Ottoman Empire and whether it is because under that Treaty you are going to revise that guarantee; no doubt the Government will tell us something on that subject. But Lord Salisbury in 1878 saw that all these joint guarantees were of little or no use; they were vague and misty, and it was upon that account that, after making the general Treaty at Berlin, they negotiated a secret treaty. ["Before."] Well, before; it was secret before. It was because they did not rely upon the concert of Europe, and because Lord Salisbury knew you could not rely upon the concert of Europe, that be said:
  "These misty and shadowy guarantees which bind you to everything in theory, and which turn out in practice to bind you to nothing, were anything but honourable to the character of European diplomacy."
  And then he said this:
  "I think it better that we should come to a simple form of engagement in which, only two Powers being mixed up, there can be no doubt as to pledges being fulfilled."
  This was the pledge and aim of the Cyprus Convention. Which of the pledges of that Treaty have been or ever will be fulfilled? What were the pledges? First, that we should fight for Turkey against Russia. That has not been fulfilled, and I venture to say it never will. The next was that Turkey will reform itself. That has not been fulfilled, and never will be fulfilled. What, then, is your situation under this Convention? Are all the engagements gone, and the wretched residuum of Cyprus left upon your hands as the final outcome of this ill-starred alliance? Is that the position in which we stand in reference to the Anglo-Turkish Convention? It is a very important question not only that Great Britain, but that Europe, should know in what situation you stand in reference to the Anglo-Turkish Convention. Is it in force or is it not? The time has come when we should know, and that the world should know, whether we are bound by that Convention to fight for Turkey as against Russia in Asia Minor. The policy of 1878 was founded on hostility towards Russia; it was founded on patronage of Turkey. In my opinion, as we have always maintained from these benches, a policy
  60
  more faulty in its principles and more evil in its consequences it is impossible to conceive. What we want to know is whether you stand by that policy to-day or whether you do not. You did your best to cripple and humiliate Russia in 1878, and now you complain when she will not march at your bidding. We talk sometimes of continuity of policy, but we do not desire continuity of that policy. We believe that the first necessity is a reversal of that policy—["hear, hear!"]—and I am glad to say that I see indications that Her Majesty's Government are not indisposed to reverse that policy. Lord Salisbury, at the Guildhall, said:
  "I demur absolutely to the statement that there is a permanent and necessary antagonism between Russia and Great Britain. I know of no such antagonism. I know of no cause that should give rise to it. The interests of the two countries do not seem to me likely to cross in any important matter. It is, therefore, I think, a superstition of an antiquated diplomacy that there is any necessary antagonism between Russia and Great Britain."
  Sir, if we get rid of the superstition of an antiquated diplomacy we shall be delivered from the Anglo-Turkish Convention, which is the last record of that superstition. ["Hear, hear!"] When I referred to these matters last Session, the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, "Oh, Lord Beaconsfield is dead, why should you refer to him?" Well, the Beaconsfield legend may be dead and buried, but, happily, Lord Salisbury is alive to pass judgment upon that legend and upon their conjoint operations, and the epitaph he has pronounced upon it is that it is a superstition of an antiquated diplomacy. [Cheers.] If we are prepared to enter upon this Eastern question, which is the vital and menacing question of the future, in what I believe to be a statesmanlike attitude, and in a spirit not of hostility to Russia, but of cooperation with Russia, of treating Russia in the East, not as an enemy, but as a neighbour—["hear, hear!"]—then, I believe, you will accomplish what you have failed to accomplish up to the present, and then we may escape from the sense of humiliating impotence and make our Eastern policy not an antiquated superstition, but a living force. There is one particular inquiry I should

  61
  like to make of the Government with reference to the Anglo-Turkish Convention. It has been said, "Oh, of course, we are not bound because Turkey has not reformed," but let me ask this question. Supposing that these Ambassadors ever do accomplish anything, and that reforms are pressed upon the Sultan and accepted by him, will then the Anglo-Turkish Convention revive; when these representations, whatever they are, are accepted, shall we then be bound to make war upon Russia in defence of the Asiatic dominions of Turkey? That is a very definite question which I think both this nation and the nations of Europe ought to have a clear understanding upon, for I believe if you are going to keep alive an engagement of that kind, an alliance with Turkey by which you are bound to make war upon Russia in defence of Turkey's Asiatic dominions, then I say I believe your Eastern policy in the future will be as great a failure as it has proved in the past. Upon these subjects I think it is of the deepest interest we should have definite declarations from Her Majesty's Government. ["Hear, hear!"] I have delayed the House too long already, but I wish to say a word or two upon domestic affairs. I need not say how deeply we all feel the disasters which have befallen our Indian fellow-subjects, and I need say no more upon that matter than that I am perfectly certain that the people of this country, whether individually or through the Commons House of Parliament, will take care that every alleviation of those sufferings will be given which the Government may think it fit to propose. [Cheers.] But at home no doubt the prospect is a cheerful one. We are ready enough to grumble and bemoan ourselves when things go badly, but I am not quite sure that Englishmen like to recognise their good fortune when things go well. I have always observed there is nothing an Englishman dislikes so much as to be told he is well off, but the fact is that the last year has been one of extraordinary prosperity, so prosperous that I think it has dispelled even that foolish scare "Made in Germany," of which we shall hear no more. [Sir HOWARD VINCENT: "No, no," and laughter.] The hon. Gentleman is one of the Englishmen of whom I was speaking. [Renewed laughter.] He sees
  62
  there has been an increase of many millions—I think it is £14,000,000—in the exports of our manufactured goods, and that the imports into this country of manufactured goods have been £5,000,000. [Sir HOWARD VINCENT: "The imports of manufactured goods last year was £81,000,000."] I was comparing the increases last year, but we will not discuss that question; perhaps when we get to the Prison-Made Goods Bill, if, as the Speech says, "time permits," we may discuss it. [Laughter.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer has let us into the secret of the Budget. I suppose I ought to condole with him, because he said last year that it was no feather in the cap of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have a large surplus. I am afraid, however, that the coining surplus will be large enough to compromise the character of the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the frankness to say that these variations had very little to do with changes of Government. No, Sir, they depend upon the vicissitudes which political science has not yet been able to analyse or forecast. Well, Sir, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though it may not be a feather in his cap, will have a handsome surplus to dispose of. The question is, What is he going to do with it? ["Hear, hear!"] We shall hear of nothing in the way of economy. There is no mention of economy in the Queen's Speech. In old days that are now no more there used to be a timehonoured statement that the Estimates had been prepared with a view to economy. [Cheers.] But that was many years ago. I am not surprised at this, because I do believe that at present there are only two people in this country who have any regard to economy—namely, the present and the late Chancellors of the Exchequer. [Laughter.] I did not count the penultimate Chancellor of the Exchequer—whom we are sorry not; to see here to-night—because he was the greatest spendthrift of all. [Laughter.] We know to whom you gave your surplus last year. I am delighted to find that in the present Queen's Speech nothing is said about agricultural distress. We are, of course, very glad to know that there is no cause

  63
  to bemoan agricultural distress this year. [Cheers.] I was not long since denounced as an optimist, because I refused to believe that the agricultural interest of this country was going to irreparable ruin, and that the whole of the land would be thrown out of cultivation. ["Hear, hear!"] But I saw a miracle such as I never witnessed before—the present and the late Ministers of Agriculture dined with the Farmers' Club, and both of them were positively cheerful. [Laughter.] I have never known anything like it under any circumstances. The late Minister of Agriculture, speaking of wheat, mentioned the millions that had been added to the stores of the farmer, and the present Minister recited, like the ancient Israelites, the multiplication of his flocks and herds, and the manner in which, under his administration, there were a million more sheep, and I forget how many hundreds of thousands more of cattle. [Laughter.] It is remarkable that this year you will be asked in the Budget to add a compassionate allowance to this distressful interest of two millions of money, at the expense of the general taxpayer. [Cheers.] It was admitted that in good times the remission of rates would go to the landlord, and a good time, I am glad to say, has arrived; therefore we shall now know where the money goes. Of course, a part of this profit was in the quantity and excellence of the crops, and the other part in the rise of prices. I have not observed that the rise in the price of the quartern loaf has been received with universal enthusiasm. That might be thought a reason why you should not call on the general taxpayer to find these two millions of money. ["Hear, hear!"] But at all events this rebound of agricultural prosperity ought to induce even the President of the Local Government Board, whom we regret not to see here to-night, to believe that prices do not depend absolutely upon the ratio between gold and silver, which remains very much what it was when wheat was 10s. a quarter lower than it is now—["hear, hear "]—and the time may really arrive when even he may believe that values have some relation to supply and demand. [Laughter and cheers.] There is, however, one other question which, before these mil-
  64
  lions are disposed of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will have to be taken into account, and that is the Irish demand founded on the Report of the Financial Commission. [Nationalist cheers.] I think the First Lord of the Treasury might have done well to have imitated the reserve of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day; but down in Lancashire the First Lord plunged into the matter with a rashness which alarmed some of his best supporters. ["Hear, hear!"] As far as I can understand, he thinks that indirect taxation is not of much account, and that it is a quantity that might be neglected. His words were that a man may consume or not consume, as he pleases—in a word, that if he consumes he pays, and if he does not consume he does not pay. [Laughter.] That settles the question of indirect taxation. Then the right hon. Gentleman says there is that in regard to indirect taxation which there is not in regard to direct taxation, and that there is an element of free-will in the matter. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear!"] Truly a Pelagian heresy. I suppose that that direct taxation is of the nature of predestinarian doctrine. [Cheers.] I cannot think that this was one of the most fortunate of the financial essays of the right hon. Gentleman. I have known him do better even on the subject of bimetallism. [Laughter.] It is, I think, universally acknowledged that indirect taxation always presses most heavily on those who are least able to bear it. That is why for 50 years, since the time of Sir Robert Peel, every sound financier has been labouring to diminish indirect taxation, and put the burden on direct taxation. ["Hear, hear!"] I am happy to think that I have had the opportunity of casting a stone upon that cairn. And now we have arrived at a point when the two are as nearly as possible equalised in England. But what is the case in Ireland? In that country three-fourths of the taxation is indirect, and I think there cannot be a more conspicuous injustice as between the two countries. [Nationalist cheers.] That, in my opinion, is an enormous grievance to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has disposed of the report of the Commissioners very cavalierly, and has stated that their principles of finance are ut-

  65
  terly wrong. It seems to me that it is an entire mistake to suppose that this is a question which involves the Home Rule controversy. It is one in which Unionists and Home Rulers stand on common ground. [Cheers] The question is what was the compact of the Union, and whether that compact has been faithfully carried out. The Unionists are the parties most concerned to stand by the terms of the Treaty of the Union. I will content myself by stating two propositions. The first is that by the Treaty of Union there was stipulated, on behalf of Ireland, a distinct consideration and separate treatment in respect of taxation, with a review from time to time, having regard to the relative resources of the two countries—[Nationalist cheers]—and that Ireland has a right to claim to be dealt with on that footing. [Cheers.] As to the separate treatment of Ireland, that was admitted by Mr. Gladstone in 1864, when he granted an inquiry into the matter, and I made a Motion that the Committee
  "should consider the taxation of Ireland and how far it was in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Union, or just in reference to the resources of the country."
  The Committee of 1864 was not moved on the question of Home Rule, but on questions of taxation. In 1890 the First Lord of the Admiralty, in granting a. Committee, said:
  "The question was whether Ireland gained or lost through her connection with the British Empire, tier Majesty's Government would like to have this point cleared up, and would be prepared to grant an Inquiry into the financial relations between the two countries. Certainly it was not his desire to press too hard on any portion of the United Kingdom. Of course, if it should be shown from the Inquiry that injustice had been done to Ireland in the matter of taxation, the time would come when any such injustice could be remedied."
  Then he appointed his Committee, and one of the terms of the Inquiry was whether the financial relations
  "are equitable, having regard to the resources and population of England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively."
  And here I will say that of course the question of Scotland is reserved in the same way as this question of Ireland. Mr. Gladstone gave a pledge, and I repeated the pledge that was given, that a similar Inquiry should be made into the taxation of Scotland. When the First
  66
  Lord of the Admiralty moved his Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon wanted to include Wales, but what was the objection that the First Lord of the Admiralty took? He said Wales could not be treated as a. "separate fiscal entity, as was the case with Scotland and Ireland, which have separate arrangements." A great deal has been said about the words "fiscal entity." I do not myself care particularly for these metaphysical terms. The First Lord of the Admiralty invented the term "fiscal entity" but I do not rely upon it. I say there was a covenant for separate treatment. That is plainer language and more easily understanded of the people. I stand upon the Words "separate financial treatment," and the First Lord of the Admiralty said there were special arrangements with regard to Scotland and Ireland, but not with regard to Wales. I think it is perfectly idle, and I cannot believe that the Government are going to take their stand on the position that there are no covenant separate financial considerations for Ireland in relation to her resources, and that there should be a review of her taxation from time to time in that regard. Then the second proposition, which I think is clearly established, is that the present taxation of Ireland is largely in excess of the relative proportion due to the resources of the two countries. I believe that is established by the evidence and by the reasoning of the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, holds the Commission very cheap, but perhaps he will excuse me when I say that, after the careful deliberation they have given to this subject, their opinion is of greater weight even than his. ["Hear, hear!"] On the other hand, it is alleged that there is excess of expenditure. That you can compensate exorbitance of taxation by extravagance of expenditure is not a proposition that is self-evident. ["Hear, hear!"] It may deserve consideration, and I have no doubt it will receive consideration. I think, under these circumstances, what we want and what we will ask the Government for is that they shall give us time before the Estimates are voted, and before the Budget is dealt with, to discuss

  67
  this grave question of the taxation of Ireland. [Cheers.] I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an answer upon that point, because it is obvious that the Address is not the most convenient manner or occasion for dealing with it. What we want from the Government is an undertaking that there shall be an early opportunity on which this matter shall be thoroughly debated in this House. ["Hear, hear!"] I will only delay the House for a few more minutes on the subject of education, which occupies a prominent place in the Speech from the Throne. I was very glad to hear the invitation to peace which was addressed to us by the hon. and learned Member, the Seconder. I can assure him there is nothing I desire more than that we should approach this question in a spirit of peace, and I really think there are good hopes that we shall do so, because this year, in contrast to last year, has this peaceful opening about it, that, as far as we can ascertain, Her Majesty's Government have not been captured by the Bishops. ["Hear, hear," and laughter.] I confess that when I read in the recess that remarkable demonstration of the Œcumenical Council of the two Provinces, when they passed unanimous resolutions which were to bind nobody, I did think we were in for a good fight. But I understand that the children of this world who sit upon that Bench are wiser in their generation. [Laughter.] We now learn, upon authority which is indisputable, that the rateaiders are thrown to the lions, and, if that is so, we shall not have the drum ecclesiastic beaten by the noble Lord the Member for Rochester at the head of the Church Militant again this year; and all that makes for the peace my hon. and learned Friend desires. The Education Bill of last year had a short life and not a merry one—[laughter]—but the Bishops' Bill of this year has perished before it was born. [Laughter.] I do not even learn that the unanimous resolutions have been formally presented to Her Majesty's Government at all. The common sense of public opinion had nipped them in the bud, and if they reached the Government they seem to have been considered in camera, and we have not heard what took place between them on the matter. They were at all events disposed of by the right hon.
  68
  Gentleman the other day by the remark, which seemed to me perfectly well founded, that to have adopted them, his words were, "would have been a work of political lunacy." That was the end of the unanimous resolutions of the two Provinces. Then I thought that everything would go very smoothly. The right hon. Gentleman had preached in Manchester his rather unwelcome eirenicon to the rateaiders down there, and he preached to a united party. The party always is united—[Opposition laughter and Ministerial cheers]—including the Church party. But all of a sudden the truce was denounced, and the fiery crosier—[laughter]—was sent round. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman to his constituents was made on Saturday, and on the Sunday—the better the day the better the deed—the Bishop of Chester took up his pen, and the counsels of the Cardinal were sought by his Anglican brother in his wrath—[laughter]—and he inquired of the Cardinal what was to be done with this traitorous Government—the Government that was the wicked author of the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill, which had even contrived that base thing Free Education, that had ruined the voluntaries who did not like to volunteer, and desired to get the fees out of the children. He actually went so far as to turn round and say, "Would it not be better to endure, tristes Amaryllidos iras, even the treatment of the heretical member for Rotherham." [Laughter.] The Bishop and Cardinal took counsel together whether it would not be better, after all, to throw off the chosen people on those Benches and turn to the Gentiles. This is all very interesting, but it did not seem exactly to tend for peace. But they have good reason for what they said. They said they thought if the Conservatives were turned out of office they might prove again the denominational lions which they had formerly been before they occupied those benches. His Eminence the Cardinal, I think with a little more Christian charity than was displayed by the Anglican malleus ministrorum, pleaded that some room should be granted to Her Majesty's Government—a limp and flabby Government he called them [laughter]—for repentance, and that at least they should be exhorted to piece-

