asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the terms of the Local Government Board Circular of the 1st June 1880, requiring, as a condition for the receipt of out-door relief by the able-bodied, that each person shall do eight hours labour; and, whether he will modify the above conditions and assimilate them to those in force in England, by leaving it to the discretion of the guardians to require the labour test?

Sir, I have seen the Circular referred to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman, and I must say that the Order now in force is similar to one issued during the famine of 1846. The hon. Member is not altogether correct in thinking that there is no discretion in the hands of Boards of Guardians, the words "so far as practicable," qualifying the condition. I fear the labour test is necessary.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has arrived at any decision respecting the sewage scheme of the Lower Thames Valley Main Sewage Board; and, whether he will lay upon the Table the official Reports of the inspectors upon it?

The Department has recently received the Report of the Inspector, which has been referred back to him for some further information. The matter will receive my attention as early as practicable; but the question is one of unusual importance and involving interests of great magnitude, and it cannot be disposed of without the most careful consideration. When a decision has been arrived at I will see whether the Report can be laid on the Table; but it is not usual to do so, as these Reports are intended for the guidance of the Board only. If the Report is laid on the Table, a similar course must be adopted with the Evidence, which extended over more than 40 days.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has observed the fact disclosed in the published accounts of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the period from October 1878 to December 1879, that it has cost £11,227 in expense of administration to distribute £11,987 in exhibitions, prizes, and fees, and that a balance of £9,987 of the income for the period has been left unused by the Board; and, whether steps will be taken to secure a better administration than that which applies but one-third of the income for the purposes contemplated by this Statute, whilst another third is absorbed in the cost of administration, and the remaining third is not employed at all?

I have seen the accounts to which the hon. Member refers. I would remind him that the Intermediate Education Act has two objects—namely, the carrying out of the system of public examinations and the distribution of the rewards. One half the expense of administration is connected with the cost of examinations, an essential duty of the Board. Much of the other half of the expense of administration arises from expenses necessary in first starting the Act. As regards the fact that one-third of the income has not been employed within the time with which the Report deals, that also arises from the Act having only so recently come into operation; but so great is the increase in the number of candidates that I fear this year the difficulty will be to bring the expenses within the income of the fund allocated.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the extraordinary presentment session for the barony of Tireragh, county of Sligo, passed in March last 69 presentments, amounting to £2,683; that £1,004 of the outlay so proposed was approved of by the Board of Works; and that, nevertheless, last month the baronial session dissolved itself, having arranged for but one contract of £130, and having allowed all the other presentments to become void, including one in respect of a boundary wall to a road beside the river at Ballina, which road the Grand Jury have left in a condition that is dangerous to the safety of life; whether the presentment session was bound to make arrangements for carrying out the presentments approved of by the Board of Works; and, whether steps will he taken to have these presentments executed?

Sir, at the baronial session referred to by the hon. Member 19 (not 69) presentments were made, amounting to £2,683, of which sum £1,004 was approved of. When notifying the approval to the secretary of the Grand Jury, the Board of Works directed that steps should beat once taken to have the works executed. I am not aware of the action by the baronial session which is stated by the hon. Member to have taken place; but I have directed immediate inquiry to be made, and if I find intervention desirable I will take such steps as I may find necessary.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether steps will be taken to enable managers of National Schools to avail themselves of the National School Teachers' Residence Act, passed in 1875 and amended in 1879, by affording them facilities for borrowing money to erect residences in places where there are none?

I have inquired into this subject, and find that considerable facilities already exist for managers of National Schools to borrow money to erect residences for teachers. The Commissioners of National Education are anxious that these facilities should be availed of; but they inform me they have no control in the matter over the managers, and though some managers find a difficulty in procuring free sites for their residences, the main cause of the difficulty arises from the non-action of the managers themselves. The Commissioners, in their last Report, say—

"We have to express our regret and disappointment at the apathy exhibited by the managers of National Schools in not availing themselves of the facilities afforded by this measure for providing suitable dwellings for teachers."

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the intention of the Government to follow the principle, adopted in the instance of wines in 1860, as well as with other articles of commerce at different periods, and allow to wholesale dealers a drawback equivalent to the reduction now proposed, on any stocks of Duty paid wines they may have on hand at the time when the new scale of Duties comes into operation?