  69
  meal contrition. [Laughter.] That, I suppose is the meaning of the paragraph in the Speech that if opportunity and time allow there may be other measures connected with education. But then if they remain impenitent, what is to happen to this "hand-to-mouth policy of sops and doles?" The greater excommunication is to be delivered, and the Unionist Party will be placed on an interdict, and the words of the interdict are remarkable:—
  "That other political combinations must be sought; it would become our highest prudence and our truest fidelity to the country and to God to make a political break-up "—
  [laughter]—and the Government is to be given over to the secular arm. [Laughter.] There has been nothing like it since the days of Thomas à Becket—[laughter]; and I tremble when I think that the First Lord of the Treasury may yet be seen doing painful penance at the shrine of Canterbury. [Laughter.] Common humanity demands that we should defend even our opponents from such an end as that. I should be extremely sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman so maltreated by the Lancashire rateaiders, and if the Government will only adhere to the dictates of common sense, and if they will proceed in this matter on the lines on which I hope they intend to proceed, then we will promise to defend them from the Church party—[laughter and cheers]—and we will rescue one of the great parties in the State from the threatened auto-da-fé of the Anglican Bishops and the Cardinal. [Laughter.] If we approach this question—as on our part, I will venture to say, we are prepared to do—from the national point of view, and not from the denominational point of view—[cheers]—then we may do practical good in this matter. We are told, and I dare say truly told, that the Voluntary Schools are not as attractive as they ought to be, that their resources are insufficient, and that therefore their education is inferior. But that is true of some Board Schools too. But what we who care about education a great deal and about denominationalism very little, what we desire is that education should be made as good as possible in all schools. ["Hear, hear!"] In that spirit we desire to
  70
  approach this question, and if the Government will also approach it in that spirit then I can tell my hon. and learned Friend the Seconder of the Address that his peaceful desires will be fulfilled. Our position is perfectly well known. If additional aid is to be given to Voluntary Schools it must be given in fair terms only to schools that really volunteer, and it must be given fairly as between Voluntary and Board Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] Our position is perfectly clear, we take our stand upon the fundamental principles of the settlement of 1870. We adhere to the principle of that settlement, and in that spirit we shall be ready to give fair and reason able consideration to any proposal of the Government which has for its object, not to endow denominationalism, but to educate the nation. There are other measures mentioned which it is not necessary for me to specify, and upon these measures, or many of them, we are ready to assist the Government, as we assisted them last year with measures that seemed to us useful. We assisted the Government with the Irish Land Bill, and with other measures of which I will only mention one. We assisted the Government in passing the Conciliation Bill. I believe that Bill has proved in some cases extremely useful, but I cannot avoid here, in the House of Commons, expressing my deep regret and condemnation of the course Lord Penrhyn has taken ["oh, oh!"] in refusing to act under the provisions of that Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] It is very little encouragement to pass Bills of this kind when we find the Conciliation Bill treated in this maner. I say nothing of the "omnibus" clause which the Government, with becoming modesty, have attached to the end of the Speech with the condition "if opportunity can be found." It would be cruel to anticipate the future of these unborn innocents, and all I will wish these embryos is a good delivery. I desire in conclusion to say that with those differences of opinion to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred as occurring in the conversation between Carlyle and Sterling we are willing to co-operate in showing that the House of Commons is willing and able to discharge the great duties imposed upon it. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF FOR TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,), on rising was received with loud cheers. He said: No one will, I think, grudge the right hon. Gentleman the extended use he has made of the opportunity the Speech gives him to discuss all the matters contained in that Speech, and I must frankly add some matters not contained in that Speech at all. But I will endeavour to compress the brief remarks I have to make in answer within narrower limits than the right hon. Gentleman found it possible to occupy. Before I come to what I may call the more controversial portion of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, let me associate myself with him in the graceful and well-deserved compliment he paid to my noble Friend who moved and my hon. and learned Friend who seconded the Motion for the Address upon the speeches delivered this evening. I confess I have always thought that this duty of moving and seconding the Address is among the most difficult which Members of this House can ever be called upon to perform, and I am always thankful that I never had to pass myself through this trying ordeal. But my two friends have to-day acquitted themselves in a manner that I am sure commands approval in every part of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] My noble Friend the Mover has spoken for the first time within these walls this evening, and I think everybody will cherish the hope that he has not spoken for the last time, but that he will often again give us that admirable, lucid, and complete statement of his views such as he has given us on the present occasion. ["Hear, hear!"] My hon. and learned Friend who seconded is an ornament to a profession which is supposed to relieve its members from any undue diffidence in any walk of life—[laughter]—but even he, I think, must have faced with something less than perfect equanimity the very difficult ordeal out of which he so triumphantly emerged. We all listened, not for the first time in his case, to a method of speaking which I can assure him will be, and must be, agreeable to the House, whatever subject he desires to treat. ["Hear!"] Coming to the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's speech I may pass as rapidly as he did over the subject of Venezuela.
  72
  I should not indeed have mentioned it at all except that the right hon. Gentleman asked for my assent to the proposition he ventured upon, that during the long period of negotiation he and his friends did their best to prevent any unnecessary difficulty being raised in the matter between the British Government and the Government of the United States. I most cordially give the right hon. Gentleman the certificate for which he asks, that he behaved with admirable patriotism and discretion through all the Debates of last year, and if negotiations have now come, as they certainly have, to a happy conclusion, a conclusion anxiously desired on both sides of the Atlantic, that is undoubtedly in part due to the patriotic course pursued by the Opposition in this connection. ["Hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman dwelt at length on the Arbitration Treaty. The Venezuela Treaty deals with a temporary and individual phase of international difficulty, but the general Treaty with America, though nominally limited to five years, may, I hope, be a perpetual guarantee of peace between the two great English-speaking communities. ["Hear!"] I am the last to suppose that treaties and protocols will ever bind aggressive ambition or foil the cupidity of nations, or heal the difficulties springing from racial jealousies or religious differences, but when a treaty of this kind is entered into as between two nations sprung from the same stock, speaking the same language, having the same religion, enjoying Constitutions closely allied in character, neither animated by aggressive political ambition, then I think we may hope with some confidence that we shall have laid a deep and sure foundation of that lasting peace on which so much of the future progress of the world inevitably depends. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman after dealing with the Treaty of Arbitration passed from America to Africa, and he made certain observations with regard to results which he hoped would follow from the labours of the South African Committee, which will begin in a few days. The right hon. Gentleman expressed a hope that through that Committee the bonds of confidence between the British colonies and communities in South Africa generally would be more strongly bound. Everyone, in whatever quarter of the House he may

  73
  sit, will echo the hopes and expectations of the right hon. Gentleman, and if, indeed, the labours of that Committee should end in a result so fortunate for the Empire we may well rejoice that the Committee should have been appointed, and its labours, however arduous and protracted, will have a worthy and permanent result. ["Hear, hear!"] So far I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman in his observations as to the policy on the continent of Africa. But when he leaves the southern portion of that continent and deals with the policy in Egypt, then differences between us make themselves felt. The right hon. Gentleman told us that in spite of the success which has attended operations in the Soudan, he is as unalterably fixed in hostility to the policy that has restored Dongola to civilisation as he was during the Debates of last Session. I confess that surprised me very much, for I re member one of the principal reasons alleged against the policy of the Government was that military disaster would dog its footsteps. Now, it being conclusively proved that a province can be restored without the semblance of a military disaster, I should have thought on his own showing and from the arguments used during last year's Debate that a large portion of the right hon. Gentleman's objections would be swept away. ["Hear!"] Hut he says the policy in the Soudan will increase the difficulties of English policy generally in the face of other European Powers. I do not agree with that view. I do not at all deny that the English position in Egypt has been one which may and will have caused anxiety to British and foreign diplomatists; but when the right hon. Gentleman goes on to tell us that our fleets and armies must be kept at their present level simply and solely—or principally—because we went into Egypt—under a Government of which he was a Member—["Hear, hear!"]—in 1880 and have stayed there through successive Governments—of some of which he was a Member—I am bound to entirely separate myself from the view he has taken of our foreign responsibility. The re sponsibilities of England are not confined to Egypt. It would not be possible, in my judgment, even if the whole episode of Egypt were expunged from history; it would not be possible in the
  74
  present condition of things to diminish our naval or military force by a ship or a man. ["Hear, hear!"] The armaments which we have to keep up we have to keep up from the very nature and essence of the British Empire itself, from its enormous expansion, from the number of nations with which we are in contact in different parts of the world, and from the possibilities of quarrel which may arise between us and our neighbours in almost every continent. Those are the origin of the great obligations under which we lie with regard to our armaments, and those obligations would not be materially diminished, in my judgment, even if the evacuation of Egypt were accomplished within the next few days. [Cheers.] It was surely a strange transition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman from a complaint that we had withdrawn from the tyranny of the Khalifa the fair province of Dongola to a complaint that we still left under the rule of the Turk certain provinces of Armenia. ["Hear, hear!"] I cannot bring together in one focus these two halves of the foreign policy of the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends. I cannot understand why it is a monstrous iniquity on the part of this country to use its influence in Egypt for the restoration to order and law, security and prosperity of a province groaning under the tyranny of a usurper—I cannot understand why this is an iniquity while it is an equal iniquity that we do not sacrifice vast national material interests in dealing with misgovernment in other parts of the Turkish dominions. I think hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should choose on which leg they mean to stand; on which half of the argument they mean to depend. If it be wrong for us, in no spirit of reckless adventure or crusade, to restore to Egypt the province which she formerly held, and which it is undoubtedly for the advantage of humanity she should hold again, then surely all this pressure upon us to indulge in a spirit which would be one of reckless adventure in other parts of the Eastern world, must be even less worthy of, praise. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman quoted something I apparently said in answer to him on a precisely similar occasion last year. I confess I had forgotten my own speech last year on the

  75
  Address, and I had equally forgotten his. When, however, he made a quotation he reminded me of the fact that he made exactly the same speech last year upon this subject of our Eastern policy. Last year and this year he fought his old battles over again; he rehearsed his ancient glories. He went back to 1878, he again denounced Lord Beaconsfield in periods to which we are well accustomed; and though I admired on this occasion, as I always admire, the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman, I confess I prefer the vintage of rather more recent date. [Laughter.] Even the best wines may be too old, and I do think the old controversies of 1878 which the right hon. Gentleman has thus endeavoured twice running, with only scant success, to revive, may well be allowed thenceforth to sleep their last sleep in the dusty pages of "Hansard." [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman hinted, if he did not actually state, that he thought the European concert was not an instrument or the best instrument by which reforms in Turkey could be effected. Everybody must admit that the co-operation of six individuals or six Powers may work more slowly, with more difficulty, and be subject to more accidents and interruption than the action of a single individual or Power; but if the right hon. Gentleman really means to suggest that the Government are wrong in the policy they have been pursuing, then I join issue with him absolutely. I think it has been conclusively shown by men of various politics and of large experience, Lord Rosebery, Lord Salisbury, and other Statesmen for whom the right hon. Gentleman has, or has expressed, great respect, that the policy which the right hon. Gentleman did not perhaps recommend, but which he appeared to wish to insinuate, is not a policy which this country can safely adopt. I think it would be actual insanity if we were, either by word or by deed, in this House or elsewhere, to suggest that the condition of things which we wish to see established or reestablished in the East is the isolated predominance of any one Power in the affairs of Turkey. ["Hear, hear!"] I trust that the joint action of Europe may produce results earnestly to be desired in the interests not only of the
  76
  populations of Turkey but of European peace, and certainly every indication which I have of what is going on in Constantinople leads me to make anticipations which are not the reverse of sanguine in their character in this respect. [Cheers.]
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Treaty of Paris?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: To mention the Treaty of Paris is merely to mention an historical fact. The signatories to the Treaty of Paris, by that instrument and by subsequent instruments, have got, as it were, a locus standi in Ottoman affairs, and feel themselves justified, in the words of the Queen's Speech, in considering the condition to which that Empire has unhappily been reduced. There is one point I omitted to mention when dealing with that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he criticised our Soudan policy. I have to say in connection with that, and in connection with the known incident of the refusal of the Courts of Law to sanction the advance from the Caisse, that a Vote will be taken to advance to the Egyptian Government the sum repaid to the Caisse in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Appeal. As to any further action contemplated in the coming season, that action in the Soudan will be mainly for the consolidation and union for strategical and commercial purposes of the territories already under the Egyptian Government. We shall ask Parliament at a very early date to sanction our advance to Egypt, and that will afford a convenient opportunity for discussing, and if need be of criticising, the action of the Government in this matter. I think I have now surveyed, rapidly, but still adequately, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman on foreign affairs. With regard to home affairs he was discursive and amusing. [Laughter.] He denounced my hon. Friend behind me, the Member for Sheffield (Sir Howard Vincent), for entertaining anxieties with regard to foreign, and especially German, competition. But while he was thus denouncing my hon. Friend, I am afraid he forgot that my hon. Friend has an ally and a coreligionist in this matter in no less a person than Lord Rosebery. ["Hear, hear," and laughter.] No

  77
  man has devoted more time and energy to arousing public interest to the necessity for technical education and other methods of promoting industrial progress than has Lord Rosebery in recent years. Then the right hon. Gentleman turned to the congenial task of criticising and misrepresenting a speech which I recently made in Manchester. He opened tire upon the financial relations between this country and Ireland just an hour and ten minutes after he rose to address the House; and I really feel unequal at this hour of the evening and on the present occasion even to touch upon a subject of which we shall doubtless hear much, but which, I think, should not be treated at the fag-end of a speech or in stray and discursive references to other speeches made in the country. I shall doubtless have an opportunity of giving my views to the House when the proper time conies, and defending, if defence be necessary, anything which I may have said elsewhere than on the floor of the House. In the meantime, perhaps it is only necessary for me to say, on behalf of the Government, that in our judgment the late Commission, whether it deserves all the encomiums passed upon it by the right hon. Gentleman or whether it does not, at all events was guilty of sins of omission. There were large tracts which they were bound to investigate, and which they refused to investigate, and it is impossible to form a judgment—["oh!"]—upon some branches at all events of this controversy without carrying further the investigations which they themselves so suddenly, so arbitrarily, and so inexplicably dropped. Under these circumstances we shall take measures for carrying out those further investigations—
  MR. EDWARD BLAKE: When?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: And though this would not be a convenient moment for stating precisely the terms of reference by which the future investigating body will be bound, I shall be in a position to state those terms, I hope, in a very few days.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the question whether the Government will promise to give time for
  78
  the discussion of this matter by way of special Motion on an early day?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes. I had not forgotten that; but I am glad to be reminded of it. Of course, as the House will see at once, there is a legitimate opportunity now for raising this question by an Amendment on the Address. I understand from what fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he would prefer, and his friends would prefer, and Gentlemen from Ireland below the gangway would prefer, that a separate and independent occasion should be given at a later period for the discussion. The Government will be very glad to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, but, of course, it must be understood that we are by adopting that course, absolved from discussing the question on the Address. To us it is a matter of indifference which occasion is taken, but clearly we ought not to have both. [Opposition cheers.] I gather, then, that a separate discussion after the Address, but before the Budget—["Hear, hear," from the Nationalists]—would meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I, on the part of the Government, am quite prepared to give a pledge that that opportunity will be provided. The only other point on which the right hon. Gentleman dwelt was the education controversy and the Education Bill out of which that controversy would arise, and the right hon. Gentleman made very merry over the epistolary efforts of two great ecclesiastical dignitaries and promised us his support against the Bishop of Chester and Cardinal Vaughan. [Laughter.] It is not my business to defend the letters of the Bishop of Chester. It was a very singular episcopal ebullition—[laughter and cheers]—of which, in my opinion, the less said the better for that distinguished prelate himself. But when the right hon. Gentleman promises me the support of himself and his friends in regard to the coming Education Bill, though I am grateful for this mark of his consideration and regard, I confess that I found very slender hopes upon it. The right hon. Gentleman is prepared, no doubt, to give us or sell us his support on conditions. I think it excessively unlikely that these conditons will be satisfied, and, though

  79
  I have every hope and expectation that the Bill which will be immediately introduced is one that will receive general support, at all events on this side of the House, and although I believe that it will do much, indeed, we may hope it may do all that may be necessary in order to preserve from extinction the great body of Voluntary Schools in this country, I entertain no personal hopes whatever that it is a Bill that will be passed by consent. The Bill will be passed, but not, I think, by the cooperation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and, although I shall gratefully accept any assistance which be may think it his duty to offer, I shall not make my plans for the Session on the hypothesis that he is going by speech and vote to give me that cordial cooperation which upon some other less controversial matters I have now and then enjoyed in the past. But though I doubt not our Debates will be sharp, I hope they will also, comparatively speaking, be short. I trust that this Bill, whether it be fortunate enough to meet with the approval of hon. Gentlemen opposite or not, will in any case not take up any inordinately large portion of the Parliamentary time at our disposal during the course of the present Session. That is not a matter which depends upon the Government alone or upon the Government chiefly. We shall have done our best to secure that result by reducing, the measure to the smallest proportions compatible with effectiveness and givng as little opportunity for the display of unnecessary eloquence as is possible. But I say, not to the right hon. Gentleman but to my own friends upon this side of the House, that it is upon our efforts that we must rely in passing the Bill, and although I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will offer no more than fair, honest, direct Parliamentary opposition to the measure, we cannot count upon anything from him in the nature of cordial support. I now have traversed the whole course of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: There is one question upon which I asked the right hon. Gentleman to give me an answer, and that was the view the Government take of the liabilities of this country under the Anglo-Turkish Convention.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: They are precisely what they were when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. [Laughter.] Having, I hope, satisfied the right hon. Gentleman upon that and on all the other points on which he exercised his undoubted right to cross-examine me in the course of his speech, I beg to conclude the few remarks I have made, expressing the hope that as the most controversial and difficult subject that it seemed likely would be discussed on this Address has been deferred to a later occasion, we may without any undue delay terminate our discussion upon it and proceed to the substantial work of the Session.
  MR. BLAKErose to say that, after the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that he would fix an early date for the purpose of discussing the question of the financial relations, he did not propose to persist in the motion that it had been his intention to submit, believing that it would be more convenient to the House generally and more conformable to the importance of the question to take advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITHcongratulated the House on the great improvement in our foreign relations since this time last year, and especially on the conclusion of a Treaty of Arbitration with the United States of America, which he regarded as one of the greatest events of the century. He trusted that it would make war impossible henceforward between the two English-speaking nations, and in doing so it would add greatly to the power and influence of this country in Europe. But there was one dark cloud on the horizon which loomed as black and ominous as war. He referred to the shocking condition of the Armenian Christians. Our diplomacy had been an utter failure thus far. The atrocious misgovernment of the Sultan continued, and he laughed to scorn all the protests of Europe. He wished to express the deep sense of loathing with which many of them regarded the powerlessness and apathy of Europe; 100,000 of the Armenian Christians had been butchered; at least 100,000 more had perished of disease and famine, and still the Ambassadors were writing notes and exchanging civilities with the Great Assassin. He fully admitted the enor-

  81
  mous difficulties of the situation. He had no wish to see a European war brought on, but something must be done to stay this plague, or the vengeance of God would come upon Christendom. One suggestion he wished to offer to the Government. The distress among the Armenians was worse than war; hundreds of thousands were perishing from cold and hunger; private charity was in a large measure dried up, and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could not place on the Estimates a small sum of £100,000 to be disbursed through our Ambassador at Constantinople. It might be granted on condition that an equal sum be raised from private sources. If this were done promptly it would save the lives of thousands, and do something to assure these poor sufferers that they were not forgotten by their fellow-Christians in England. He believed it would receive the cordial support of the people of this country. He also wished to express his deep sympathy with the Indian people in the awful famine which had fallen upon their country. It threatened to become one of the worst of the century. He could not doubt that the Indian Government would do all that it could to save life, but he feared that in spite of every effort a vast number of lives would be lost. They could not forget that three millions of lives perished in the great Madras famine, and one million in the Orissa famine, and there was much room for private charity in addition to all that Government could do. The appeal for charity came rather late, it might have been made a month sooner, but he did not doubt that it would be responded to as great national appeals usually were in this wealthy country. With regard to the programme of the Session, he would first like to make a few remarks on the coming Education Hill. He was glad that this measure would be more moderate in its scope than the last one; but, on behalf of the Protestant Nonconformists, he would state in the most emphatic terms that they could not consent to further State aid to Denominational Schools without public control They regard as utterly unjust the forcing of the children of Protestant Nonconformists into Church Schools in 8,000 parishes of England and Wales where no unsectarian school was available.
  82
  The religious teaching in these schools was becoming increasingly opposed to the deepest convictions of Protestants. In some cases it was but little removed from Romanism. These schools were used, in many eases, to stamp out Dissent. No teacher could enter the staff unless he was the obsequious servant of the parish clergyman. If he or she ventured to show any independence of clerical control, such as going to a service in a Nonconformist chapel, they got immediate dismissal. They regard the teaching profession as degraded by placing the teachers at the caprice of a single man, often a bigoted ritualist, who abhorred the very name of Protestant, and considered it the main end of his life to Catholicise England. Yet these were the only schools to which the children of Protestant Nonconformists could be sent in one half of England and Wales. This state of things was absolutely intolerable, and must come to an end sooner or later. It was a misnomer to call such a system a National system of education. The Liberal Party must work for a system of public schools all over the country, controlled by the ratepayers, the teachers appointed by an elected board, and the cost of such schools must be borne by the State. The dread of a School Hate was the great weapon used by the Clerical Party to prevent School Boards being set up, and this contrivance to hinder National Education being set up must be brought to an end. If School Pates should be continued they should not exceed 3d. in the £, as Mr. Forster intended when he brought in the Education Bill of 1870. It was never intended that School Rates should run up to their present figure of occasionally 1s. in the £. The principle which the Liberal Party of the future must tight for was a system of education free from clerical control and open to all the nation on equal terms, with equal facilities to all to enter the teaching profession. Nothing short of this would be accepted as a full and final solution. He regretted that the Speech from the Throne took no notice of the important Report of the Welsh Land Commission. There would be great dissatisfaction in Wales if no action was taken upon that Report in this Session of Parliament. It revealed a deplorable state of things among the Welsh farmers. Distress was