In answer to the Question of my hon. Friend what I have to say is this. It is true that in the case of wines of 1860, and in regard to other articles of commerce at different periods, allowance has been made to wholesale dealers on the occasion of reductions of duty; but it is true with very great limitations indeed. In fact, it may almost be said that the system of drawback or allowance on duty-paid stocks of articles imported from abroad has for a great length of time been practically extinct. A certain amount of allowance was made in 1860 in regard to wines; but the reduction made on the duty of wines at that period was a large and heavy one, amounting to more than 60 per cent where the duty was lowest, and to between 80 and 90 per cent where it was highest. I, therefore, am not prepared to give any pledge at the present time whether any reduction will be made. Any reduction that may be made will be in a very limited amount in proportion to a small percentage of the value of the article. All I can say is, that it would be well if those interested in the matter would be good enough to lay before me all they can in the way of precedent and argument for and against these allowances or drawbacks on articles of this kind, and I can assure them the information will receive my most careful consideration. The matter will be open to discussion in this House when we come to deal with the Resolutions.

asked the Postmaster General, What has been the annual loss between the 31st March 1876 and the 31st of March 1879, under the Postal Contract of 1st August 1874, on carrying the India, China, and Australian Mails; what would be the estimated annual loss on that Contract were the postage reduced to the Postal Union rate of 2½d, in compliance with the wishes of various public bodies and meetings in India; and, if his attention has been called to the fact that the Peninsular and Oriental Contract speed to Australia is 10½ to 11 knots, whereas the average speed of the steamers of the unsubsidised Orient Company is 14 to 15 knots, and that, although upwards of 1,000 miles are added to the distance traversed by the latter in consequence of their going out round the Cape, the average length of their passages in 1880 has been only forty days, whereas that of the Peninsular and Oriental vessels during the same period has been forty-eight days?

The annual loss to the revenues of the United Kingdom on the contract for the mails to India, China, and Australia was, in 1876, £216,000; in 1877–8, £239,000; and the estimated loss on the year 1878–9 is £246,000. The estimate of the loss which would have been incurred if the postage had been reduced to half the amount would be about £28,000 in addition to the loss actually incurred. With regard to the other Question, it is correct to state that the contract speed of the Peninsular and Oriental Company in carrying the mails to India, China, and Australia is about 11 knots an hour. I am by no means answerable for this contract, which was entered into before the present Government came into Office, and I voted against it. The average time taken by the Peninsular and Oriental Company's steamers between London and Melbourne via Brindisi in the transmission of mails is not, as my right hon. Friend says, 48 days, but the contract period is 39½ days, and that time, I believe, has been in only one instance exceeded. It is true that the average rate of passage in the vessels of the unsubsidized Orient Company is considerably faster than that of the subsidized line of the Peninsular and Oriental Company. The average rate of speed of the former is between 14 and 15 knots an hour, and from information sent to the Post Office I believe the length of the passage from Plymouth to Adelaide, the first port at which they stop, is a few hours under 40 days. In one instance the passage was completed in 35 days. By the Peninsular and Oriental Line the mails from London to Adelaide are delivered in 37 days on the average.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the French Government, in the course of the present negotiations for the reduction of the Wine Duties, has agreed to meet the complaints of British sugar refiners; and if the proposal now before the French House of Assembly for reducing (in October next) the fiscal Duty on sugar in France from 70 to 40 francs per 100 kilos, is the one which is to be substituted for the present system?

Sir, formal negotiations between the two Governments can hardly be said to have commenced. The proposal now before the French. House Assembly for reducing in October the fiscal duty on sugar in France was made by the French Government on its own responsibility, and without any previous communication with us. We have to judge it upon its merits and see what becomes of it. There is no engagement bearing upon it in any way. The material object of the Question of my hon. Friend I suppose is to obtain an assurance that the subject will be borne in mind when negotiations come on between the British and French Governments, and that assurance I can freely give him.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government, in consequence of the defeat sustained by them on Friday night, to issue the Returns relating to Stipendary Magistrates in Ireland which they considered should not be issued, due regard being had to the interests of the public; if not, whether it is their intention to take immediate steps to ask the House to rescind the vote?

as the Mover of the Returns in question, asked whether it was not unprecedented to bring such a Question before the House?

I only saw this Question five minutes ago. Not having been addressed to me, it escaped my notice, and I have not had time to communicate with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is not the intention of the Government to ask the House to rescind the vote. It was one of those Returns that are put down thinking they are unopposed, and it is usual to give Notice to the Department concerned that they will be pressed if they cannot be so given. I had told the hon. Gentleman two or three days before to be good enough to confer with me. Part of the Return I was willing to give; another part was unnecessary. There is no real objection to the Return, except that it gives very great trouble to the Office. If I had thought the Return would have been seriously pressed on Saturday morning, I should have remained here instead of going to bed. As it is now, I think it better to let the matter stand as it is.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to a statement contained in the "Echo" of June 11th, that—

"On the completion of the works for the extension of the Chatham Dockyard, upon which about 1,500 convicts are employed, Chatham will cease to he a penal station, as the convicts will be removed to other places and the prison will be converted into a Naval barrack. The officers and men of the Naval Reserve will be transferred from Sheerness to Chatham;"

and, whether such statement is correct?

It is true that the work on the extension of Chatham Dockyard will be nearly complete in about a year's time, and there will then be no further employment for the convicts. It will then be for the consideration of the Home Office whether to maintain the convict prison there; but I have heard of no proposal to convert the prison into a barrack for officers and seamen, in lieu of the naval barracks at Sheerness, and there is no such intention.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to introduce during the present Session of Parliament any measure for the consolidation and amendment of the Laws relating to Municipal Corporations?