  83
  greater there than in any part of England, except the Eastern counties. Rents were much higher relatively in Wales than in England or Scotland. The competition for land was excessive, and a great portion of the farmers were verging on insolvency. The land was badly farmed for want of capital; and a crisis had arrived which, in his judgment, could not be surmounted except by a system of judicial rents and fixity of tenure, as was the case in Ireland. This was in substance the Majority Report of the Welsh Land Commission, signed by the Chairman, Lord Carrington. He pressed upon the Government to find time for a short Bill dealing with this urgent question. If this was not done, matters would go from bad to worse in Wales; and they might, perhaps, see agrarian troubles that all would lament.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid he should not have troubled the House that night but for some extraordinary statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in reference to the Eastern Question. As his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had said, that Speech was practically a rechauffé of speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite during last Session. But it was possible that his right hon. Friend, looking at the matter, as he was bound to do, from the point of view of the Government, and the management of the affairs of the House, rather underrated the effect of speeches like that of the Leader of the Opposition on public opinion, or the mischief they might do if allowed to pass uncontradicted. The House knew very well that a favourite pastime of the Leader of the Opposition in dealing with the Eastern Question was to endeavour to throw dust on the memory of Lord Beaconsfield. But he would tell the right hon. Gentleman that it was not Lord Beaconsfield's policy, but the reversal of that policy that had failed; and the right hon. Gentleman, in accusing the Conservative Party of an Anti-Russian Policy and of weakening and crippling Russia by their action in 1878, forgot that the Party to which he belonged, and the great Leader of that Party, Mr. Gladstone, were the Government that undertook the Crimean War, which cost this country 100 millions of money and 50,000 lives, and that began the policy
  84
  of crippling Russia. Another statement of the right hon. Gentleman was that nothing had been done for the improvement of the affairs of Turkey during the last twelve months. That statement was unfounded. He hoped with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the present consultation of Ambassadors at Constantinople might result in the practical amelioration of the Christian people of the Ottoman Empire. But those who knew what was happening in Turkey knew perfectly well that a good many measures of reform had been put into operation. Christian Sub-Governors had been appointed in the provinces of Asia Minor. Christian members of the Gendarmes had also been appointed. There had been Christian Inspectors of the Courts of Justice appointed, and there had been large sums voted by the Turkish Government, and out of the private purse of the Sultan for the relief of the Armenians in Asia Minor. These things were never mentioned by the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who criticised the action of the Government, or who affected to deal with what had happened in Turkey. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite to be moderate in their language when dealing with this question. He believed that more human lives had been sacrificed in Asia Minor during the past two years owing to the immoderate and violent language used by Gentlemen in that House than owing to any other cause. He believed that this violent vituperation in regard to the Turkish Government had had the most disastrous effect. Hon. Gentlemen professed to have the safety of these Christians at heart; he himself had the same desire, but he begged them to remember that the power in these regions was in the hands of Mussulmen, and that if they were seriously aroused, and if a time of violence broke forth again, not only the Armenians but the whole Christian population of Turkey might suffer. He, of course, held different views as to the causes of these massacres, and did not believe that the Sultan was responsible for them. It would have been the worst policy that any ruler could adopt to order such massacres as took place at the close of 1895. He was happy to be able to say that tranquillity prevailed now, and had prevailed during

  85
  the last twelve months over the greater part of Turkey. He had spoken with many Turks on these questions, and they deplored as deeply as did the Christians of this country the massacres which had taken place. He had also had the opportunity of speaking to the leaders of the Armenian and Greek religions in Turkey, and he could assure hon. Members that they took a very different view to that which was taken by the supposed representatives of the Armenians in that House. Their one great object was to secure the maintenance of tranquillity, and to prevent any further outbreak of fanaticism. One of the most prominent Christian prelates in Turkey had said to him that the only two things that were wanted in Turkey now were, first, the maintenance of tranquillity, and secondly the placing of good men in power and keeping them there—not good Christians but good Turks. If our Ambassador at Constantinople, instead of indulging in a wild course of abuse and oppositon to the Sultan and the Turkish Government, had only adhered to his one object of getting well known good men in power in Turkey and keeping them there, he would have achieved a great deal for the benefit of the Turkish people. He was told that they had plenty of reforms on paper, all they wanted was their execution. The Leader of the Opposition had told them in the vague, grandiose language of which he was such a master, that his policy was that of friendship with Russia, but he did not say what was perfectly well known, that it had been Russian opposition which had steadily for the last 18 months prevented any intervention of this country in Turkey. He must know that Prince Lobanoff checked Lord Rosebery's attempt at practical intervention, and that the Russian Government did the same thing in November last with regard to the administration now in power. The policy of the Russian Government was to promote disorders in Turkey, to prevent the intervention of other Powers at all costs, and to allow Turkey to rot to pieces in order that the prize might fall into their own hands. He had never been a believer in the Concert of Europe, and the reason why Russia was now going in for it was because that was now the only way by which she could prevent intervention on the part of the other
  86
  Powers in the affairs of Turkey. If Constantinople were placed in the hands of Russia, it would place her in, a naval and military position of overwhelming strength, and our hold over Egypt, the Suez Canal, and even India, would be most gravely inperilled. There was another policy in regard to these questions which the Government would sooner or later be forced to adopt, and that was to find allies in Europe whose interests were coincident with our own, and agree upon a policy with them. He believed that would enable England to demand any reforms from Turkey. He deeply regretted the attitude which our Ambassador at Constantinople had taken up. He believed there were signs of improvement already in Turkey, and that if tranquillity were maintained that improvement would proceed, and that possibly at no distant date the varied populations in Turkey, so opposed in history, race and religion, might be able to live together in peace and prosperity.
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTcalled attention to the imprisonment in Belgium of Alderman Tillett, whoso object had been a perfectly lawful one—namely, to induce the workpeople to become better organised. Alderman Tillett was kept, in prison for 48 hours and then released, he believed, without trial. He asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to impress on the Belgian Government that an Englishman was an Englishman whatever his social position might be, and that the whole force of the Government of this country was at the disposal of the poorest subjects of the Queen as much as of that of the richest, and most exalted. He himself feared that this was not realised by the Belgian Government. This was not a mere sentimental complaint of imprisonment, but of the fearful insanitary condition of the cell in which for 48 hours Mr. Tillett was imprisoned. He had had the honour of knowing Mr. Tillett for many years. He was a man of great refinement for a workman, and never had a robust constitution. The cell in which he was incarcerated was in such a condition as to poison and undermine the strongest constitution. His health was probably ruined for life. Since his imprisonment he had been unable to discharge his official duties in connection with his trade association,

  87
  and had been put to great expense in leaving his home for seaside resorts to better his health. Under the strong advice of medical men he had now set sail for New Zealand, which would keep him away from his work for 12 months, and even then it was uncertain whether he would, when he returned, be tit to resume his public duties. Under these circumstances he honed the Government would insist on ample reparation being made by the Belgian Government for such an outrage on a British subject. He was afraid that Mr. Tillett's social position not being in the first rank the importance of his ease might be underestimated, and consequently it might, though unintentionally, be neglected. He now wished to refer to the extraordinary speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield. If misfortunes should overtake the foreign affairs of this country, the Leader of the House would see that his weakness was in not having the hon. Member to preside over them. [Laughter.] He himself was perfectly horrified that an English Member of Parliament, if not himself an Englishman, should have dared, in the presence of freeborn Britons, to stand up as the public apologist of a person like the Sultan of Turkey, whose myrmidons had sent shudders and terrors throughout the civilised world by their barbarities and murders. He was astonished that the hon. Member should have defended this monster and attacked one of his fellow-countrymen, the British Ambassador, who was not able publicly to defend himself. With regard to the Government proposals on the subject of Education, he did not know whether the Government measure had been prepared, but if it was not too late he would tell the Leader of the House the secret of obtaining for it universal support from the Opposition side of the House. It was that where public money was given public and popular control should follow. No one knew better than the Leader of the House that the so-called "Voluntary" Schools were sectarian schools under another name. He did not object to the further expenditure of public money in aid of education, but if public money were voted, whether in aid of elementary schools, secondary schools, or training colleges, they, on the Opposition side of the House, would insist on public control following. If the Leader
  88
  of the House would take a "tip" from him and provide for this, he would have a record Session, and be able to pose, not as Leader of a mere section of the House—including the hon. Member for Sheffield—but of the whole House and the country. What a magnificent position to contemplate. If the right hon. Gentleman was strong enough and equal to the occasion he would now have a chance which might never occur again. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"]
  On the return of MR. Speaker, after the usual interval—
  MR. DOUGLAS COGHILLsaid that there were one or two omissions in the programme of the Government as set forth in the Queen's Speech which he should like to call attention to. In the first place he should like to have seen among their promised measures a Redistribution Bill which would have divided the country into something approaching equal electoral districts, so as to get rid of the present unjust method of representation under which small constituencies were over represented, while large constituencies and places of importance were either under represented or were left without representation. The limit of 50,000 population was taken to be a proper one to entitle a, borough to representation, but that limit had been widely departed from in many instances. In the first place, as regarded England and Scotland, he found that the following constituencies were represented in that House: King's Lynn with a population of 18,360, St. Andrew's with a population of 18,941, Buteshire with a population of 18,217, Durham with a population of 15,287, Penryn and Falmouth with a population of 17,454, Winchester with a population of 19,073, and Salisbury with a population of 17,362. Let him compare those constituencies with such constituencies as those of Cardiff, with a population of 132,229, Huddersfield with a population of 96,495, Hanley with a population of 86,945, Wandsworth with a population of 113,244, Romford with a population of 103,000, Deptford with a population of 101,286, and Croydon with a population of 102,695. In his view the latter constituencies were very inadequately repre-

  89
  sented compared with the former. There were moreover a large number of two-Member constituencies still left. Thus the following were two-Member constituencies: Stockport having a population of 70,263, Ipswich having a population of 57,360, York having a population of 67,000, Bath having a population of 54,551, Northampton having a population of, 70,872, Stoke having a population of 75,352, and Newcastle-on-Tyne having a population of 186,300. Ireland had a representation 23 in excess of its proper proportion, such places as Newry with a population of 13,605, Kilkenny with a population of 13,722, and Galway with a population of 16,942, each returning a Member to that House. With regard to the over representation of Ireland, the present Lord Chancellor had stated at the St. Stephen's Club, that Home Rule could not be considered dead as long as the representation of Ireland at Westminster remained as large as it was at present. He could hope that, in such circumstances as he had referred to, Her Majesty's Government would give their attention to this subject. ["Hear, hear!"] Turning to another subject, that of the abolition of the Irish Vice-Royalty sham and farce which was carried on by the Lord Lieutenant at Dublin Castle, he might say that Englishmen had no desire to see Ireland governed on any different system to that under which they lived. He was in favour of getting rid of Dublin Castle altogether, as well as of the Irish Privy Council. He also advocated the establishment of Royal residences in Ireland. It was no wonder that there should be disloyalty in Ireland when the Irish people never saw any member of the Royal family in consequence of there being no Royal residence in the country. As for the Dublin Castle system, it seemed strange at first sight that its abolition should be opposed by the hon. and learned Member for North Tyrone. That hon. and learned Gentleman speaking upon the subject said:—
  "He himself should oppose, if it ever cropped up, the abolition of the office of Viceroy in Ireland, because it was essential to working out the principle of Home Rule and the establishment of an Independent Legislature for Ireland."
  Again the hon. Member for the Scotland
  90
  division in speaking on the same subject said:—
  "he would most strongly and vehemently oppose any such proposition, because he regarded the Viceroyalty as one of the distinct marks of Irish nationality which Irish Nationalists would be very foolish indeed to surrender."
  These observations showed the necessity that there was for getting rid of the existing separate system of Government for Ireland. He should like to ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they had dropped Home Rule altogether out of the Liberal programme. In January 1895, the National Liberal Federation had passed a Resolution to the effect that Homo Rule still held a foremost place in the programme of the Liberal Party, and he should like to know whether that was their opinion at the present time. He should also like to know who was the real leader of the Liberal Party. Speaking on this subject at Dewsbury, the right hon. and learned Member for East Fife had said:—
  "They were going up to Westminster in a few days with full confidence in the sagacity of their Leader and in the discipline and loyalty of their rank and file—[cheers]—and with the most strenuous determination to use to the full in the promotion of progressive, and in the arrest and defeat of reactionary, legislation all the legislative weapons and opportunities of Party warfare."
  On the other hand, Mr. Russell had said:—
  "Whom does the Liberal Party follow just now? It follows no one absolutely; the leadership is in commission, and the Party picks and chooses, and follows one man on one subject and another on another. Lord Rosebery gives us the right lead on Home Rule, Sir Wiliam Harcourt on finance, and Mr. Asquith on social reform."
  They also wanted to know from the hon. Member for Northampton what took place early in 1894, when Mr. Gladstone resigned the Premiership. Writing in Truth on October 29, 1896, the hon. Member said:—
  "It will be seen, therefore, that the Liberal Party has had to thank the majority of Mr. Gladstone's last Cabinet for depriving us of the invaluable services of that trusted veteran; for preventing an appeal to the country on the action of the Lords; and for the dreary ploughing of the sands of the sea that made the Party ridiculous in the sight of men and angels; as well as for having sacrificed that

  91
  keystone of Liberalism, the presence of the Liberal Premier in the House of Commons."
  He looked forward to the further disclosures of the hon. Member with considerable curiosity. They had heard a good deal in the last few weeks about the Report of the Financial Relations Commission. The mere perusal of the names of the Commissioners was enough to show that this was a packed Commission, packed for a special object, the pasing of the Home Rule Bill. Its conclusions, therefore, appeared to him to be perfectly valueless, and he did not think that the Party opposite would be able to make much capital out of the Report. The Opposition were handicapped enough already by the adoption of the policy of Home Rule. They would only increase their difficulties by telling the British taxpayers that they must provide £2,700,000 a year more in order that Ireland might be taxed as a separate taxable entity. It was admitted that Irishmen individually had no grievance; in fact in the matter of taxation they were better off than Englishmen and Scotchmen. Scotchmen might have a grievance, but Irishmen had none. Referring to the grant of £200 made by the First Lord of the Treasury to George Brooks, the plaintiff in a recent trial, the hon. Member described him as a Radical Unionist of the type manufactured in West Birmingham. Grants such as that made in this case were the price which the country had to pay to enable the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to masquerade as the leader of a distinct party, although he sat on the front Ministerial bench. With reference to the promise of relief to the Voluntary schools, he expressed his obligations to the Government for the prominent place which they had given to the subject in their programme. He trusted that there would be no drawing back and no flinching, and that by the 31st of March the Voluntary schools would have obtained that assistance to which they were entitled. He hoped that the assistance given would be sufficient not only to enable them to meet the demands made upon them by the Education Department, but also to stand their ground in the severe and ruthless competition of the School Boards.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREobserved that the hon. Member who had just sat down had spoken about everything on the earth, above it, and below it, and had attacked with perfect impartiality everybody on his own side of the House and everybody on the Opposition side with the exception of himself (Mr. Labouchere). For the praise which the hon. Member had extended to him he was very grateful. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would remember that the Leader of the Opposition had asked for certain explanations with regard to the attitude of the Government towards the Cyprus Convention. The right hon. Member would, he thought, admit that no answer was given by the Leader of the House to the questions that were put to him. In fact, the Leader of the House rather evaded those questions, saying that his views on the subject were identical with those of the Leader of the Opposition. Well, they knew the views of the Opposition. Mr. Gladstone, speaking for his Party, had declared that he regarded the Convention as an "insane Convention." The right hon. Member for North East Manchester, when Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, was understood to say in the House that the Convention was dead, but when reference was made to Hansard it was found that the word "dead" had become "dormant." Were they to understand that the Convention was "dormant" at the present time? He really did not see how they could expect Russia to aid and abet efforts to establish good government in Armenia if the result of those efforts would be to revivify a Treaty which was absolutely aimed by us against Russia. He did not think it a fair answer to say that the opinion of the Leader of the House was precisely the same as the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition, unless they were thereby given distinctly to understand that this Treaty, as far as the guarantee of Asia Minor was concerned, was not only "dormant," but dead. They ought also to have a clear under-standing that the papers which were to be published would be presented almost immediately, that they would be full, and that as soon as they had been presented an opportunity would be given to the Members of the House to explain

  93
  their views fully and to criticise the attitude of the Government.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that he should not have risen at that moment if the Government had made an answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for Northampton. Whilst he agreed that a general discussion on the subject of Armenia might wisely be deferred, he held that with regard to the Asia Minor Convention something ought to be said that night. He had dissociated himself from the extreme forms of agitation in the recess, but whilst he thought that that agitation was in some respects open to criticism, he thought that in the tameness of the debate and of the action taken that evening an error in the opposite direction was committed. They had hardly done justice to the deep feeling that existed in the country upon this question. The country naturally expected information. The reply of the Leader of the House to the Leader of the Opposition was rather calculated to set up the Asia Minor Convention as a more substantial fact than he had taken it to be. The Government in 1880 regarded that Convention as dead. The massacres that occurred at that period were quite as horrible as those that had occurred recently. The right hon. Member for Aberdeen at that time disapproved the removal of the military Consuls from Asia Minor, the creation of those Consulates being an essential portion of the Asia Minor Convention. As to what was the general position of the Government in relation to the Asia Minor Convention, there could be no doubt at all; it was something very different from what had been described to the House in the present Debate from either of the front Benches. It was absurd to suppose that the Conservative Government of 1878 concluded that Convention for the mere purpose of befriending Turkey; the object must have been some supposed advantage to ourselves. It was, no doubt, felt by the Government of 1878 that it would be impossible to induce the British public to defend Turkey, even though British interests might be supposed to demand it, if Turkey would not reform herself; and therefore the Convention was made conditional in form. So little did the Turks regard it
  94
  as an advantage to themselves that they were the first to ask to be released from it. The Convention was always condemned by the Liberal Party; and he was obliged to say that what had happened had absolutely justified the condemnation. In the opinion of the Government of 1880 the island of Cyprus was worthless to this country, and its possession a source of military weakness. At that time the Convention was looked upon as dead, and the action we took was taken entirely under the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin in concert with all the Powers. In the Identic Note of 1880 the French Government played a great part, and the strongest language of menace was used as to what would happen to the dominions of the Porte if reforms were not executed. Therefore we departed entirely from all intention of acting under the Asia Minor Convention. Our action failed in spite of circumstances which were singularly close to those of the present day. England and Russia, acting together, produced a scheme of reforms consistent with the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin, and it was laid before the Porte. The scheme was accepted by all the Powers, but not by the Porte; and the Government of this country, in spite of the horrible character of what was happening in Armenia, was unable to secure the assent of the Government of the Porte. He, however, believed that if the United Kingdom, Russia, and France were actually united in pressing upon the Porte a policy of reform they could easily obtain serious guarantees of better government in Turkey. He earnestly desired to obtain reform in Turkey consistent with the existence of the Government of the Porte, because he shrank from the horrors which would happen in case a general partition of Turkey were attempted. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course, it depended upon Russia, in the last instance, whether reforms in Turkey were secured; but doubtless the worthless possession of the island of Cyprus might be made a factor in a policy of pressure, which he believed for the sake of the Porte itself, and certainly for the sake of the European Powers, ought to be followed. Cyprus might with advantage be handed over to Greek rule, under the guarantee of Russia, England, and France, a step which might be

  95
  the beginning of effective means of bringing pressure to bear on the Porte. There were one or two other matters to which he wished to refer upon the present occasion. There were, for instance, the departures from the positive promises which the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had made to the House in regard to our Protectorates. Frequently attention had been called to the fact that slavery existed in Zanzibar. The Under Secretary of State had given very positive promises as to the changes which were to be introduced; he told them, for example, that when Mr. Harding went back to Zanzibar last autumn steps would be taken immediately to get rid of the slavery there. Those steps had been postponed, and the Under Secretary had told a deputation which waited upon him that the case of slavery in Zanzibar was wholly different from the slavery which formerly existed in the West Indies. He said that the slaves and the slaveowners in Zanzibar belonged to the same race, and that the dangers and the horrors of slavery were much less under circumstances of that kind than they were in the West Indies. The right hon. Gentleman's statement was entirely opposed to fact, as in Zanzibar the slaves were of a different race to the slaveowners. But the Under Secretary used another argument which was even more startling; he told the deputation that the legal status of slavery had been abolished in British colonics, but not in protectorates. He could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could make that statement in face of the fact which had been repeatedly brought to his knowledge that the Colonial Office had abolished slavery over and over again in protectorates. He had previously quoted to the right hon. Gentleman the case of the Protectorate in the Malay Peninsula, where slavery was abolished by the Colonial Office the moment it took charge of those countries. It was therefore disgraceful that the Foreign Office should continue to tolerate slavery in Zanzibar, and in a protectorate which was virtually a British colony. Turning next to the West Coast of Africa, he said that in the Oil Rivers Protectorate this country had found itself involved in a war. Some statement ought to have been made in the Queen's Speech with
  96
  regard to the causes of that war. He should like to know whether the Government had received any confirmation of the extraordinary information that was to be found in the newspapers of the previous day. The wife of one of the gentlemen first reported killed, in an interview stated in effect that the whole expedition to Benin went there only out of curiosity. [Mr. CURZON shook his head.] He was glad to see that expression of dissent; but all these little wars strongly confirmed him in the view that the Foreign Office was not the department of the State which ought to administer those virtual colonies and carry on those wars. Nothing had been said by the Leader, of the Opposition as to the new departure taken in sending a Commission to the West Indies to inquire into the sugar industry. He could not but feel that false hopes were being held out to the West Indies by this departure. It would be understood in the West Indies as meaning that some protectionist steps were to be taken for the benefit of its sugar as against the sugars of the rest of the world. [Cheers.] He did not believe it was probable that Parliament would assent to any proposals of that kind, even if the Commission should make them. On the question of the government of the West Indian colonies, he judged from the correspondence which he had on the subject that there was a strong feeling in those colonies for a little more freedom from administrative red-tape, more freedom to govern themselves than they possessed at present, and that the offer of financial proposals which were unlikely to be made or to be carried was being held out to the colonies as a sop instead of the administrative reforms being undertaken which the people desired. Since the Debates of last year the questions of Chitral and Kafiristan had arisen. Full details had come from Afghanistan and the frontier provinces as to the treatment extended by the Afghan troops to the unfortunate inhabitants of Kafiristan. If the facts were as had been alleged in a pamphlet issued with the authority of the Bishop of Lahore and others, nothing more horrible had occurred in the history of the relations between civilised and uncivilised people. The Ameer had received from us that which was not ours to give

  97
  —namely, a large tract of Kafiristan. The Ameer sent to that country a large force which was provided with arms by us, and which was paid by us, and the unfortunates people made, a complete political submission to it. But the people stipulated for the free exercise of their religion, and the Ameer's commander-in-chief boasted of having promised to them this, while he intended all the time to break the promise.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,)said he had not seen or heard anything authentic in support of that allegation. Could the right hon. Baronet give him the facts or a copy of the document, because his information was to the contrary effect?
  SIR C. DILKEsaid that all the evidence in his possession as to the authenticity of the statements which had been published in India convinced him. As, however, the noble Lord had not seen the pamphlet, he would send a copy of it to him. He next called attention to the Education Bill, and the terms in which it was quoted to the House. Last year this Bill was called in the Queen's Speech "a Bill for the relief of Voluntary Schools." In reply to his question at that time, the Vice President of the Council said that, in spite of the words in the Queen's Speech, it was intended to deal with the poor Board School Districts as well. He gathered that the Bill of this year was to be practically a money clause, but the terms in which the Leader of the House gave notice of the Bill would shut out assistance to poor Board Schools. If the Government did not intend to redeem the pledge they had given on this point, and if they were to confine their Bill to Voluntary Schools, there would be extreme disappointment and dissatisfaction which would not be confined to one side of the House. The Leader of the Opposition to-night had said that the Liberal Party would support the Bill if the Government would give assistance to the poor School Board Districts which needed it. The pressure in those districts was well known, and it was admitted even by the Vice President of the Council. If the Bill was so drawn this year, as regarded its title, that it would be impossible even to raise the case of the poor
  98
  School Board districts, a heavy charge of breach of faith against the Government would be justified on the part of those whose interests were involved.
  MR. J. BRYCEsaid he much regretted the cold and minimising paragraph in the Queen's Speech in relation to the events that had happened during the last 18 months in Turkey. Considering what those events had been, he certainly expected that the reference to them would have been in more serious terms. The general voice of the country had required the Government to carry out the obligations which existed under the Treaty for the protection of the Eastern Christians; but it was questionable whether Her Majesty's Government, by the manner of the language they employed, really looked upon the question with the seriousness which the country undoubtedly felt. The massacres of 1880 to 1883 were nothing in comparison with what happened last year. Not fewer than 100,000 Christians perished by slaughter, and probably as many more had perished by famine and starvation. Therefore, the state of things had reached a culmination in the last 18 months entirely without precedent, even in the annals of the bloodstained East. The Government would have to show the House that they had done everything possible in order to carry out the wishes and feelings of the country in this matter. The position of this country in regard to Eastern affairs seemed to be one of great humiliation. Our diplomacy, however excellent its intention, had certainly been a diplomacy of failure. He should be sorry to prejudge the case which the Government would make when they laid papers before Parliament, and he had risen with the object of asking when those papers would be ready, what they would contain, and whether they would carry the story on from the last papers delivered last spring. He also wished to know whether the Government would give the House an early opportunity of discussing the matter. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,)denied that the reference in the Queen's Speech to the events which had happened in Eastern Europe was in cold and minimising terms. The complaint was most

  99
  unreasonable. He referred to the Speech, and read the opening sentence of the second paragraph, and said he did not think hon. Members would find in the words employed any justification for the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman—["hear, hear!"]—or any ground for stating that either the Government, or individual members of the Government, had shown any lack of ability to appreciate at their proper value the disastrous incidents which had occurred in Turkey. He fully agreed with previous speakers that it would be better to discuss the question of Armenia and the events of the past six months when all the Blue-books were before the House. The Government had no lack of information about Turkey and Armenia which they were prepared to lay before the House. In fact, he doubted whether such a mass of Blue-books had ever before, in so short a space of time, been showered on hon. Members as the Government were prepared to produce in reference to this question. They had, in the first place, a Blue-book containing the papers relating to the question of Crete down to September last, which they hoped to lay on the table some time in the next fortnight. Then there would be a Blue-book containing the continuation of the correspondence about Armenia from the end of 1895 down to the end of last Session. There was a further Blue-book about the Constantinople riots in August last, which he hoped might be distributed on Thursday. Another Blue-book—and this, of course, would be of the greatest importance to hon. Members—referred to the introduction of reforms and the proceedings of the Ambassadors at the present time at Constantinople, which he hoped would also be distributed on Thursday. Finally, there were two more-Blue-books containing a continuation of the narrative of events in Turkey and Asia Minor from the conclusion of last Session up to the present time, and the first of these he hoped to present in about ten days. As to whether a special opportunity would be given for the discussion of the questions to which the Blue-books related, in the absence of the Leader of the House he could give no pledge, but for his own part he could not see any difficulty in the matter. Last Session the
  100
  subject was discussed on a Tuesday afternoon on a motion brought forward by a private Member. If such an opportunity should not be secured this year, he saw no reason why, on an early date, one of the Foreign Office Votes should not be put down in Supply on a Friday in order to enable hon. Members to discuss the question. He would undertake to communicate the wishes of hon. Gentlemen to the Leader of the House. He had listened carefully for the instances of mala fides on his part which the hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean hinted at, but he had failed to recognise them. As to the ending of slavery at Zanzibar, what he had said was that it would be simultaneous with Mr. Hardinge's return to Zanzibar. Mr. Hardinge was now on his way out, and when he reached Zanzibar he would proceed to put in force the instructions which he had received. As this question was to be raised on an amendment to the Address he would not say any more at present, but at the proper time the House would be placed in possession of the instructions which had been given to Mr. Hardinge. As to the unhappy events in the Niger Coast Protectorate, he was sorry to say that the Government were as ignorant as the House as to the causes of this unfortunate expedition to Benin. The last communication which the Foreign Office had from the Acting Consul General, Mr. Phillips, who had unfortunately lost his life since, was dated November last. Mr. Phillips pointed out the necessity of taking a strong line and of conducting operations against this chief, who had steadily ignored and evaded the treaty into which he had entered with us. But the expedition which Mr. Phillips asked Her Majesty's Government to sanction had not been authorised, as it was thought better to defer it. The next news was that the Acting Consul General had gone up country with a party, unarmed, and that he, with the bulk of his followers, had been massacred. That this expedition could have been undertaken out of curiosity it was not possible for one moment to believe. Mr. Phillips must, have thought himself capable of securing his ends by pacific means. When further information had been received it would be given to the House. The right

  101
  hon. Baronet had made his familiar assertions that these protectorates would be much better administered by the Colonial Office than by the Foreign Office, but he had never adduced any argument in favour of those assertions. In speaking of the West India Sugar Commission the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that its appointment would hold out expectations which must be disappointed. The best answer to such fears, if entertained on the Opposition side of the House, was the fact that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division, had a seat on that Commission. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONargued that the discussion of the Armenian question had better be postponed, but, in view of the urgency of the question, he hoped the Leader of the House would give a day for the discussion before the Vote on Account was taken. There was one omission in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He had made no answer to the strong attack on Sir Philip Currie which had come from the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield.
  MR. CURZON: I answered the hon. Member last year. [Laughter.]
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid that perhaps the Under Secretary did not attach much importance to what was said by the hon. Member for Sheffield, but it was necessary to consider the effect of such a speech in Constantinople. In the eyes of the Sultan of Turkey the hon. Member was a Knight of the Order of the Medjidieh—[laughter]—and his attack on the Sultan of Turkey was punctuated with frequent cheers from the hon. Member for Lynn Regis. [Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: "The hon. Member is quite wrong."] He thought that as be much had been said with regard to the Anglo-Turkish Convention, some reasons should also be given why the Debate on that subject might also be more fittingly postponed to a later day. He ventured to think that although after all the Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1878 lay probably more at the root of their present difficulties than any other treaty or convention, they must not at the same time leave out of sight the fact that the course of their history during the last 40 or 50 years had tended in a similar direction,
  102
  and that when the question came to be discussed it ought to be discussed in its entirety. They ought to consider, not merely the Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1878, but also the Treaty of Paris, the Treaty of Berlin, the Tripartite Treaty of 1856, and the Schouvaloff Memorandum of 1878. Unless they took into account these instruments they would not be able to give adequate reasons for the reversal of the policy which in general was embodied in the popular mind in the Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1878. That was a reason why the discussion on the question as a whole ought to be postponed until a later date, but the matter was of so much importance and urgency that the delay ought not to be very great. He trusted that if they were to discuss this question the Leader of the House would be able to see that they were furnished with the Blue-books as soon as possible. There were also other matters connected with the Turkish Empire on which they ought to have some information. They ought to know something with regard to what was taking place among the Druses in Syria, and also with regard to the disturbances which had been occurring in Macedonia during the last twelve mouths, especially in view of the fact that those disturbances, it was said, were likely to break out again in the forthcoming spring. There ought, also to be some information as to the treatment, of political prisoners generally in Turkey. They were told that at the present time there were no fewer than 4,000 political prisoners in the Turkish Empire who were in prison or in exile in Arabia without trial or after sham trials. Among these prisoners were not only Armenians but also a considerable number of the more enlightened among the Young Turkish Party. That was a matter which certainly called for information, and the fact, that the Government were now taking their stand not merely on the 61st All of the Berlin Treaty, and not merely on the Anglo-Turkish Convention, but also on the other international instruments was an additional reason why the information should be given.
  MR. R. PIERPOINTsaid he desired to say a word from the point of view of the native races of Egypt and of the Island of Cyprus. So far as the discussion had proceeded that night it

  103
  seemed as though the welfare of these people did not exist at all, or was of the slightest significance, and he ventured to protest against this continual unsettlement of these native races by bringing before that House the question of the cession of Cyprus either back to Turkey or to Greece or the giving to it of its own autonomy. The people of the Island of Cyprus were very excitable, and the discussions on this subject were not only dangerous to the people but injurious to the welfare of the island. It prevented capital being invested in the island and in Egypt, because capital could not possibly be safe if they intended to go. He maintained that they had taken these people, such as the Egyptians and the Cypriots under their charge, and that they had no moral right to cast them off again simply as a move on the political chessboard. It appeared to be in the minds of some hon. Members that in the present phase of the Eastern question the proposed cession of Cyprus would please France. But seeing that by their possession of the Island of Cyprus France had been saved in the aggregate £730,000, and was saved every year over £40,000, he did not think that the cession would give France any pleasure or satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, wanted to hand the Island of Cyprus over to Greece, but he did not think it likely that if we did so we should go on guaranteeing the payment of £02,000 a year as we did now.
  MR. J. J. CLANCYstated two reasons why he thought the offer of the First Lord of the Treasury to provide a special opportunity for the discussion of the Financial Relations Report should be accepted. The first was that a special occasion would probably make a deeper impression on the public mind in this country, and the second was that it would leave the Irish Unionist Party more free than they would be, according to the letter written in the Times by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, to ing to obtain redress for a proved grievance. In these circumstances he would not move the Amendment which he had handed in to the Clerk at the Table.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid no doubt the hon. Member for Sheffield considered he had due ground for the remarks he made on our Ambassador at Constantinople. He himself had not had the advantage of seeing that Ambassador, but at all events he knew that the Blue-books disclosed the fact that Sir P. Currie had invented no less than four plans for the improvement and reform of the Turkish Empire, and at this moment every one of those plans had been a failure. That was the record of Sir P. Currie's performance at Constantinople. He would not take up the defence of the Under Secretary, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had advisedly refrained from defending the Ambassador at Constantinople. The Under Secretary himself was in the habit of attacking people in some of those speeches which with equal modesty and majesty he occasionally delivered in the country. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Sheffield attacked an Ambassador, but that was not good enough at all for the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The right hon. Gentleman flew at Sovereigns. He told them in one of his speeches that he was considering the question of the Deposition of the Sultan. He did not know whether the Powers took into consideration the fact that the Sultan had a most capable army, not so large as that of some European states, but an army well clad, well fed, and well armed. He would like to know what progress this plan for the deposition of the Sultan was making, and had anything been done in regard to that plan? What Despatches had passed in reference to the manner of carrying it out? Had the plan been abandoned like others? This seemed to him more important than information in regard to reforms, massacres, and things of that kind in Armenia and other places, because it was an entirely new departure for the chosen mouth-piece of the Foreign Office to inform the country that the Powers were considering whether they were going to depose a friendly sovereign. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had attributed the Cyprus Convention to hatred of Russia, but that was really not the reason for the adoption of that Convention. The reasons for it were to be found in Despatches accompanying

  105
  it written by its author, Lord Salisbury, who was author of the test as well as of the idea. He distinctly explained at the time that the reason for the Cyprus Convention was that under the then circumstances the possessions of Turkey in Asia Minor were open to attack, and that that attack would seriously affect what Lord Salisbury called the "Oriental interests" of England, and it was to safeguard those interests the Cyprus Convention was made as a protection—as the only possible and the adequate protection—not of the interests of Turkey, but of England. It was, therefore, he submitted, entirely wrong to say that the Convention was entered into out of hatred to Russia, it was entered into out of anxiety for India. The Convention was never made in return for any obligation as towards Armenia, on the contrary an undertaking was given for Armenia in return for the promise of defence given for the sake of India. These Despatches he had fully in remembrance. Of course, there was the interest England had in the future affairs of Turkey, but these were not the interests of England alone or even primarily. It was absolutely impossible to divide the Turkish Empire without a European war, unless you could stop the flow of the Danube which traversed the centre of Europe for nearly two thousand miles and was an important highway for Bavaria, Austria, Roumania, and Servia, and to suppose that Russia would be allowed to take Constantinople and close the mouth of the Danube against all Europe was impossible of belief. So long as the Danube flowed there could be no such division without a European war. That was felt everywhere, but what was also felt was that if a European war on the division of Turkey was not to be faced, at any rate something could be done to sap and ruin the Turkish Empire. When it was said the Powers were united in asking for reforms it was known that one Power, Russia, would never admit these reforms if she could prevent them. Russia desired no reform, but rather that Turkey should remain in an unreformed state looking to Russia as to a friend. That was not the interest of England, the interest of England was that Turkey should be reformed,
  106
  not merely for the sake of the Armenians, but for the sake of the Moslem population. He believed that the moment had arrived, and that there was an opportunity for the reform of Turkey such as had not occurred for many years, and such as might not occur again. Without making any reflections on our present ambassador at Constantinople, if England had there as representative a sound, discreet, modest, conciliatory man, and if nothing in the shape of arrogance or insolence characterised the action of England's representative, much might be done. At this moment the Sultan was the only man from whom could be obtained any action in reforming Turkey, and if he were treated with arrogance, insult, and menace, it was impossible to expect that he would favourably listen to our proposals. Sometimes they were asked to look on this Turkish matter as if it were purely a Christian question, but it was more than that, it was a Moslem question, and more than that it was an Indian Moslem question, and he was struck, though indeed not surprised at seeing a remarkable letter in The Times, in reference to the feeling among Moslem subjects of the Queen in regard to this question. There was great risk in piling abuse on the head of the Moslem religion of alienating Indian Moslem subjects who could be counted at double or treble the number ruled over by the Sultan. This consideration should be present to the minds of those who were so ready to use hysterical language on this subject, and who would expect hysterics even in the Queen's Speech when Turkey or Armenia were mentioned. In all sincerity he believed there was a present opportunity of effecting a settlement in Turkey such as had never occurred before. He felt convinced that the great disturbing Power, Russia, wished for peace. She had other business in hand in the further East, and the development of her manufactures by which she had already pushed us out of Persia and might do so out of other markets. Gladly he testified to the peaceful desires of the present Czar. All was working for peace, and would give two or three years respite to Turkey. Was it to be supposed that the Sultan himself did