I am afraid my answer must be that, in the present state of Public Business, I see no prospect of being able to introduce such a measure.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, inasmuch as Government have refused to sanction a Review of Volunteers in Hyde Park, because public order would be endangered, and the trees, flowers, and shrubberies injured by the crowd that would be assembled on such an occasion, and also on account of the interruption to street traffic, it is to be understood that for the future no Reviews of the regular troops, or militia, nor any political demonstrations are to be held in Hyde Park; and, what was the amount of injury, in money value, done to the flowers and shrubberies on the occasion of the last Volunteer Hyde Park Review?

In reply to my noble Friend, I must remind him and the House that, as Secretary of State for War, I have nothing to do with the general regulations for the use of Hyde Park, and I am not aware that it is intended under the Statute to make any change in those regulations. So far as the use of the Park for Reviews is concerned, no general decision has been adopted by the War Department, but each case will stand on its own merits. The proposals for the great Volunteer Review were brought before us by a committee of officers, who stated that 45,000 men would be assembled; and Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that, considering the enormous crowds which would probably be collected to witness a Review on such a scale, it ought not to be held in Hyde Park. As to the second Question of my noble Friend, I can only say that I have not charge of the Park, and therefore it is not in my power to say what was the extent of the money value of the injury done on the occasion of the last Volunteer Review.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, When he hopes to be able to introduce a Bill for taking the Census in 1881?

in reply, said, it was his intention to introduce the Bill as soon as the progress of the Business afforded a prospect of the House being able to practically deal with it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state to the House what offices in Ireland are in his patronage, and the statutes or other authority by virtue of which such patronage is vested in him; whether, in addition to such patronage (if any), there has, under the arrangements of the Irish department of the present Go- vernment, been also vested in him, in whole or part, the patronage which by statute or the Queen's Patent rightfully belongs to the Lord Lieutenant; and, whether, with a view of giving the House information on the subject, he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of Her Majesty's Letters Patent under the Great Seal, appointing Earl Cowper, K. G., Lord Lieutenant General and Governor General of Ireland; and also a Copy of the Warrant, Letter, or other Document whereby the Chief Secretary was appointed?

Sir, in order fully to answer the Question of the noble Lord, I should have to detain the House with a somewhat long speech; and I cannot but think the matters referred to would be more fitting for a Motion than a Question. If the nolle Lord brings on a discussion about them I shall he ready to take part in it. I doubt there being much practical advantage in such discussion; but that I must leave to the discretion of the noble Lord. Meantime, if he will put in the form of a Return the information he desires, I will tell him whether I am able to give it to him. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to add that I know of nothing novel in the relations orarrange-ments between my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant and myself, either as regards patronage or anything else.

I beg to give Notice that I will call attention to this matter at an early opportunity, and as soon as possible after the publication of the documents to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

I shall wait for the noble Lord to move for those documents, and for him to say what documents he wishes laid on the Table. I did not issue any invitation to him to move for those Papers.

Then, does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to grant the documents?

If the noble Lord will put that and other matters in the form of a Return, I will be happy to consider the question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When ther he has now farther considered the Circular of the "Liberal Central Office" and Mr. Justice Lush's opinion that—

"It suggested to the partisans (of the Liberal Party) throughout the Country how they might violate the Law with comparative impunity and yet secure a safe majority;"

whether he has succeeded in discovering the persons who issued a Circular calculated and intended, in the learned Judge's opinion, to incite to a breach of the Law; and, whether, in view of the extent of the alleged incitement to break the Law, and the relations of the authors of the Circular to Her Majesty's Government, he intends to submit the case to the consideration of the Director of Public Prosecutions?

When the Act for the establishment of a Public Prosecutor was passed last Session, my Predecessor in Office pointed out—I think with great wisdom—the advantage of placing the responsibility for prosecutions undertaken by the Sate in the hands of "a permanent officer, who would be absolutely free from all political bias in his work." It will be obvious to the House that this consideration applies with peculiar force to dealing with cases arising out of election matters. The Act of last Session, and the regulations made under it for the creation of a Public Prosecutor, define his duty to be—

"The taking action in such class of cases as have hitherto been conducted by the Solicitor to the Treasury by order of the Secretary of State, and in other cases for the proper conducting of which, in his opinion, the ordinary mode of prosecution is insufficient."

It seems to me that there is a great advantage in having in the Public Prosecutor an independent authority, to determine upon his own judgment on the action to be taken. First, generally, because it is not convenient that the Home Office, which has ultimately to revise sentences, should be the instigator of prosecutions; and, secondly, because it is desirable that the Executive Government of the day should be dissociated from judicial proceedings which may be supposed to involve political and Party questions. I have, therefore, before this case declined to interfere in all cases where I have been asked to institute prosecutions relating to bribery or other election matters. The proper course now is, when any person thinks that in any such case there is ground for criminal proceedings, and that the ordinary mode of prosecution is insufficient, he should bring the matter under the immediate cognizance of the Public Prosecutor, who will take such action upon it as, in his unfettered judgment, he deems fit and expedient.