  107
  not wish to get to the end of all these troubles? It would be absurd to suppose that he did not wish to lead a quiet life. Of course, he was anxious to reconcile himself to Europe, and above all to England. The time was favourable for the settlement of financial and other difficulties if only Turkey were treated with common honesty. Lie 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin, which dealt with the obligations of Turkey, was frequently mentioned in discussions on the Eastern Question. But there was never any allusion to the Articles dealing with the obligations of the European Powers towards Turkey in the matter of the Bulgarian tribute, which Articles had been consistently violated. Again and again had Turkey appealed to England, as one of the Powers under that Treaty, to fulfil her obligation in regard to the Bulgarian tribute, and the Bulgarian, Montenegrin, and Servian share of the Debt, and again and again had Turkey been disappointed. The result was that Turkey was liable for the whole of the tribute, and two millions of money was due to the Sultan for the Bulgarian tribute alone, and withheld from him by the Powers. He mentioned that as one instance of the want of fairness and honesty on the part of the Powers in dealing with Turkey. He would say in conclusion, if the Government were animated by a spirit of vengeance towards Turkey and by a desire to punish the Sultan and destroy him and his Government, they would fail, and would do no good to the Armenians. But if they were animated by an honest desire to effect reforms in Turkey, they had only to choose the proper instruments and take the proper means to succeed.
  MR. J. COMPTON RICKETTcalled attention to that part of the Queen's Speech which referred to the advance into the Soudan. He admitted that the military operations of the British and Egyptian troops in that province deserved the credit due to a well-considered campaign, but thought the House should take into account the value of the conquest of Dongola. A province in the Soudan added to Egypt was either of advantage to that country or to England. The Government had repeatedly affirmed that our occupation of Egypt
  108
  was only a temporary one, and therefore the military proceedings to the South, involving probably a further advance during the present year, only delayed the evacuation, and could be of no permanent benefit to this country. He presumed that there was not a bimetallic theory of morals—one code of honour for an individual and another for a nation. The recovery of the Soudan exchanged a defensible frontier behind a stretch of desert for a frontier further to the south, involving the control of a sparsely populated and unprofitable district threatened by turbulent and fanatical tribes. It might, however, be argued that although we intended to fulfil our honourable obligation, there were signs of the approaching dissolution of the Turkish Empire, and a delay would enable this country to negotiate with other Powers for a permanent position in Egypt—a position given to us in exchange for concessions in other directions. It was therefore desirable to consider whether Egypt in itself was of any real value to England. Of course, the Suez Canal was the only argument for our occupation. But what would happen in case of war? We should immediately close the Mediterranean with a supporting squadron at Gibraltar, close the Red Sea with another squadron at Aden, divert our mercantile marine round the Cape to India, and send our mobile fleet into the Mediterranean to fight it out with our antagonists. We should never think of detaching an escort to guard fleets of merchantmen through the Suez Canal—a passage liable to be interrupted or blown up at short notice. If we were to lose control of the Mediterranean for, say two months, our army in Egypt would be practically at the mercy of a great military power—caught like rats in a trap. England would reverse the policy of the last 100 years, and become once again a continental Power by the military defence of Egypt. A Russo-Turkish army advancing from Syria would only have a little over 200 miles of rough country to traverse before reaching striking distance. That army would not wander 40 years in the wilderness. The fleet would be quite unable to defend a ditch without the support of a considerable land force. We should be detaching fifty to a hundred thousand men from our limited military resources

  109
  in order to make the attempt to maintain our position. The probability is that we should evacuate Egypt in a hurry at the outbreak of war instead of entering into a convention, as we might do at the present time, with some consideration in return for our withdrawal. To abandon Egypt precipitately as a military precaution was the true policy of scuttle. If we were the victors in a naval war in the Mediterranean the Suez Canal would fall to us naturally as the spoil at the close of the war. In addition to the fact that we had difficulties with two great Powers in consequence of our continued occupation, we had paralysed our efforts on behalf of Armenia by the suspicion aroused through the Egyptian position. Europe doubted our sincerity, and would not allow us to become its executive at Constantinople. The delivery of a scattered population from tyrants of their own faith was a poor exchange for the sufferings of our fellow-Christians in Armenia. It was probable also that a demand for an increase in the military estimates would be supported by the requirements of our advance in the Soudan. An increase in the naval estimates was a very different matter, for the navy was a defensive and not an aggressive arm. To establish colonial forces and militia defence was one thing, but to increase the regular army for the purpose of expeditions like the present would be a matter no doubt to be resisted on his side of the House. The consolidation of our Colonial Empire offered surely sufficient scope for our energies without such a doubtful enterprise as that already undertaken and proposed to be further developed. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MAJOR RASCHsaid he wished to point out to the Government, in reference to those paragraphs in the Address saying that they would do this and that if time permitted, that the matter was entirely in their own hands. They had only to support the proposal for limiting the duration of speeches, and they could manage the business of the House at such a rate as they chose. He had only been in the House for twelve years, and it was not for him, a mere child in these matters, to alter the procedure of the House which had endured for centuries, and he would not have attempted to do so, but that this time
  110
  last year hon. Members accepted the principle of a Bill which he and his hon. Friends introduced at one of its stages by a majority of 70 votes. Few Members would deny that some change of procedure on the subject was necessary. Of course, it would be said that the procedure of the House had not been altered for four hundred years, and that there was no conceivable reason why that which was good enough for preceding generations should not be good enough for this. But other times brought other manners. Sixty years ago—when Mr. Gladstone was elected for Newark—not more than 100 of the 650 Members ever spoke at all. The other Members were content to keep their seats, waiting for their apotheosis—until they were translated to the House of Lords. That was not absolutely the case now. Formerly an hon. Member got his seat because he was able to pay for it; and when elected he was not supposed to address his constituents through the medium of the Reporters' Gallery. That was not precisely the case now, and, therefore, the analogy of sixty years ago did not apply. In every business assembly in this country, whether it was a meeting of Colonels, or a Convocation of Archbishops and Bishops, a time limit obtained, and as the House was the business assembly of the country he could not conceive why such a limit should not be adopted. He and his Friends did not propose to introduce a Bill this Session. They hoped to get an opportunity to proceed by Resolution; and if they succeeded he would expect both front Benches to be as good as their word, and support such a Resolution. He could assure them that if they did so they would ingratiate themselves very much more with the country than by bringing in half-a-dozen Elementary Education Bills.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANANexpressed disappointment at the comparatively scanty attention which Scotland would receive from the Government during the present Session. It was well known that in the House of Commons, while there was a very large Conservative majority of the whole House, there was not a Conservative majority returned from Scotland, and therefore Scotch Members did not expect to have from the present Government

  111
  any legislation of a contentious character, but they might fairly expect useful legislation that was not contentious. In regard to the Public Health (Scotland) Bill of which notice had been given, he pointed out that this measure was of a very detailed character, and that the important discussion would be on the Committee stage. The only way for any progress to be made with it, therefore, would be for the Government to appoint a Committee on which all Scotch Members would be represented, after the Second Reading had been obtained. The Bill to supplement the Local Government Act for Scotland was also of a very detailed character, and might properly be introduced. The other point on which he wished to touch was the position which agriculture occupied in the Government Programme. Was it going forward or back? It was within the recollection of all that before the present Government came into power session after session an Amendment to the Address was brought forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite deploring the fact that no remedy was proposed for the disastrous condition of agriculture. Last year, on the first night of the Session, the President of the Board of Agriculture gave notice of his intention to ask leave to introduce a Bill to deal with the question of Agricultural Holdings in Great Britain. What was the position of that Bill now? They had to search for it in the last clause of the Queen's Speech—in the omnibus clause, in which were included those Bills which would be introduced only if opportunity served. Even in that clause the Agricultural Holdings Bill stood fourth or fifth, and therefore he would ask what possible chance such a measure, which raised important and controversial questions, had of passing this session? What had the present Government done for agriculture? From his own country and from England they had excluded Canadian cattle for ever and ever, and they had passed an Act for the relief of agricultural rates which was entirely in favour of the landlords. Now that it came to the turn of the tenants to be benefited they were to be sent empty
  112
  away. The interest of the tenants was centered in the question of compensation for tenants' improvements. There was an absolute unanimity of opinion among the tenants of England and Scotland on this question. They were of opinion that the present state of law on the subject of compensation for tenants' improvements was most unsatisfactory and urgently needed reform. And yet the Bill dealing with the subject was placed in such a position in the programme as to show that the Government had no intention of really pushing the Bill forward this Session.

  ZANZIBAR.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEbegged to move the adjournment of the Debate, as he had an important Amendment to move. (Cries of "Oh!" and "Go on!") Then he would withdraw that Motion, and would proceed to move the Amendment to the Address which he had placed upon the Table. The Amendment he moved was to add at the end of the Address the following words:—
  "And we humbly express our regret that, having regard to the repeated and definite declarations made by your Majesty's advisers that the legal status of slavery in the Zanzibar Protectorate should be terminated, no statement appears in your Majesty's Gracious Speech that slavery has ceased to exist in that Protectorate."
  It would be in the recollection of the House that in March 1895 he had moved a reduction in the salary of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with the view of raising the question of slavery in the Protectorate. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had stated that it was quite time that slavery in the Protectorate should come to an end. Two years had since elapsed, or to be more accurate a year and ten months, and yet they had no knowledge that slavery had ceased to exist there. It would also be in the recollection of the House that in August 1895 the present Government had declared that they intended to

  113
  adhere to the pledge given by their predecessors in this matter, and to put an end to slavery in the Protectorate. Last March the definite pledge had been given on behalf of the Government that immediately Mr. Hardinge returned in the autumn slavery would be immediately abolished, and upon that understanding he had withdrawn his Motion on the subject. He would not attribute to the Government any breach of faith, if the emancipation had merely been postponed from the autumn to the present moment, but a serious breach of faith would have occurred if the abolition was not now to be complete. He should be quite satisfied if the Government would state that Mr. Hardinge, who had lately returned to Zanzibar, had received full instructions to take steps to carry out the immediate abolition of slavery in the Protectorate. The question was, "Was Mr. Hardinge going back with definite instructions to carry out the immediate abolition of slavery throughout the Zanzibar Protectorate? He did not ask the Under Secretary to detail these instructions, because he quite appreciated the position that Mr. Hardinge had not yet reached Zanzibar on his return journey, but what the House ought to be assured of was, that there was going to be no attempt to introduce an apprenticeship system in these islands, but that the immediate abolition of slavery was about to take place. Since Parliament had been dissolved certain Government Dispatches had been published which appeared in Africa, No. 7, 1896. The character of the Dispatches gave the impression that those published had been specially selected with a view to support a gradual process of abolition. He would give an illustration: Dispatches were published from certain missionaries, some of whom even admitted they had not studied the question, which favoured some gradual method of manumission, whilst the views of Bishop Tucker, Archdeacon Jones-Bateman, and many other missionaries, whose views were in favour
  114
  of immediate emancipation, had been entirely suppressed. And it appeared special weight seemed to have been attached to any views tending in the direction of delay in the abolition of slavery. The right hon. Gentleman, in speaking to the deputation which waited upon him at the Foreign Office in November last on this question, stated that Mr. Hardinge would "very likely" go back with instructions. The House was ignorant as to whether instructions had or had not been given; if they had not been given he would hold the Government had been guilty of a broach of faith with the House. The right hon. Member further alluded to the Mahommedans not being prepared for immediate abolition. He was afraid the Government had been considering the views of the Mahommedan population rather than the condition of the slaves, but in the circumstances the Government ought rather to look to the abolition of slavery than to the interests of the Mahommedans. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in addressing the deputation to which he had referred, stated that the apprenticeship system had run out its course after the Debates in that House in 1838, in the West Indian Settlements. He believed that was not so. In only one case did the apprenticeship system run out its course, and the local legislatures in every case came to the conclusion that it was expedient to terminate the apprenticeship system, as its evils had been so pronounced and were so obvious to everyone in the Colonies as well as in this country. Again, the right hon. Gentleman stated that there was no cruelty perpetrated upon these islands, and that, therefore, there was no analogy between the apprenticeship system in the Zanzibar Protectorate and the apprenticeship system which existed in the West Indian colonies. But Mr. Sullivan, the representative of Her Majesty's Government in the island of Pemba, writing only last May, in a

  115
  Dispatch published last autumn, indicated that there was considerable cruelty at times in the island. Mr. Sullivan stated in a Dispatch which appeared in Africa, No. 7, which was written as recently at last May, that the life of a plantation slave in Pemba was a hard one at best. The Arab was a stern and exacting taskmaster, often a cruel one. Beyond allotting the slave land on which to build a but, and sufficient food to keep him alive, he gave himself no concern about the welfare of his chattel. In the punishment of their slaves the Arabs showed little mercy. For offences of a trivial nature savage floggings were administered, and for running away the wretched slaves were treated with the most ruthless severity, and in some instances were subjected to the most barbarous cruelties. Mr. Sullivan instanced a monstrous case of cruelty where a slave had for six months been tethered by iron chains, which had eaten into the bones and flesh of the poor creature's ankles, and that he had been fed by one cocoa-nut a day. This was what occurred on an island which we protected, and the instance was only discovered by Mr. Sullivan in going his rounds. Cruelty had existed and did exist wherever there was plantation slavery, and it was idle for the Government to pretend that slavery could continue in either the apprenticeship form or any other form without being accompanied by some amount of cruelty. We had in Zanzibar practical control over the country. In 1890 executive power was given to this country to deal with any question concerning the Zanzibar Protectorate with all Foreign Powers, and in 1891 Sir Gerald Portal appointed English officials over every Government department within the Zanzibar Protectorate. The very fact that all recent Sultans had been appointed by us, and that the other day the Government deposed one Sultan and put another in his place, showed that we had absolute control over the islands, and it was idle
  116
  for the Government to try to escape abolishing slavery there on the mere technical quibble that Zanzibar was only a protected State. It would have been very easy for the Government to have approached the new Sultan on the subject, and made it a condition of his appointment that all slaves within his Sultanate should be freed forthwith, and he did not understand why this had not been done. On the mainland in this same Protectorate the condition of things, if somewhat different, were if anything worse. There was not even a Sultan to stand in the way as a buffer. The Foreign Office itself ruled over the district, and there, they were given to understand by the speech of the Under Secretary delivered at the Foreign Office last November, the Government had been contemplating a system of apprenticeship rather than total abolition. There, where our control was direct and absolute, the disgrace must be patent to all. At the Foreign Office the Under-Secretary had referred to the case of India as being no precedent; it was admitted no two countries were absolutely alike, yet slavery had not only been abolished there, but in the Protectorates of Cyprus, Gold Coast, and Malay, by a thorough and complete measure. With regard to the fear of disturbance following abolition, it was a very curious fact that in the island of Madagascar the very same evils were anticipated as were now contemplated at Zanzibar, yet a million slaves had been recently liberated there, and there had been no disturbance whatever; and he would further point out that when, in 1858, 8,000 slaves belonging to Indian subjects had been liberated on these very islands, no disturbance occurred, and he did not see why any disturbance should be likely to occur now. If there were any danger of it, there was an ample force on the spot to maintain law and order until the island settled down; or troops, if they were required, could easily be temporarily introduced from India or elsewhere, or the bluejackets landed from the vessels of war stationed in those waters. Sir

  117
  John Kirk, Sir Gerald Portal, Consul Smith and others well acquainted with the facts, had all advocated immediate abolition, and the Government ought to consider their evidence, for no one spoke with greater authority than Sir John Kirk after his 20 years' residence in that district, rather than that of Mr. Hardinge and Sir Lloyd Matthews, who advocated the continuation of the status quo. He did not believe there would be any difficulty about keeping the slaves in the plantations. If proper precautions were taken they could be induced to remain wherever they had been employed by kind masters, and only those who had been employed by cruel masters, and therefore desired to run away, would have to be looked after. There was certainly no prospect of ruin falling upon these islands if the step he advocated was taken. For 23 years the owners had had notice that England intended to abolish slavery. Speaking of the qualities of the soil of the island of Pemba, Dr. Sullivan said that its possibilities were positively boundless. It was of amazing fertility. The sun's rays, acting upon the rich, moist, soil stimulates all kinds of vegetation to an extraordinary degree, and the island was, in fact, a vast forcing house and would alone serve as a granary for the whole of East Africa. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham said two years ago that it was not a question of money, and that the House would willingly vote the money required if only slavery were immediately abolished. He himself did not believe that compensation was necessary if slavery were abolished. Every slave imported into Zanzibar since 1873 had been illegally admitted contrary to treaty, and no man had a right to a single one of these slaves. Those recently born were also legally free, but, inasmuch as few births occurred on the plantations, and the average life of the slave did not exceed from 9 to 14 years, few, if any, could be now said to be even legally held in bondage. The slave estates were
  118
  mortgaged to the utmost, and the money paid over to the Arabs would ultimately find its way into the pockets of British Indian subjects, whose claim for compensation in respect of slaves should not be indirectly acknowledged. All recent precedents, too, were against compensation. No compensation had been paid in Cyprus, the Gold Coast, and elsewhere where slaves had been freed, and in the West Indian Colonies compensation had proved to have been a huge mistake. If compensation were admitted at Zanzibar it would create a precedent for the whole of East, West, and Equatorial Africa, and wherever domestic slavery existed, and would establish a vested interest, which it would be almost impossible to cope with in the future, and he besought the Government not to entertain any proposal to pay any compensation to the nominal owners of slaves in this British Protectorate. He would have preferred to have raised this subject when Mr. Hardinge was back in Zanzibar. But those interested in the matter wanted to strike the iron while it was hot. They feared that Mr. Hardinge had not full instructions. The Government could telegraph to Zanzibar the intention of the Government, so that slavery should be immediately abolished. He hoped the House would speak with no uncertain sound on the subject, and that the Government would understand that the people of this country and the Members in that House who represented the people were determined that the foul stain of slavery should no longer exist under the British flag. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. BAYLEY, who seconded the Amendment, said that when the subject was debated last March, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was understood to say that when Mr. Hardinge came to this country in June he should return in the autumn with clear and strict instructions from the Government that the legal status of slavery under the British Protectorate should be abolished. They

  119
  wanted to know whether the Government had kept faith with the House in this matter. If the Government were able to tell the House that Mr. Hardinge had received the instructions he had indicated he would advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CURZONhoped that within the limits of a very few sentences he should be able to satisfy the hon. Members who had brought this Question forward. He, therefore, should not follow the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment into some of the questions which he had raised, and to discuss which there might be an opportunity later on. The Government had arrived at a decision of policy, and that decision was in strict fulfilment of the engagements which he had entered into more than once in that House. The pledge which had been given was that Mr. Hardinge would receive instructions to abolish the legal status of slavery in the Islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. Those instructions had been communicated to Mr. Hardinge, who was now on the high seas, and would not arrive at Zanzibar until the end of this month, when he would put himself into communication with the Sultan of Zanzibar, and would discuss with him certain details which the Government had been unable to settle over here. In those circumstances it was not desirable that he should make an ampler statement at the present moment. It was essential that our representative should be on the spot to discuss with the Sultan the points of detail to which he had alluded. It would not be wise for him to make a fuller announcement, which would be subject to the inaccuracies of telegraphic communication, and it might be some time before he would be in a position to state to the House the various steps of the proceedings. That there would be a complete fulfilment of the pledges which he had given the House might rest assured.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked whether the
  120
  abolition of the state of slavery was to be immediate, in accordance with the pledges given by the right hon. Gentleman some time ago, or whether it was to be gradually effected under some system of apprenticeship. If the right hon. Gentleman could assure the House that the abolition would be immediate or would take place within a very limited time, his hon. Friends, he thought, might rest satisfied. If the Government were really going to abolish the status of slavery that policy would cause great satisfaction throughout the country.
  MR. CURZONsaid that the point about which the hon. Member desired information was just one of those matters of detail as to which he could give no information to the House whilst Mr. Hardinge was absent from Zanzibar.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENmoved the adjournment of the Debate.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN,)hoped the hon. Member would at any rate begin the speech which he intended to deliver.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid that he should prefer not to do so at that hour. He intended to draw attention to the important subject of amnesty. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINintimated that if it was the wish of any section of the House to adjourn, he should not oppose the Motion.
  Debate adjourned till to-morrow.

  EAST INDIA (SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCE).
  Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 19th January 1827; Secretary Lord George Hamilton; to lie upon the Table.
  Adjourned at a Quarter before Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
THE THIRD SESSION OF THE FOURTEENTH PARLIAMENT of Her Majesty the Queen, and the Twenty-sixth of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, was opened by Commission at Two of the clock.

COMMISSION.
Five LORDS COMMISSIONERS—the LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Halsbury), VISCOUNT CROSS (Lord Privy Seal), the Earl of PEMBROKE (Lord Steward of the Household), Lord BALFOUR (Secretary for Scotland), and the Earl of KINTORE (Lord-in-Waiting)—(being in their Robes and seated on a Bench between the Throne and the Woolsack)—commanded the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod
2
(General Sir Michael A. S. Biddulph) to let the Commons know that—
"The Lords Commissioners desire their immediate attendance in this House to hear the Commission read."
The Commons being at the Bar, with their Speaker:—
The Commission was read by the Clerk of the Parliaments (Mr. HENRY J. L. GRAHAM). Then:—

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR delivered HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH to both Houses of Parliament, as follows:—
"My Lords and Gentlemen,
"My relations with all the other Powers continue to be of a friendly character.
"The appalling massacres which have taken place in Constantinople and in other parts of the Ottoman Dominions have called for the special attention of the Powers who were Signatories to the

3
Treaty of Paris. Papers will be laid before you showing the considerations which have induced the Powers to make the present condition of the Ottoman Empire the subject of special consultation by their Representatives at Constantinople. The conferences which the Six Ambassadors have been instructed to hold are still proceeding.
"The action undertaken by His Highness the Khedive of Egypt against the Khalifa, with my approval and assistance, has so far been entirely successful. His forces, supported by my officers and troops, have won back the fertile Province of Dongola to civilisation by operations conducted with remarkable skill, and the way has been opened for a further advance whenever such a step shall be judged to be desirable.
"My Government have discussed with the United States, acting as the friend of Venezuela, the terms under which the pending questions of disputed frontier between that Republic and my Colony of British Guiana may be equitably submitted to arbitration. An arrangement has been arrived at with that Government which will, I trust, effect the adjustment of existing controversies without exposing to risk the interests of any Colonists who have established rights in the disputed territory.
"It is with much gratification that I have concluded a Treaty for General Arbitration with the President of the United States, by which I trust that all differences that may arise between us will be peacefully adjusted. I hope that this arrangement may have a further value in commending to other Powers the consideration of a principle by which the danger of war may be notably abated.
"The rebellion in Matabeleland and Mashonaland has been repressed by the steadfastness and courage of the settlers, reinforced by my troops and by volunteers, both of English and Dutch race, from other parts of South Africa. I deplore the loss of valuable lives which these operations have entailed.
"The depressed condition of the sugar industry in my West Indian Colonies has seriously affected their prosperity, and I have appointed a Commission to investigate its causes, and, if possible, to suggest means for its amelioration.
"It is with much regret and with feelings of the deepest sympathy that I have heard that, owing to the failure of the autumn rains, scarcity and famine affect a large portion of my Dominions in India. My Government in that country are making every effort to mitigate suffering and to lessen the calamity. The development of railways and irrigation works, and the forethought given through a long series of years to the preparation of the most effective arrangements for alleviating distress caused by famine, make their task more hopeful than in previous visitations. My people throughout my Dominions at home and in India have been invited to second with their liberality the exertions of my Government. Tapers showing the extent of the famine, and the measures taken to relieve suffering, will be laid before you.
"Plague has also made its appearance in the seaport towns of Bombay and Karachi, and, notwithstanding the precautions adopted by the local authorities, shows no signs of decrease. I have directed my Government to take the most stringent measures at their disposal for the eradication of the pestilence.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"The Estimates for the year will be laid before you. While desirous of guarding against undue expenditure, I have felt that the present condition of the world will not permit you to depart from the spirit of prudent foresight in which you have during recent years provided for the defence of my Empire.
"My Lords and Gentlemen,
"A measure for the Promotion of Primary Education, by securing the Maintenance of Voluntary Schools, will be laid before you. If time permits, you

5
will be invited to consider further proposals for Educational Legislation.
"It is desirable to make better provision for the compensation of workpeople who suffer from accidents in the course of their employment, and a Bill, having that object in view, will be submitted to you.
"Your consent will be asked to provisions which, in the judgment of the military authorities, are required for adding to the efficiency of the military defences of the Empire.
"A Bill will be submitted to you to improve the arrangements for water supply in this metropolis.
"In order to promote the interests of agriculture, which are of paramount importance in Ireland, you will be asked to consider a Bill for the establishment of a Board of Agriculture in that country.
"Further legislative proposals will be brought before you, if the time at your disposal suffices for the purpose.
"Bills for admitting the evidence of accused persons, for amending the law with respect to bills of sale and the registration of land, for revising the Acts with respect to the formation and administration of limited Companies, for the amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act in Great Britain, for the exclusion of the goods manufactured in the prisons of other countries, for the establishment of Reformatories for Inebriates, and for amending the existing procedure with respect to private Bills coming from Scotland and Ireland, have been prepared, and, if opportunity for considering them should be found, will be laid before you.
"I heartily commend your important deliberations to the guidance of Almighty God."
Then the Commons withdrew.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed at Four of the Clock.
PRAYERS.

ROLL OF THE LORDS.
Norroy King of Arms attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Third Session of the Twenty-sixth Parliament of the United Kingdom. The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

SAT FIRST.
The Marquess of Bath—after the death of his father.
The Earl Sondes—after the death of his father.

PEERS INTRODUCED.
Augustus Lord Bishop of Lichfield. Frederick Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.
Mandell Lord Bishop of London.

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

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR delivered the Report of THE MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SFEECH from the Throne.
THE MAEQUESS OF BATHwho were the uniform of an officer of Yeomanry Cavalry, rose, amid cheers, to move "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for her Gracious Speech from the Throne." He said: I have to crave the indulgence of your Lordships for the position in which I find myself, for not only is this the first time I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships, but I believe I might count myself the youngest Member of the House, this being the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of occupying my seat on these Benches. I trust I shall not be transgressing any unwritten laws or traditions if I venture to refer to a subject which naturally has found no place in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. Ten years ago it was my privilege on a similar occasion, and in another place,

7
to express the hope that no cloud should cast its shadow over the celebration of the 50th year of Her Majesty's glorious reign. Standing in this place, might I say that we look forward shortly to the completion of the 60th year of Her Majesty's reign, when we hope to celebrate with her an event unique in the annals of this country—the fact that she has surpassed in the length of her reign that of any of her predecessors on the English Throne? [Cheers.] I will leave to others of greater authority and experience, and it might be on a more befitting occasion, the task of dwelling, upon the splendid qualities of head and heart which have enabled Her Majesty to stamp the Victorian Era with the indelible impress of her own character. [Cheers.] The outrages and massacres in the Ottoman Empire have shocked all Christendom, but, terrible as the condition of things has been, I can conceive something more terrible still. I can imagine the annihilation of the Armenian population in the event of a European war, owing to the refusal of any one or two Powers to act in concert, in preservation of the provisions of the Treaty of Paris. A European war under such circumstances would indeed be horror heaped upon horror's head. We are told that the conferences of the Ambassadors at Constantinople are still proceeding, but I trust that in his efforts to induce the Powers to act, as well as to deliberate and remonstrate in concert with one another, the noble Lord, the Prime Minister, will be backed, as he has hitherto been, by the sympathy and strength of a united nation. [Cheers.] I venture to say that the announcement as to the recent Egyptian campaign will receive general approval. To restore to civilisation the Soudanese territories, which 13 years ago were lost to Egypt under such tragic circumstances, cannot fail to win the sympathy and assent of English people. Your Lordships will share with Her Majesty the great gratification she has expressed at the conclusion of the Treaty for general arbitration with the late President of the United States. [Cheers.] If the eminent diplomatist of that country is happy in carrying away with him the consciousness that this great badge of friendship has
8
been secured during his term of office, so among the many diplomatic achievements which history will lay to the credit of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government there is none that will add greater lustre than the record of his connection with the negotiations which led to the execution of this Treaty. [Cheers.] The Treaty has given new force and fresh colour to the well-known statement that "Peace hath her victories no less renowned than war." ["Hear, hear!"] Your Lordships, I am sure, thoroughly share the regret of Her Majesty that her Indian Empire should have been visited by the terrible joint calamities of famine and pestilence. The nation would expect that nothing that activity in preparation or abundance in provision can secure shall be neglected in order that those painful scourges shall be kept within bounds. The appeal which has been made to Her Majesty's subjects at home and in India to second by their liberality the exertions of the Government has met with a prompt and a noble response, and the channel of generous sympathy will, I am sure, How with a flood no less strong than marked its course 20 years ago. But amid the grief that has been universally aroused by the dread tidings from India there is one consolation, and that is that many years has elapsed since that country has been afflicted with the horrors of famine, which I believe in former times were more rare in their absence than in their occurrence. ["Hear, hear!"] The increased facilities of transport, the fruits of scientific investigation, and the improvement in organisation—in itself the result of long and painful experience—must tend to alleviate the sufferings which the marvellously patient inhabitants of India endure from these fearful visitations. ["Hear, hear!"] Her Majesty's Ministers have, I venture to say, put forward a list of domestic legislation which avoids the taint of being over ambitious, and at the same time promises to be possible and, therefore, practicable. Their recognition that the condition of the world demands prudent foresight and the statement that they contemplate adding to our military defences will meet at the hands of the country that same patriotic support with which their former proposals for improving the condition of the naval defences

9
of our Empire were received. [Cheers.] I have the honour, my Lords, to move the following humble Address to Her Majesty:—
"Most Gracious Sovereign, we, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to your Majesty for the gracious speech which your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
LORD KENYON(who were the uniform of an officer of Shropshire Yeomanry Cavalry) said: My Lords, your Lordships will, I feel confident, extend to me that consideration which your courtesy never refuses to one who addresses you for the first time. I am deeply sensible of the honour conferred upon me in being permitted to second the Address, which has been proposed by the noble Marquess, more especially in this auspicious year, when we are to commemorate the 60th anniversary of Her Most Gracious Majesty's glorious reign—a reign that has now been extended to a greater length than has been permitted to any other English Sovereign. I should only weary your Lordships were I to dwell on the numberless inventions during this period that have contributed to the comfort, prosperity, and progress of mankind. The most striking feature of all must be the length of time that we have enjoyed the blessing of peace with our European neighbours—a peace that we trust will not be broken. As a Welshman, I may, perhaps, be permitted to assert with perfect confidence that in no part of Her Majesty's dominions is a deep and loyal devotion to her office and her person more conspicuous than in the Principality of Wales. Whether we look at home or abroad, whether we mark the vast expansion of territory and influence which has accrued to this Empire during the period which we are now invited to celebrate; or whether our attention is concentrated on an aspect of the matter, perhaps more gratifying still to Her Majesty and to your Lordships—I mean the vast improvements, social and moral, which are identified with the stately progress of the reign—in either case or from either aspect, we must acknowledge the present year to be an era in the history of this country and a marvellous consummation of the efforts of statesmanship its complete as the history of the
10
world can supply. I feel sure I am only anticipating the wishes of your Lordships if I add that it is the earnest prayer of every one of us that a reign so pure, so beneficent, so glorious, may yet be extended to the longest possible period consistent with the designs of a wise and over-ruling Providence; and I venture to assure Her Majesty that in the twilight, as through the morning and the noontide of her illustrious life, she may rely upon the unwavering affection and support of your Lordships' House. My noble Friend has dealt so fully with foreign affairs that I feel I should be wasting the time of your Lordships' House if I were to add to his remarks. There is, however, one matter to which my noble Friend has only made a passing reference. Your Lordships will remember how suddenly a comparatively modest country rose into prominence, owing to the assertion by America of a right to intervene in a dispute that had lingered on for some years. So decided was this assertion that there even seemed a bare possibility of war—of a war that would have been almost a civil war a war between two nations speaking the same language, professing the same faith, sprung from a common stock. Happily such a contingency seems now to have passed away. The disputed frontier between Venezuela, and British Guiana is in a fair way to have its limits settled, whilst those colonists whose rights are established will have their interests safeguarded. And out of this question has arisen an opportunity for the conclusion of the Treaty for General Arbitration—a Treaty that we hope may be a bond of union with our natural allies—the United States of America. This new factor in the relation betwixt nations, which has been so quietly accomplished, still needs ratification by the Senate, but we may trust that no influence of party politics or other reason may stand in the way of the peace of nations. It is to be hoped that this Treaty may be the forerunner of other like Treaties with our European neighbours. May I here be permitted to add my humble congratulations, which will find an echo on all sides, to the noble Marquess on the firmness and clear judgment he has given evidence of in this matter? Since this time last year many complications have arisen which have militated against the

11
welfare of our South African possessions. However, the present outlook is brighter, and your Lordships will observe with real gratification that though there has been an inevitable, and deplorable loss of valuable life, there is now a prospect of a return to settled government and prosperity. We are glad to see that there is to be no relaxation of effort to maintain our Navy at the highest possible state of efficiency, while at the same time efforts are to be made to make the Army adequate, both in numbers and training, to meet our continually increasing responsibilities all over the world, and also to provide for further protection of our coaling stations and harbours—defensive measures of the highest importance. Turning to home affairs, we may hope to see that thorny question of relief to Voluntary Schools settled in the simplest manner, and I venture to hope that the children educated in these schools may be enabled to receive the same standard of teaching that prevails in Board Schools, whilst obtaining the advantage of such religious instruction as their parents may desire. If time permits, some attempt will be made to provide a scheme of Secondary Education. Here may I be allowed to record the gratitude which the people of Wales feel to the various Governments which have made their scheme of education consistent and complete? Further, they welcome with gratification the fact that their Prince was pleased to accept the highest honour they could offer him in becoming Chancellor of the University. Your Lordships may think that Wales is a kind of Cerberus, but I can testify, from personal knowledge, that her people now think the time has come when she may fairly be allowed to claim a share of the Museum Grant, which would add a fresh incentive to study at the three University Colleges. Employers and employed will look forward to a measure which will secure to workpeople who may suffer from accidents adequate compensation without interfering with contracts already made between masters and men—honourable and generous on the part of the former, and welcome and satisfactory to the latter. I trust that the Opposition
12
will view with pleasure the measure of Home Rule to Ireland in Agriculture. I hope that we shall not be over-confident if we presume that the upward turn in the barometer of matters agricultural is steady and permanent. I observe among the possibilities a Bill to Amend the Agricultural Holdings Act. I have had the honour to serve recently on a Commission which has been for some time occupied in an inquiry into matters connected with land and its culture in a portion of these Islands, and here may I be permitted to observe that notwithstanding the somewhat scathing examination to which the landlords of Wales were exposed the impression was firmly imprinted on our minds that in the main the treatment of the tenants throughout the Principality has been absolutely just—may I not even say generous? May I hope that a proportion of the conclusions which some of my colleagues and myself have arrived at may find a place in the Bill to Amend the Agricultural Holdings Act? It appeared to us that if the Act is to be of any service at all its machinery must be simplified. We consider that disputes involving legal interference might be more easily conducted under the Arbitration Acts in the same manner that trade and other differences have been settled. Landlords and tenants, I believe, would welcome greater uniformity of treatment. We adhere most emphatically, however, to the British love of freedom of contract. We believe that in most cases all differences can be settled amicably without reference to any Court, and though we would like to see the possibilities of tenants obtaining relief under the Act made easier, we hold that any reference to a legal form of Arbitration should be only in the last resort. I must offer you my grateful thanks for the patience and kind consideration with which you have listened to me, and in seconding the Motion for the Address I am confident that your Lordships will respond loyally to the Royal Message which Her Majesty to-day has conveyed to her faithful Parliament. [Cheers.]
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, who on rising was cheered by both sides of the House, said: My Lords,—In rising on