In consequence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman not having answered my second Question, I I shall on Thursday ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, Whether, upon the Committee responsible for the issue of the Liberal Circular alluded to by Mr. Justice Lush, the names appear of the following Members of Her Majesty's present Government:—Sir William Vernon Harcourt, Lord Kensington, the Eight Hon. W. P. Adam, Sir Henry James, and the Marquess of Harrington?

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Up to what date a copy of the log of H. M. S. "Atalanta" has been lodged at the Admiralty; if his attention has been called to the conflicting statements respecting H. M. S. "Iris" in the" St. James's Gazette" of the 9th, and the "Standard" of the 10th instant, the former stating that—

"Owing to the severe tests to which the engines were subjected, the engines broke down. The ship was put under sail, but she had not proceeded far when the topmasts were carried away, leaving her in an almost disabled condition;"

whilst the "Standard" reports that—

"Her engines worked satisfactorily, and that she will make a trial of her speed on the measured mile in Stokes Bay, and shortly proceed to the Mediterranean;"

and, whether he will give the particulars of the trial trips of the "Iris" referred to by those journals?

in reply, said, the log of the Atalanta had been received at the Admiralty up to January 21. As to the trial trip of the Iris, the official report was to the effect that the engines worked very satisfactorily. The vessel was tried at the measured mile on Saturday; she realized a speed of 18 knots, and her engines worked up to 350-horse power beyond the contract power. In the course of her trial trip the foremast was sprung; it would be replaced by a light steel mast. Otherwise, the vessel was ready to proceed to the Mediterranean.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the event of the Hares and Babbits Bill becoming Law and so depriving the landlord of the exclusive right of sporting, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to modify or repeal the sixth section of the Act of Victoria, 37 and 38, entitled—

"An Act to amend the Law respecting the liability and valuation of certain Property for the purposes of rates,"

whereby the landlord pays the whole of the rate to the poor in respect of such sporting rights?

As far as I understand the matter, it will certainly not be right to repeal or modify this Statute. The hon. Member and myself read the Act in totally different ways. In the 6th clause of the Statute the law assumes that the whole of the game belongs to the tenant, and the consequence is that the tenant is rated in respect to the game; but he may recover that rate from the landlord if the latter reserves the game. If the Hares and Babbits Bill passes into law and the tenant claims a portion of the game, of course he will not be able to recover from the landlord in respect of such portion. Therefore, the law will remain exactly as it is now. In a sub-section of Clause 6 it is provided that where the right of sporting is severed from the occupation of the land, either the owner or the lessee may be rated as the occupier thereof. Therefore, the landlord will be rated only in respect of that portion of sporting rights which he enjoys. These being the circumstances of the case, I think no modification of the Statute cited will be required; but, of course, if it be found that any alteration is wanted, the attention of the Government will be turned to it.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it be true, as is commonly re- ported, that a Conference of the Representatives of the European Powers is about to meet at Berlin; and, if so, whether he can tell the House with what matters it is proposed that the Conference should deal; and, whether the Government intend to lay upon the Table of the House Papers relating to this subject?

Her Majesty's Government, in common with the other Powers whose mediation is contemplated in the 24th Article of the Treaty of Berlin, have received an invitation from the German Government to take part in a Conference which is to meet at Berlin to-morrow in order to consider the question of the Greek Frontier, and Her Majesty's Government have accepted this invitation. They will be represented by Lord Odo Russell, who will be assisted by Sir Lintorn Simmons. Papers on the subject will be laid before Parliament very shortly.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the event of a reduction in the Duty upon Spanish Wines, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to insist that Spain shall withdraw her differential Duties in such manner that British and Irish vessels may be placed on the same footing as Spanish ships, and may be enabled to land manufactured goods in Spanish ports without being met by a system of taxation which is practically prohibitory? The hon. Member also asked, Whether, in the event of a reduction in the Duty upon French Wines, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to insist that France shall make a corresponding reduction in the Duties which are at present levied upon British and Irish manufactures; or if it is intended that France shall continue to tax largely the whole of our manufactures, while we are to admit all hers (except wines) absolutely Duty free?

The matters to which the hon. Member alludes will be carefully considered in the course of the commercial negotiations which Her Majesty's Government hope they may shortly be able to commence with Spain. Her Majesty's Government trust that the result of these negotiations will be to effect a substantial improvement in the commercial relations of the two countries; but it must be obvious to the hon. Member that it would be quite impossible to make any announcement at present with regard to the particular points on which Her Majesty's Government will insist, or the particular objects which they have in view. The answer which I have already given with regard to the Spanish negotiations will apply equally to the hon. Member's Question about France.

The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) asked me late last evening what course Her Majesty's Government intended to take with regard to the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr, O'Connor Power). I promised to answer the Question next Thursday, but it may be to the convenience of the House that I should at once state that we cannot assent to its second reading; but that, in consequence of the distress prevailing in some parts of Ireland, we shall think it right to ask Parliament to enlarge for a time—that is, until the end of the year 1881—the discretionary power of the County Court Judge, so that he may, under certain circumstances, give compensation to tenants in certain districts who are ejected for non-payment of rent. For that purpose I shall propose a new clause in the Belief of Distress (Ireland) Bill now before the House. I shall put this clause on the Table to-night, together with a Schedule of the districts to which it will apply. I may add that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wishes me to take this opportunity of stating that he will forthwith advise Her Majesty to appoint a small Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Irish Land Act of 1870.

in consequence of the statement made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I wish to ask the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), as a Member of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, Whether it is or is not the case that, at the close of the present week, the Members of the Commission intend to proceed to Dublin, for the purpose of making inquiries in regard to the state of the Land Question in Ire-land, and whether the matter to which the Chief Secretary has alluded does not form part of the subject which the Commission has to investigate? ["Order, order !"]

said, that as the noble Lord had not given him Notice of the Question, he was not prepared to give to it a definite answer.

pointed out, that it was irregular to put Questions to Members, not being Ministers of the Crown, in relation to Business which was not before the House.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, on the day set apart for the debate on the second reading of my Bill, he will be able to state the objections which the Government entertain to that measure?

Certainly.

I thought I was in Order just now, and I apologise for my interposition. I desire to give Notice that, on Thursday, I will ask the Prime Minister the Question which I put to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.

said: The Belief of Distress (Ireland) Bill will be the first Order of the Day on Thursday, and the clause of my right hon. Friend will be in the hands of hon. Members tomorrow. I wish to say a word with reference to a Question put to me by my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the Malt Duties. He made an inquiry about the computation of the drawback on stocks of malt on hand on the 30th of September next, and I mentioned the computations which had been made, and the grounds of those computations. But these were, of course, made under a disadvantage, inasmuch as they could not be conveniently founded upon positive and direct inquiry of competent persons in the trade before the production of the proposals of the Government. As we now stand we are in a position to communicate with the trade with greater freedom, and I have thought it better we should endeavour to check and verify those computations by new inquiries. I shall not be able to produce the figures probably till shortly before we proceed to discussion on the Bill, and we shall reserve in the Bill power to make detailed arrangements for the levy of the duty, and to fix the time after which the brewers will be called on to pay the new tax on beer.

asked when the Employers' Liability Bill would be proceeded with?

said, he was afraid there was no probability of his being able to fix an early day for the discussion of the measure. Due Notice would, however, be given before it was proceeded with.

wished to know when the Hares and Rabbits Bill would be taken?

No day is fixed at present; probably at the beginning of next week.

asked the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, When he intended to move the re-appointment of the Select Committee on Co-operative Stores?

in reply, said, that as soon as the slight complications which had arisen had been settled, one way or another, he should do his best to get the Committee re-appointed.

moved—

"That where any Election has been declared void, under the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1868, and the Judges have reported that any person has been guilty of bribery and corrupt practices, no Motion for the issuing of a New Writ shall be made without two days' previous Notice being given in the Votes, such Notice to be appointed for consideration before the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion."

said, the subject to which the Motion related was one of considerable interest. He recollected that it was his duty in 1866 to sit as a Member of a Committee of that House on an Inquiry which involved the conduct of the constituency of Galway, when it was unanimously reported that corrupt practices had prevailed at the previous election for that borough. He waited a few days in expectation that a Motion would be made to the effect that a Commission should be issued to inquire into the existence of such practices, and he had then been informed by the Chairman of the Committee, and by Sir George Grey, who was at the time Secretary of State for the Home Department, that they did not intend to take any step of that kind. In spite of the Report of the Committee, no Member thought it his duty to take action; the Report was a nullity, and the constituency went on its way rejoicing to distinguish itself afterwards more than once in a similar manner. Since that time the law against candidates had been made more stringent. The risks to which a candidate was exposed were enough to make him shrink from seeking election. He found an agent chosen for him, and all the machinery of corruption fortified by ancient custom, against which it was impossible for him to contend. If the law was to be stringently enforced against anyone, it ought not to be against the unfortunate candidate, but rather against those who maintained these customs If a candidate was guilty of personal bribery, he was liable to be indieted for misdemeanour and to be punished by imprisonment; he was disqualified for voting at any Parliamentary or municipal election; he was debarred from holding any municipal or judicial office; and he was to be removed from the Commission of the Peace. In the case of Launces-ton, a Member had just been unseated for having, in a moment of impatience at the complaints made to him about the ravages of rabbits, practically said—"Oh, bother the rabbits. Do what you like with them. "The Judges held that the law held a candidate responsible for illegal acts which he had directly forbidden.

said, the hon. Member was travelling far beyond the question.

said. he was endeavouring to show the hardship with which the law pressed upon the candidate as compared with the constituency. Liberal Members were now falling, and the House would soon have before it the question of the issue of Writs; and it was better that they should determine beforehand the principles by which they were to be guided.