13
the present occasion to speak on behalf of my Friends on this side of the House, I cannot but express my deep regret that we are no longer led by my noble Friend Lord Rosebery, whose wit and eloquence I am sure always commanded the admiration of all parties in this House, and whose place I am only too conscious I can but very inadequately fill. But I am encouraged by the recollection of the great indulgence and kindness which when I formerly occupied this position I received from all parts of the House. [Cheers.] Before proceeding to the matters in the Speech, I think your Lordships will not be surprised that I should express my deep regret that we have lost the late Archbishop of Canterbury, one of the most distinguished members of this House, whose high qualities must insure him a place of honour on that illustrious roll of the Primates of the English Church, and I may say that his genial qualities and his invariable kindness endeared him to all who had the honour of his acquaintance. ["Hear, hear!"] Nor can I omit to refer to two familiar faces which we miss on this occasion—I mean those of Lord Limerick and Lord Kensington, both of whom will long be regretted by a large and most attached circle of friends. ["Hear, hear!"] My Lords, I have now to do that which is the most agreeable portion of the task which I have to perform—namely, to congratulate the noble Lord who moved and the noble Lord who seconded the Address. Most of us remember the father of Lord Bath, and we recollect with what ability he often—not too often, alas!—addressed this House. It pleases me to see that his son also possesses qualities which will make him a valuable member of the House, for he addressed us with a taste and a moderation which I have seldom heard excelled by anyone who has moved the Address. ["Hear, hear!"] Nor can I fail to say that the Seconder of the Address did not fall short of him in the manner in which he addressed us. ["Hear, hear!"] It is a happy coincidence that the noble Marquess who moved the Address should have moved the Address in another place on the former auspicious occasion when Her Majesty celebrated her Jubilee. I, in common, I am sure, with other Members of this House, fully echo what he has
14
said concerning our Gracious Queen. The subject of Her Majesty's reign might, indeed fill a long oration; but I will say only this, that besides the great events which have characterised that reign, there is something else which moves us even more nearly, and that is Her Majesty's own qualities and the universal affection which she has won from all her subjects—a feeling which extends even to all civilised nations throughout the world. That she may long live and long be our Sovereign must be, as the noble Marquess said, the earnest prayer of all her devoted subjects. [Cheers.] The Speech naturally contains a great deal upon the subject of foreign affairs, and perhaps for a long time there has not been a more anxious period than that during which Her Majesty's present Government have occupied their offices. I am glad to think that the noble Marquess who moved the Address may be justified in saying that there is some sign of improvement in the state of our relations with foreign nations. Upon one point there cannot be one moment's hesitation—I mean in welcoming that Treaty of Arbitration which has been concluded with the United States of America—["hear, hear!"] and I, for my part, most sincerely and most warmly congratulate the noble Marquess opposite upon his having been able to bring to a successful close a negotiation which, I doubt not, was one of extreme difficulty and nicety. My Lords, it is not only that we welcome this Treaty, which we hope will prevent the possibility of any quarrel with our kindred in that great nation which constitutes the United States, but we feel also that an example has been set by the conclusion of this Treaty by two, I may venture to say, of the greatest nations in the world. This example must, I hope—nay, I think cannot fail to—have a lasting effect upon the policy of all the civilised nations of the world. Upon that subject there is a unanimous feeling of satisfaction throughout this country. The next paragraph to which I will allude is one also which I welcome with pleasure—namely, the announcement that Her Majesty's Government has been enabled to conclude a Treaty which will settle the Venezuelan difficulty. I might possibly criticise some of the preliminary steps

15
by which that Treaty was preceded, but upon this occasion, when I think all parties view with the greatest satisfaction the termination of a controversy which at one time, it seemed, might have led to most disastrous consequences, I think it is more graceful, and better on all accounts, to refrain from such criticism, and simply to say that we welcome with pleasure the Treaty, and when we see all the details, we expect to find that the matter has been honourable and satisfactory to this country. I wish I could speak in the same manner on the next subject to which I have to refer, that of Armenia. It would be, I think, quite unnecessary upon this occasion to repeat the universal feeling of horror which has prevailed throughout the country at the massacres of the Armenians in the Turkish dominions. That feeling has been widely, I may say universally, expressed in this country. The real question which we have to consider to-day is, what is the position of this most unfortunate and most disastrous affair? We feel, and I think the whole country feels, that the time has come when we may reasonably expect from the noble Marquess opposite a full disclosure of the present position of this matter. I cannot say that I feel altogether encouragement from the terms in which the paragraph relating to this subject is couched, because in the first place it refers, rather to my astonishment, to the Treaty of Paris, and further it merely tells us that papers have been laid before us showing
"the considerations which have induced the Powers to make the present condition of the Ottoman Empire the subject of special consultation by their representatives at Constantinople."
I do not suppose anybody whatever wants information on that subject; we oil know the reasons, and very disastrous reasons they are, which have compelled the consideration by the Powers of the present condition of the Ottoman Empire; but what we want to know is, not that the matters have been under consideration, nor why the matters have been under consideration, but what the results of that consideration are, and what is the present position of the negotiations. The noble Marquess, in his very able speech at the Guildhall, refrained, I dare say with
16
good reason, from giving any information of a detailed kind upon the subject, but he did make one statement which was of a reassuring character—he said that the Concert of Europe seemed to be in a more favourable position for achieving their purpose than it had ever been before. Well, we accepted that statement with pleasure, and what we now ask and press upon Her Majesty's Government, and what we believe to be the general wish of the whole country, is that they should tell us what are the circumstances which have enabled the noble Marquess to say so much, and to ask him also to say precisely what those negotiations have been. I referred to the Treaty of Paris, and I must say I was rather astonished to see the old Treaty of Paris, which is now 41 years old, brought in upon this occasion. I thought there had been a more recent Treaty—namely, the Treaty of Berlin. My Lords, I was more astonished because I remembered that in 1878 the noble Marquess spoke of the provisions of the Treaty of Paris as misty and visionary guarantees, and I confess that, looking to the whole course of history since the conclusion of that Treaty, I conceive that what is more remarkable than anything is the extent to which that Treaty has been broken. But it is true the position of the Russians in their war was, to a certain extent, ratified by the Treaty of Berlin except in certain provisions which were omitted. This was the result of a war which took place without certainly the assent of the various Powers who concluded the Treaty of 1856, and it certainly resulted in a most extensive violation of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. We all know that at that time, as Lord Beaconsfield said, the process of the consolidation of the Ottoman Empire was carried on by cutting off some of its most important members. But, my Lords, the noble Marquess went on to say that there had been substituted for these visionary and misty guarantees another Treaty, and that, I think he said, was a simple form of engagement in which only two Powers were concerned, and the pledges involved were sure to be fulfilled. What has become of that Treaty? What were its provisions? Your Lordships probably know. They were, no doubt, simple. In the first place, the Ottoman Government agreed, or rather promised, that there should be

17
reforms as regarded Armenia. On our part we engaged to defend the Turks if attacked in Asia Minor by Russia; and to enable us to perform that engagement we received possession of Cyprus. Has the condition of the Armenians been reformed? Instead of that they have been massacred. Are we about, at any time, to defend the Turks from the Russians in Asia Minor? I do not believe there is a single man in this country who would now venture to call upon this country to recur to what the Noble Marquess justly called "that antiquated policy." Nothing remains except our possession of the Island of Cyprus, the advantages of which to this country have never been very clear, and I confess I should very much like to hear an authoritative declaration from the Government as to the present position of that Treaty. Is it entirely dead, in their opinion, or does any part of it exist? If so, is there any intention on the part of any one to carry it into effect? It may not be quite out of place if, in a few words, I refer to the general features of the policy of this country in the Levant. You know—I remember it well—that for many years the policy of this country was to induce the Ottoman Government to reform, hoping that by reform we might put off for ever that terrible problem of what might happen on the break up of the Ottoman Empire. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not think all the opprobrium which has been cast upon that policy is deserved, because I imagine there is no man in Europe who has ever been in any way responsible for affairs who does not look with the deepest apprehension on what must happen whenever that break up takes place. That being so, I think the Statesmen of the past were justified perhaps, hoping against hope, in using every possible endeavour to prevent that catastrophe by inducing the Ottoman Government to introduce such tolerable reforms of government, not only as regards Christians, but Mahomedans, for I am sure the sympathies of the people of this country are not confined to the Christians, but we wish that the Mahomedans, in whom we have an interest as the greatest Mahomedan Power in the world, should also be well governed. The Statesmen of the past certainly had justification for their policy, but, unfortunately, history has shown that that policy has signally failed.
18
It has completely failed, because the administration of the Ottoman Empire seems to be full of incurable defects, which render it practically impossible to carry into effect reforms which may be put on paper and look plausible, but which, unless carried out by honest and efficient instruments, can have no permanent or lasting effect. In these circumstances I cannot take otherwise than—as the noble Marquess must take—a gloomy view of the situation. Doubtless in our present position we are thrown back on the old attempt to induce the Sultan, who really is the Government of Turkey, to in some way ameliorate the condition of the people whom he oppresses. If the noble Marquess can tell us that progress has been made, I am confident there is no man in this House who will not hear it with the liveliest satisfaction. Much has been said with regard to our relations in the East with Russia, and it may be that the difficulty of conducting these relations—I am afraid it must be—has been increased by the remembrance Russia has of how she was thwarted by the Berlin Treaty, which I always regarded as a most unfortunate instrument. She, no doubt, has deeply felt that when she was in a position to secure it to the Armenians she was constrained by the other Powers to retire from the position she won at the expense of much blood and treasure. But I will not waste time in useless regrets about the past. The real question is, What can be done in the present? And I welcome the expression of opinion which the noble Marquess gave in picturesque phrase that opposition to Russia in the East was an antiquated policy.
THE PRIME MINISTER (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): I do not think I used precisely those words.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Any opposition, I think you said, or antagonism on the part of this country.
THE PRIME MINISTER: I said I thought the selection of Russia from among, other Powers as a Power to which this country should be in opposition was antiquated.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Quite so. I understood the noble Marquess meant that it was an antiquated policy to consider Russia as specially antagonistic to this country. I regard that—I do not

19
say as an admission—but us a declaration of great value, and in my humble way I assure the noble Marquess that entirely agree with it. As far as I was able during the short time I had the honour to hold the post that the noble Marquess now holds, I endeavoured to act on that principle. The noble Marquess knows I made every effort to obtain the co-operation of Russia in this matter. Up to a certain point I obtained it. I acted not only because I think our relations with Russia in the East are the key of the whole position, but I was desirous of making it plain to the Russian Government that, whatever had been the past, it was the object of this country to act with Russia in the future. My hopes were disappointed. There came a moment—as the papers which have been laid before the House show clearly—when the Russian. Government was not prepared to go any further with us in the direction in which we desired to move. In these circumstances, no doubt, the course the noble Marquess has taken of invoking the assistance of all the Powers is the only alternative which remained. Has he had any success in that effort? Although I cannot prejudge our opinion when we see the papers, I will say on my own behalf, and on the behalf of all who share our opinions, that I believe' we shall find the noble Marquess has spared no effort to obtain, if possible, some distinct and plain remedy for the terrible evils under which the subjects of the Sultan now suffer. In that hope I rest and say no more. Rut I feel that the subject is one of far-reaching importance, not only because of the condition of the Christian population in Armenia, but of the danger to all Europe of the condition of the Ottoman Empire. The noble Marquess will have recognised on the part of those opposed to the Government that there has not been the slightest desire to embarrass the Government in the conduct of these difficult negotiations. We should have been prepared to give our hearty support to the Government in any measures short of such as would have involved this country in war. As regards isolated action I read with pleasure what the noble Marquess said at the Guildhall, that—without in the least indicating that he was prepared for isolated action—he was not
20
one of those who put aside isolated action as impossible in certain circumstances. I do not think it is in any way desirable that the position should be laid down as regards such a country as this that we are precluded from isolated action where circumstances render such isolated action desirable and not dangerous to the peace of the world. But I agree that isolated action which would have plunged Europe into war would never be justified, and ought never to be undertaken. I now pass to another subject. The next most important paragraph in the Queen's Speech to those paragraphs to which I have referred is that which tells us what has taken place in Dongola, and here I cannot possibly refrain from expressing my admiration of the manner in which that expedition was conducted, and the feeling, which I know is universal, that the greatest honour is due to the gallant officer who commanded the troops, and to the Egyptian troops themselves, who upon this occasion seemed to have proved that they have profited by the discipline to which they have been subject, and are troops who can be depended upon to do their duty in whatever circumstances they are placed. So far as the success of the expedition is concerned, I think there is no one in this country who does not, as a military event, regard it with complete satisfaction. But when I come to the policy which has induced the Government to go forward in this direction I confess I part company with them. What we have never known—and what, I think, the country has a right to know—clearly is what is the policy of the Government as regards the Soudan. I cannot see what has been gained by the mystery in which that policy has been involved, not only in this country, but elsewhere in Europe. That mysterious policy has been viewed with surprise, and—as is natural—with suspicion. I think we gain nothing by increasing, that suspicion, nor do I believe anything is gained by our not having a full disclosure of the policy in view. We have had various statements. Lord Cromer, who must have been well informed of the intentions of the Government, made a speech at a banquet given to Sir H. Kitchener, in which he said, "Gentlemen, the primary object of the cam-

21
paign has been accomplished." What was that primary object? That object, according to Lord Cromer, was to remove the pressure upon the army of a nation which is connected by very close bonds of sympathy and friendship with England and Egypt. I am extremely glad that any opportunity should have occurred of relieving the pressure upon our friendly and cordial allies, the Italians. But that could not have been, I should have thought, the primary object, because we have heard from other sources that the object was to retrieve the honour of this country by reconquering the Soudan. If the honour of this country is involved in the reconquest of the Soudan, I would ask the noble Marquess how it came about that the honour of this country was not infringed by the conclusion of the well-known Drummond-Wolff Convention, which provided for the evacuation of Egypt without any condition that previously to that convention the Soudan should have been reconquered. If it is dishonourable now not to reconquer the Soudan, it must have been so then. I do not, therefore, see precisely upon what grounds that rests. ["Hear, hear!"] The Speech certainly throws some new light on the policy of the Government, because it says that the way has been opened for a further advance whenever such a step shall be judged desirable. What must be the meaning of that sentence? It must mean that the advance is to go steadily on as circumstances render it expedient to move until the Soudan has been recovered. If it does not mean that, I do not know what it means. Let me ask what that involves. In the first place, I assume that it is in the power of this country to reconquer the Soudan. But, I would ask, at whose expense is that to be done? We have seen that the expense does not fall upon the Egyptian funds, because, unfortunately, the Powers who have a certain control in Egyptian affairs objected to those funds being called upon to bear the expense for the purposes of the Egyptian expedition, and we have been obliged to recoup the Egyptian Government for that which they had, according to the decision of the tribunal, unjustly taken. I do not conceive that anyone imagines that the reconquest of the Soudan can be accom-
22
plished with Egyptian funds, and the cost, therefore, I suppose, would fall upon this country. But look what would take place if the Soudan were reconquered. You could not retire from that territory until you had firmly established the Egyptians there. To imagine that that would not take a considerable time—probably many years—seems to me entirely mistaken. To abandon the Egyptians in the Soudan, after placing them there, before they were firmly established seems to me a most unfavourable proposition as regards Egypt. We should probably have to remain in the Soudan many years, and English officers would have to control the Egyptians there for a considerable time. I am not a Little Englander, but I have this feeling—that this country does ill when it establishes itself on great continents far away from its naval base, and in; countries which can only be held by large armed forces. That I believe to be contrary to the true policy of this country; and, therefore, it is my view that if the reconquest of the Soudan were accomplished, not only should we in no way have strengthened this country, but weakened it to a considerable extent. For that reason I view with alarm the indication, as I take it, that the reconquest of the Soudan is actually and really aimed at. I know these are, to a certain extent, assumptions on my part, and I should be glad to hear what precisely is the policy Her Majesty's Government intends to pursue towards the Soudan. ["Hear, hear!"] We next have a reference to a very sad calamity indeed which has befallen India. A famine has broken out, perhaps more extended than almost any famine there has been for a long period of years, coupled with a visitation of a plague which is of a most alarming kind when joined with destitution, and consequent disease in large bodies of the population. I feel the deepest sympathy with the calamity that has befallen India, but I have confidence that the Government of India, as far as human means and skill will avail, will deal promptly and efficiently with the calamity. ["Hear, hear!"] They have vast experience as regards the management of measures for the relief of famine. They have a very efficient staff, and I think the people of this country may rest assured that the skill, energy, and self-devotion which

23
characterises the Indian servants, under the guidance of my noble Friend, Lord Elgin, will spare no effort to alleviate the suffering. ["Hear, hear!"] There is a reference also in the Speech to the rebellion in Matabeleland. South Africa is a very tempting theme, but I will not trouble your Lordships by a long series of observations on that question. What I will say is that I sincerely trust that, in the most important Inquiry which is about to take place in the other House, not only will the circumstances of the deplorable raid be thoroughly investigated, but also the whole system of government of Matabeleland and Mashonaland, in order to see whether it is now placed on a satisfactory basis, and if that basis be not found satisfactory to devise how it can be made better. More than that I do not desire to say, except that I have an earnest hope, notwithstanding all the calamitous results of that most unfortunate raid, that by patience and good management in this country and at the Cape, the wounds may gradually be healed, and you may in time achieve that which is essential to the prosperity of South Africa—namely, the establishment of a thorough good sentiment between both Dutch and British in these colonies, with, ultimately, such a fusion between them as may insure the permanent good of a country which has made so wonderful a development lately, and which, I am satisfied, has before it a great future. ["Hear, hear!"] These are the principal topics to which I need refer, and I come to other matters which are not quite so exciting. I am extremely edified by what is, I think, quite a new characteristic of the Speech—namely, the extreme caution with which the measures are introduced. [Laughter.] The singular thing is that so impressed were Her Majesty's Government with the danger that their measures may never be brought before Parliament, that they have not been satisfied with saying it once, but twice over they have said that
"further legislative proposals will be brought before you if the time at your disposal suffices for the purpose."
Then, after all, the measures are enumerated, and we are told that' they will be considered if opportunity should be found to lay them before you. I can
24
quite understand what the feeling of Her Majesty's Government must be by the experience of last Session. They then had announced a very large number of measures, and owing to the very unfortunate fate of their principal measure—that upon education—they never, in fact, arrived at the point when these measures could be considered. Warned by that, they have put in this caution. I hope it is not an indication that the education measure of the present Session will block their way, though if it at all resemble the measure of last Session nothing would give me greater pleasure than that it should receive the same fate. ["Hear, hear!"] I am willing to hope for better things, and I am sure if the measure of education is of a simple character and directed really, not to the upsetting of the whole of our present system, but to rendering thoroughly efficient the voluntary schools, then I think it will receive very general support, and, we hope, may pass through Parliament in time to enable some of the other measures mentioned to be considered. ["Hear, hear!"] There are one or two measures of some little interest, one of which relates to the amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act of Great Britain. I confess, until the speech of the Seconder of the Address, I was not nearly sagacious enough to discover that underneath that lies the carrying into effect of some portions of the recommendations of the Commission on the Welsh land. That, doubtless, renders it an interesting proposal. The noble Lord, who served upon the Commission, has told us, more or less, how far he is inclined to go. It appears that there are a good many of his compatriots in Wales who are inclined to go rather farther than he. When we see the measure and know precisely what it does, we shall be able to judge whether it is likely to satisfy the very extended desires which manifested themselves in Wales for a reform of the land system, and I shall abstain from any comment upon the matter until I know what is proposed. Then you are told that, in the interests of agriculture, which are of paramount importance in Ireland, you will be asked to consider a Bill for the establishment of a Board of Agriculture in that country. I confess that paragraph almost took my breath away. The