said, the hon. Member was travelling beyond the scope of the Resolution, which was strictly limited to the time which should elapse before the House ordered the issue of a New Writ.

said, he should not pursue the subject, but would conclude with a Motion that instead of the words "two days" they should insert the words "one fortnight."

said, the Motion was not that the Writ should issue after two days' Notice, but that it should not issue until after two days' Notice. The object was simply to allow of sufficient time for Members to consider whether any case was one in which further delay ought to be asked for. The Resolution did not apply to cases in which it had been reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, as these cases were distinctly provided for by the Act. If in other cases there was no reason for further delay, it would be unjust to the constituencies that such delay should occur, and two days were enough to enable Members to consider whether it was necessary to inflict a penalty on the whole constituency. It appeared from Sir Erskine May's work on The Law and Practice of Parliament, that at one period, in 1853 and 1854, it was ordered that no such Motion should be made without seven days' previous Notice in the Votes. The House appeared to have thought, however, that this was rather hard on a constituency unless a more positive presumption of mischief prevailed; for in succeeding Sessions until 1860, and again in 1866, 1874, and 1875, it was ordered that no such Motion should be made without two days' previous Notice being given. He did not think it mattered much whether it was a question of two or three days; but he believed he was supported by the experience of the House when he said that 14 days was too long a time, considering that, in the great majority of cases, there would be no ground whatever for preventing the issue of the Writ. Therefore, he must oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

in rising to move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to instruct Her Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with other Powers, with a view to bring about a mutual and simultaneous reduction of European Armaments;"

said: I must cast myself on the kind indulgence of the House while I attempt to bring under its attention a subject which all will admit to be one of great importance, and which—as no one feels more deeply than I do—is also one of great difficulty. But while I am oppressed with a sense of the onerous nature of the task I have undertaken, there is some satisfaction in the thought that I am free at least from one kind of embarrassment which sometimes attends discussions in this House, because the question with which I have to deal is one that stands quite apart from all considerations of Party. It is not a question of Party; it is a question of humanity; and certainly nothing shall fall from my lips that will be calculated to provoke the spirit of Party. I recall with pleasure at this moment, that when I brought forward a Motion on International Arbitration in this House, in 1873, a considerable number of Gentlemen on the Conservative side did me the honour to vote in favour of my proposal, and there is no Party reason whatever why they should not support the Resolution which I am now about to submit to the House. There is one other preliminary remark which I wish to make. I am very anxious that this Motion should be judged on its own merits, apart from any reference to the supposed opinions of the Proposer, or of any class of persons who are thought to take a special interest in it. I believe I lie under the suspicion of belonging to what is called "the Peace-at-any-price Party." "What that means, I confess I do not know, except that it is one of those vague terms of reproach with which it is found convenient to smite a political adversary when nothing more precise and pertinent is available for the purpose. Whatever may be my views on certain abstract (questions, I hope I have the courage of my convictions, and that I shall be prepared to avow and defend them with such ability as I possess on all fitting occasions. But, on the present occasion, extreme views of that kind are not brought in question at all. I promise the House that I shall not proclaim any dangerously pacific views, and that I shall not ask the House to assent to anything which the most devout believer in the right of war may not consistently support. There is one point I presume on which we are all agreed—namely, that the present armed condition of Europe, the rampant militaryism which pervades and overshadows the nations has grown to such enormous dimensions that it is scarcely possible to use exaggerated language with respect to it. We all feel that this state of things is an affront to reason, a scandal to civilization, a scourge upon humanity, and. above all, that it is a reproach to that holy religion which the nations of Christendom profess to accept and reverence. It seems to me most humiliating when we consider the fact that all the nations of Europe, with one exception, have been for more than 1,000 years professedly subject to the influences of Christian civilization, to the power of that religion which is pre-eminently the religion of peace, and yet at this moment by far the larger proportion of the resources of all these nations is devoted to the construction of weapons of destruction, and to the training and disciplining of millions of men to the adroit use of those weapons for the purpose of mutual slaughter and devastation. There is a celebrated catechism, which, I believe, is still much in use in Scotland; the first question in it is—"What is the chief end of man? I have sometimes thought that if any celestial visitor were to come to our world, and were to cast his eye on the state of things which now actually exists in Europe, his answer to that question would be, that the chief end of man must be to fight and to prepare for fighting. It is not easy to say when this insane system of rivalry in armaments during peace came into vogue in Europe. Montesquieu spoke of it 130 years ago as "a new disease" which was spreading through Europe—

"For as soon, "ho says," as one State augments its troops, the others forthwith augment theirs, so that they gain nothing by it but a common ruin."

Things were not always so. Vattel tells us that, in the 17th century, when a war was concluded—

"They seldom failed to stipulate in Treaties of Peace that both parties should disband their troops; and why, "he asked," is not this salutary custom continued?"

So far is that from being the case now, that every fresh peace, as it is called— though it may be more fitly termed an armed truce—instead of affording relief to the nations by the diminution of their burdens, becomes a starting-point for new and enormous augmentations of their military forces. Béranger, the celebrated French lyrist, in describing the cost of war, says—

"L'ogre a diné payez la carte;"

and Bastiat, the distinguished writer on Political Economy, thereupon remarks that the ogre now costs as much for his digestion as for his meals. One thing is certain—that the Russian War, among the many other evils which we owe to it, gave an immense impulse to this process. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Northcote), in a very able work which he published about 17 years ago, entitled Twenty Years of Financial Policy, remarks pointedly on this effect of the Russian War. He said he was not going to inquire whether that war was worth what it cost to mankind at large, or to England in particular—

"But," he adds, "there can be no doubt that among its results have been those two—that it stirred up in Europe a spirit of restlessness, and set all the world to seek for the means of improving the instruments of attack and defence; and to add enormously and without stint or measure to the most unprofitable and unsatisfactory of all possible forms of expenditure."

After every succeeding; war the same race of mutual folly and ruin has been renewed with increasing celerity, so that the armed forces of Europe have been growing with so much rapidity as to be almost incredible. An article in the last volume yet published of the new edition of 'The Encyclopoeia Britannica, under the word "Europe," contains certain statements, founded on elaborate statistical calculations, which go to show that between the years 1859 and 1874—that is, in the course of 15 years—there have been added to the armed forces of Europe nearly 2,000,000 men. It is not easy to give with accuracy the statistics of European armaments, because they are continually changing, and always changing, I may add, in the direction of increase. Lord Derby stated not long ago his belief that there were 10,000,000 men trained to arms in all ways in Europe, and The Times newspaper, at the same time, or shortly afterwards, spoke of 12,000,000 men. Of course, under this estimate all the Reserves are taken into account—the Militia, the Volunteers, the Landwehr. the Landsturm, the territorial army of France, and so on. But I believe it will be no exaggeration to say that at any one moment you may find 4,000,000 men under arms in Europe. This, of course, must entail an enormous cost on the various countries. I have seen many calculations of the amount, and one, by a French gentleman of great reputation, which makes the total estimated cost as much as £500,000,000 a-year. Now, there are three items into which that sum may be divided; first, the money actually extracted from the pockets of the people by the Naval and Military Budgets, which may be put down at £160,000,000 a-year; but that is the smallest part of the matter, and a far more important item is the loss to society by the withdrawal of so many millions of able-bodied men from industrial pursuits. We must remember, of course, that, though it is not his own fault, a soldier merely consumes, and is in no way a producer. I have mentioned two items of the monstrous amount, and now have to add to them the interest of the prodigious sums laid out on instruments and munitions of war of all sorts, ships of war, fortifications, arms, ammunition, accoutrements, and so on; and which, it must be borne in mind, are absolutely unproductive. I ask the House to consider what might be done if only half of this great sum could be economized, if only part of the broad stream of wealth that is yearly carried down the bottomless abyss of military expenditure could be directed to irrigate and fructify the waste places of humanity; how much might be done to relieve the misery, to elevate the character of the people, to provide better dwellings for the poor, to furnish them with productive occupation, to spread the blessings of education among the ignorant and degraded, and generally to improve the material and moral condition of the great masses, whom God, I contend, has given in charge to the civilized and Christian Governments of Europe. Unhappily, also, the expenditure on these armaments is growing with appalling rapidity. In The Times newspaper, about the beginning of the year, there was a remarkable article, founded on a calculation by a German statistician, which showed that the annual public expenditure of Europe has risen in 14 years, between 1865 and 1879,from£398,000,000to£585,000,000. For Russia and Germany, expenditure has more than doubled itself in that period. But, large as these amounts are, they do not satisfy the demands of the Governments, and, in addition, the future is mortgaged to supply the needs of the present. National Debts have grown, in the same period, from £2,626,000,000 to £4,324,000,000, the cause being war and warlike armaments. In the year 1865, Germany spent £10,000,000 on her Army and Navy; now she spends £21,000,000. At the former date Russia spent £22,000,000, and now spends £36,000,000; and a similar increase is noticeable in the case of the other European Powers. Remarking on these astounding figures, The Economist says—

"The total increase of expenditure caused by wars and the apprehension of wars has, if we take the average interest at 4 per cent, been £131,000,000 a-year, or considerably more than the taxation of either of the two richest countries in Europe, England and France. The amount at 4 per cent represents a capital of £3,200,000,000, which, as long as that expenditure continues, and much of it is perpetual, is lost to the industrial work of Europe, and, consequently, to the progress of civilization and to the material well-being of the people."