25
importance of it is so great that, looking at the various subjects now occupying attention in Ireland, I rather wondered whether it was to be regarded as the solution of certain questions which are not usually brought before this House—questions with regard to the financial arrangements in Ireland, which seem to be much more likely to occupy the attention than the constitution of this Agricultural Board. ["Hear, hear!"] I shall be uncommonly surprised if the constitution of this Board removes any portion, even the smallest, of the very serious difficulties which have arisen in connection with the question to which I have alluded, and which I have no doubt we shall hear much more of, though perhaps not so much in this House. It has already produced results in Ireland of the most surprising kind, and amongst others has enabled us to say, upon authority which cannot possibly be denied, the authority of Mr. Daly, that we have amongst us an Irish Washington. [Laughter.] These, I believe, are all the measures to which I need allude. I must apologise to the House for the length at which I have addressed them. The subjects are of considerable importance. I have said what I thought it necessary to say upon this occasion, and I hope the noble Marquess will not think in the observations I have made on foreign policy, although I have criticised some particular points, that I have done so with the slightest intention of embarrassing his conduct of a Department which my experience tells me is beset with difficulties, and the successful conduct of which is not of interest to one Party, but to all, the object being that friendly relations with other Powers should be preserved and the honour of this country firmly upheld. [Cheers.]
THE PRIME MINISTER, who was received with loud cheers, said: My first and most agreeable duty is to congratulate the noble Earl on his reappearance as the Leader of the Party to which he belongs. We had so much experience before of the admirable manner in which he performed his duties and of the fidelity with which he observed the traditions and practices of this House, and I am bound to say also of his consideration to his opponents, that it is with considerable satisfaction that I see him
26
take up the reins again. But I must not omit to express, as he did, a great and deep regret for the retirement for the moment from among us of the Earl of Rosebery from a position of authority. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Lord is a man exceedingly popular in private life, and, I think, not less popular in public life, and the ability with which he conducted a position of exceeding difficulty I think won the sympathy of all. [Cheers.] Perhaps I may say that he is happy in the opportunity of his retirement, because he was enabled to mark upon an interesting period of his country's history not only the proof of his own purity of motive, but the high standard by which he judged the duty of public men in foreign affairs. He made a most patriotic and, I may say, a most useful and beneficial speech. I should be inclined to add that I do not see why that speech should involve his retirement from the leadership of his Party. ["Hear, hear!"] But if I pursued that subject I should be meddling with affairs which do not concern me, and so I must not pursue that train of thought. I agree with very many things which the noble Earl has said, and, I need not say, among the first with the congratulations which he offered to Her Majesty for the remarkable and unique period to which her reign has run and for the marvellous effect which the success of that reign and the contemplation of her character have produced, not only upon the affections of her own people, but upon the respect of the whole civilised world. [Cheers.] And those who, like the noble Lord, have had the opportunity of watching the working of that character more nearly can testify to the effects and benignant influence which it has always worked on the conduct of constitutional policy, and can bear witness to the extent to which the peculiar characteristics displayed by the Queen have enabled constitutional government to attain to a success to which it has never attained in any other part of the world. [Cheers.] I must also tender my hearty congratulations to the noble Friends behind me for the speeches which they have delivered. The late Lord Bath was for a great number of years a friend of mine, and I admired him in the instances—unfortunately few—in which he showed his powers and his knowledge of public

27
business in this House. I am very pleased to feel, from the specimen which we have heard to-night, that his son will succeed to all his powers, and I hope he will give us more Constant assistance in the conduct of the business that may come before us. The speeches we heard both from the Mover and the Seconder—I speak, I am afraid, now from a very considerable experience—stand on a very-high level in the list of those to which in succeeding years we have listened on similar occasions. I ought not to pass by a sadder strain in the speech of the noble Earl, by which he wished to record his deep regret for the loss which net only the English Church, but the English nation, has sustained by the death of Archbishop Benson. ["Hear, hear!"] He was a man very singularly gifted for the position he occupied. He was not remarkable for many of the qualities which often distinguish those of his profession. I do not think that men will put him high as an eloquent preacher or speaker, but he was singularly powerful in the government of men. He was a peacemaker and brought men together, and he led the Church in a most difficult period, without sacrificing any of the veneration he enjoyed, or any of those principles which he held, for the benefit of the nation at large. ["Hear, hear!"] Now I come to the substance of the noble Lord's speech. Of course, as we know, every road leads to Rome, and every debate ends in Armenia. [Laughter.] On Armenia I must say a word. It appeared to me that the criticisms of the noble Lord amounted to Hansardising the speeches delivered by me in the year 1878. I do not believe that any person who is the most enamoured of his own eloquence could ever remember what he said 20 years ago. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Earl ought, I think, kindly to have given me notice, so that I might have refreshed my memory. But I am afraid I must hand my consistency over to him, for, whilst I may have said what he attributes to me, or may have said something in addition which qualities its meaning, I am now powerless to contest the point. But I do demur very much to the tone adopted by the noble Lord and those who think with him with reference to Lord Beaconsfield's policy in 1878. They seem to think that Lord
28
Beaconsfield invented it, that with a light heart he took up the difficult cause which he felt bound to advocate, and that the policy was purely selected by himself. But the policy was not selected by himself; it was inherited from others, and those others were the very opponents who were denouncing him. The noble Lord says that our difficulties with Russia are increased by the recollection of the Treaty of Berlin. Does he imagine that they are not increased by the recollection of the Crimean war? ["Hear, hear!"] There is no doubt that Lord Beaconsfield adopted a policy which is exposed in this to criticism, that the hopes he entertained were not fulfilled, and that the difficulties which he had to meet have recurred to us. But it was not his policy from the first—he was not the author of it—which bound up our hopes and expectations in the regeneration of the Turkish Empire. Others in Europe felt the scepticism which is tolerably general now, and doubted the expediency of making the success of Ottoman institutions the cardinal principle in our policy and aims. Among those was the Emperor Nicholas I. He made proposals which, I imagine, if they were made now would be gladly accepted. He made proposals in 1851. Were they refused by the benighted Tories?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It was later than 1851.
THE PRIME MINISTER: I think the conversation with Sir H. Seymour took place in 1851.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It took place in the beginning of 1853.
THE PRIME MINISTER: Well, Lord Palmerston was in that Government, but it was Lord Clarendon, of whom the noble Lord was the subordinate, who adopted that policy. I do not venture to censure the decision to which Lord Clarendon came when he refused to accept the proposal of the Emperor Nicholas for dividing the influence which the Great Powers should exercise on the Turkish Empire. It was very startling, it ran against many current feelings and prepossessions, and was exposed to great danger. I am not surprised at—I do not venture to censure—the choice to which Lord Clarendon and his colleagues came; but I am bound to say that if you call upon me to look back and to interpret the present by the past, to lay on

29
this shoulder or on that the responsibility for the difficulties in which we find ourselves now, the parting of the ways was in 1853, when the Emperor Nicholas's proposals were rejected. Many Members of this House will keenly feel the nature of the mistake that was made when I say that we put all our money upon the wrong horse. [Laughter.] It may be in the experience of those who have done the same thing that it is not very easy to withdraw from a step of that kind when it has once been taken—[laughter]—and that you are practically obliged to go on. All that Lord Beaconsfield did was to carry out the policy which his predecessors had laid down. I was acquainted with Lord Beaconsfield's thoughts at that time; he was not free from misgiving, but he felt that unity of policy in this great country was something so essential, and that the danger of shifting from one policy to another without perfectly seeing all the results to which you would come, was so paramount that he always said that the policy of Lord Palmerston must be upheld. He still entertained hopes which I did not entertain in quite the same degree. But those hopes have not been justified. I shall not describe the present condition of the Turkish Empire; it would not be decorous; besides, the noble Earl has done it for me. But that we are placed in a position of exceeding difficulty in consequence of those historic events is a matter that cannot be disputed, and the difficulty lies in this—neither our own feelings, nor the feelings of those we represent, nor the enlightened conscience of the day in which we live will allow us to look with absolute indifference to what is going on. And yet how small our power of modifying the results of those events must be! When I succeeded to office the point on which I was disposed to criticise the noble Lord's policy was that I thought he had not made it sufficiently clear to himself whether the other Powers, especially Russia, were prepared to support him, or how far they were prepared to go. We indulged occasionally in hopes, prompted by language we heard, but the issue, as everyone knows, was that Russia was not prepared to go on. The statement was made categorically, and from that moment, I think, our individual and isolated responsibility
30
disappeared. We became again simply signatories to the Treaty of Paris. The noble Lord is very angry with the Treaty of Paris, and wishes to substitute for it the Treaty of Berlin. But he will not improve his position. The Treaty of Berlin directly confirms and re-enacts all that is contained in the Treaty of Paris; so it mattered little which he referred to. We are still signatories of that Treaty. I do not see we can take any other course except to exert what influence we may possess with the other Powers of Europe to induce them to press on the Sultan such reforms as may be necessary not only to save his subjects from massacre, but to preserve his own empire from a ruin which, if he does not take the requisite precautions in time, cannot be long delayed. ["Hear, hear!"] We have done that. We have urged our views on the other Powers. They do not as a rule disagree with us: none of them disagree with us, I think, in their horror of what has taken place. It is, I think, natural they should be more deeply impressed than we are with the terrible alternative of European war which any error or mistake in the application of pressure on the Sultan might possibly bring about. The noble Lord will see, when he reads the papers which I have laid on the Table to-night, that the Powers are agreed as to the necessity of taking these matters into consideration, and doing their utmost to find out the remedies by which the Sultan's empire might be saved. They, I think, are generally agreed that it is possible at all events that if he refuses, material pressure will have to be applied by the rest of Europe; but there are slight differences in the wording in which those views are expressed, which will appear at once to noble Lords when they read the dispatches, far more clearly than I could venture to safely indicate at this table, and the precise extent to which the various Powers have contemplated the possibility of having to apply the material pressure in order to enforce reforms on the Turkish Empire. My own conviction is strong that, unless some very essential reforms in the conduct of the government are adopted, the doom of the Turkish Empire cannot be very long postponed. [Cheers.] I think that many, and some of the most important,

31
of the other Powers do not differ materially from us in that respect. But if I said that they had pledged themselves to use force it might be thought that I had used a slightly too strong expression. The pledge is, of course, a matter of exceeding importance, and they have used care and circumspection in the language which they have employed. But they are all convinced that, unless the Powers can agree and the Sultan can agree with us as to introducing genuine and effective reforms in the extravagant autocracy which prevails in Turkey at this moment, the worst results must follow. ["Hear, hear!"] I shall not attempt to justify the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, among other reasons, for this. Directly you form part of a concert with other Powers and lose no doubt a part of your responsibility, you lose also the right of frankly defending yourself. You cannot state all you have done, the impediments you may have met; you cannot examine in public, as we are accustomed to do, your own conduct before the world. We can only say that in taking this attitude, not very common for English Governments, we have pursued a course which we believe was the best for restoring the Turkish Empire and which we certainly think is far the most expedient, in order to obtain that object of paramount importance—the preservation of the peace of Europe. [Cheers.] I will now say a word about a matter where we are decidedly acting with—if I may so express myself—abundant isolation; I mean the Egyptian campaign. [Laughter.] But there again I have a difficulty. The noble Lord is very inquisitive. He wants to know a great many things. He wants to know what we are going to do, why we are going to do it, how we intend to overcome this difficulty and that difficulty. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to expound the whole of our policy in the minutest details to the noble Lord if I could have the noble Lord alone. [Laughter.) But I am afraid other people will overhear what I am saying to the noble Lord; and there is one person who will overhear, and he is the last person I desire to inform on the subject—the Khalifa of Omdurman. ["Hear, hear!"] His sources of intelligence are very great,
32
and if I explained all our military intentions with the frankness which the noble Lord asks, I am not sure but he would draw some advantage from that indiscretion on our part. I hope, however, that the ultimate result will show that he judged us too harshly. Of course, there are financial questions which will be duly exposed to the other House. I do not remember the figures well enough to enter upon them now, but they are matters on which the House of Commons will no doubt require full information. But as to our general plan I venture to repeat what I said last summer—that one of the objects for which we occupy Dongola was because it was on the highway to Khartoum—[cheers]—and that we do look upon the occupation of Khartoum sooner or later as the objective to which we are urged alike by our desire to efface something of what took place ten years ago, and also by our desire to extirpate from the earth one of the vilest and cruellest despotisms which has ever been seen, something compared to which the worst performances of the worst minion of the palace at Constantinople are bright and saintly deeds, and because we desire to pour into the lap of Egypt those countless treasures of industry and commerce which the fertile valley of the Nile is prepared to carry down as of old, if we only remove the cruel hand which has hitherto stifled the industry of the Egyptian and the Soudanese people. [Cheers.] I am very unfortunate in every desire I have had to speak with the utmost frankness to the noble Lord. I have always found one figure in my path. I cannot tell him all about Armenia, owing to the concert of Europe; I cannot speak freely of the military operations that may happen in the next five years in the Soudan on account of the Khalifa; and I cannot speak quite freely about the Arbitration Treaty because it is not yet ratified. But I do not think on that matter I need expend much effort in convincing the noble Lord. He probably agrees with me as heartily as anyone else as to the advantages which such a treaty will confer if it could be ratified, and I am merely taking up a thread which had broken in the hand of a Secretary of State two years ago. I will make one observation of a general kind. You must not think that we are the victim of

33
millennial anticipations if we hope that something may be done by an Arbitration Treaty to diminish the risk of war. I do not say that it will remove the greatest risks of war. I do not say that it would restrain a Napoleon or a Bismarck; but diplomacy is full of an indefinite number of small differences which are caught up by the people and the Press of both countries and which, written about, exaggerated, and enlarged upon, tend to diminish the friendship which exists between them, and even to give birth to a feeling of alienation and resentment. The power of immediately going to a tribunal to settle these things would prevent a process so injurious to the good will of nations, and especially between two nations who understand each other unfortunately so well that if we are not friends it is almost inevitable we should be enemies. But there is still a further reason and advantage in the existence of the arbitration system; and this arises from the prevalence of popular institutions in most of the countries of the world. In most countries of the world there are Ministers who govern, and there are Members of Parliament and others who criticise them. Those Members of Parliament are of various shades of thought, but their body generally contains one especial section of whom I speak with all respect, though I must give them a familiar name—they are known as Jingoes in popular estimation. They are very patriotic men and the warmth of their patriotism sometimes clouds their appreciation of details; but they exist in all countries. [Laughter.] You will always find when you are discussing a matter with a Minister that one of the principal subjects which preoccupies him is how he is to furnish an account of the matter which shall be sufficiently soothing to this very excitable portion of his critics. [Laughter.] Now, my belief is that a well working arbitration system would be an invaluable bulwark to defend the Minister from the Jingoes. [Laughter.] It would be impossible for them to accuse him of having trifled with the honour of the country, or with surrendering substantial advantages, if he could say:—"Well, I submitted the matter to an impartial
34
tribunal as provided by treaty, and unfortunately the decision went against us." It is impossible not to feel that a Minister, even of the most sturdy and patriotic character, would negotiate with a freer hand and with more determination if he were absolutely secured from danger of interference of this kind. But I am not saying this with any reference to our own country; because I think that in this country less than in others Ministers' hands are forced by criticisms of this sort. But take a larger view. What would you say is the great change which has passed over Europe since the older of us were young men? It is this tremendous increase in the burdens which the necessity of self-defence has cast upon every nation of the world. That burden goes on getting higher and higher; a larger and larger part of the population is devoted to military service; more and more money has to be spent in the provision of the mechanical apparatus of war; and, as the conquests of science are extended, not only are all previous efforts determined to be obsolete and have to be thrown away and something new introduced in their place, but a larger and larger proportion of the public wealth has to be devoted to this unremunerative purpose. The burden has become so serious to many nations that many have thought that the day will come when nations will rather rush into war and provoke a decision once for all than continue to groan under the sufferings which modern necessity forces upon them. I do not say that arbitration would put an end to this; but while the evil is growing surely it is our duty to make an effort, as time and opportunity offer, to provide some system which shall be in some degree a substitute for this ruinous necessity, and so apply to public war that remedy which was applied by the same means to private war many centuries ago. I believe that the measure we have taken will be principally valuable in this—that it will lead to other measures of the same kind, and that we—those of us who live—shall have the advantage of seeing the necessity for these vast armaments gradually disappear before the growth of that which we have begun, within the bounds of our own nation, to regard as

35
a necessity of civilised life—the substitution of judicial decisions for the coarse arbitrament of force. [Cheers.] This, my Lords, if we achieve it, will be an achievement on which it will be pleasant to look back? I hope that this effort, small as it is, will be successful, and that others will have the privilege of carrying it out still further and of making its efficacy still greater. [Cheers.]
LORD CASTLETOWNsaid that no mention was made in the Queen's Speech of the finding of the Commission on Financial Relations. But as he understood that that omission was a matter of Parliamentary procedure, he and his Friends should not raise the question at present. The matter was of the greatest importance to people in Ireland, and, indeed, to both countries; and, therefore, he and his Friends had decided that it would be wise to put down a notice on the Paper and bring it forward for discussion at an early and convenient date.
LORD MONTEAGLEdesired to call attention to the Irish measures which were to be brought forward. He regretted that the only Bill to which allusion was made besides the Board of Agriculture Bill was ranked among those which were to be dealt with if time permitted One of the most pressing of Irish questions—the provision of University education for Catholics—was not even mentioned, though the grievance had been admitted for more than 20 years. As an Irish Liberal Unionist, he thought it most important that such a question should be dealt with by a Unionist Government. As to the measure for constituting a Board of Agriculture in Ireland, much disappointment had been caused in Ireland by the employment of the word "Board," which had in Ireland a special significance. It meant a Dublin Castle bureau, and was accordingly regarded with great suspicion by the great mass of the population. He wished to urge on Her Majesty's Government that the old lines should not be followed in the appointment of this Board; that it should not be made subservient
36
to Dublin Castle; that it should be framed to command the confidence of the great bulk of the agricultural population, and to attract the popular imagination some representative element should be introduced. He hoped the Government would approach the question in a broad and liberal spirit.
Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente, and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The Earl of Morley appointed, nemine dissentiente, to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
STOPPAGES IN THE STREETS.
Order to prevent, renewed.

INDIA (SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCE).
Copy of Correspondence between the Secretary of State for India and the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury regarding the superannuation allowance of Major-General Sir Owen Tudor Burne, G.C.I.E., K.C.S.I.: Address for (The Earl of Onslow).
House adjourned at Half-past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a Quarter past Four o'clock.