This expenditure is still going on, and, on the principle which seems to be ac- cepted by European statesmen—that civilized nations can exist, side by side, in no other attitude than that of armed and mutual menace, it seems likely that it must continue. If it be true that all European nations are only organized gangs of robbers, constantly watching for opportunities to attack and plunder each other, it is evident that when one of them adds to its means of offence, the others must follow its example, and there can be no limit to the process, so far as I can see, until all the men and all the means of all the nations are absorbed in their military preparations. And we really seem as though we were approximating this consummation. Already in most countries by far the largest portion of their revenues are swallowed up in warlike expenditure, in paying for the interest of debts contracted by past wars, and in making preparations for future wars. And in some of the largest States of Europe— in France, in Germany, and, I believe, now in Russia—all able-bodied men, with inconsiderable exceptions, are liable to military service. There are only two classes of the population exempt from it —namely, the women and the clergy. And who can tell whether, in the mad rivalry still going on, the time may not come when the Governments will lay their hands on the daughters and pastors of the people? So that, instead of the "sweet girl-graduates," of which the Poet Laureate speaks, we may have fierce girl-captains and colonels. In Italy, and, I believe, in Germany, already some classes of the clergy are subject to military service. This is, no doubt, deplorable enough, so long at least as ministers of religion act consistently as servants of the Prince of Peace. But when the clergy, of whatever church or sect, are prompt to "beat the drum ecclesiastic," and to use the pulpit as an instrument to inflame warlike passion, it is difficult to see why they should be exempt from sharing the hardships and sufferings into which they help by their exhortations to plunge others. Now, what is the practical result? Do nations after all enjoy rest and quiet and a sense of security? That is the pretext constantly alleged in defence of these armaments. There is a musty old Latin proverb which is quoted usque ad nauseam. It is this—Si vis pacem., para bellum. This is flung at us in a tone so peremptory and off-hand, as though it afforded "confirmation strong as proof of Holy Writ" in justification of large armies. Indeed, I am not sure whether there are not some people who think that it is a verse from the Bible. But a more absurd axiom, one more at variance with common sense, and the common experience of mankind, has never been propounded. They fill all Europe with warlike materials; they train millions of men to the use of arms; they inspire them with warlike passions by appeals to patriotism and love of military glory; they nourish in their hearts—as they are bound to do as a justification of their own existence— feelings of jealousy and suspicion towards their neighbours, until they "stand like greyhounds in the slips straining upon the start," and then they tell us that all this is done as a security for peace. Let them bring their axiom to the test of experience and historical fact. Never since the world began have there been such enormous preparations for war as there have been in Europe during the last 25 years. But have these preparations for war preserved peace? So far otherwise, that during that period there have been six desolating and sanguinary wars in Europe, in the course of which it is estimated that 2,000,000 of human lives have been sacrificed, and £3,000,000,000. I contend, on the contrary, that these great armaments, so far from being preservatives of peace, are provocatives of war. The existence of such hugh masses of armed men ready to be launched forth at any moment at the pleasure of some ambitious Monarch or unscrupulous Minister —for the people have no voice in the making of wars—are a perpetual peril to the peace of nations. I think, therefore, one of our own poets has given wise and sound counsel, when he said—

"Nations would do well To extort their truncheons from the puny hands Of heroes, whose infirm and baby minds Are gratified with mischief, and who spoil, Because men suffer it, their toy, the world."

What is the true effect of this state of things? One result is that the finances of many, I might say of most, the great States of Europe are in a chronic condition of embarrassment or deficit. Look at Austria. Mr. Martin, in his Statesman's Manual, states that in eight years—between 1870 and 1877— her accumulated deficit amounted to £33,000,000. In France the same thing was going on even before the tremendous catastrophe of the war with Germany. From 1848 to 1869 her accumulated deficits amounted to £100,000,000. It is difficult to know what is the financial condition of Russia, as no authentic statements are published. But we may be very certain that her finances are in, at least, quite as unsatisfactory a condition as that of any European nation, and we know that her Debt has increased from £208,000,000 in 1865 to £600,000,000 in 1879. And even Germany, in spite of the enormous indemnity she received from France, and with no Debt to speak of, has found her expenditure constantly on the increase, while her revenue has been as steadily diminishing. In 1873 her expenditure, as stated in the Imperial Budget, was 340,000,000 of marks, and in 1878 it was 540,000,000 of marks; or, an increase in the course of five years, of 200,000,000 of marks, or £16,000,000. In consequence, Prince Bismarck has been compelled to impose heavy protective duties, which have very seriously interfered with and damaged the commerce of his own and other countries. Lord Salisbury, speaking at the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, called attention to the heavy protective duties imposed on British goods by some of the Continental Governments, and said—

"The real cause of this increase of protective duties is the establishment of those gigantic military forces which are increasing every year in every one of the larger countries of this hemisphere, which constitute a permanent drain on the forces of industry, a permanent danger to the interests of commerce, and which impose upon the Governments which feel themselves bound—and if one Government does it all Governments have to do it—in order to maintain these forces, the necessity of finding money in some way that shall not too heavily gall the interests and susceptibilities of their people. Indirect taxation, it is well known, is more readily paid than direct taxation, because its amount is not so easily recognized; and it is the necessity of finding the sustenance of those vast armaments that forces Governments to have recourse to indirect taxation, and they naturally avail themselves of the political support which is to be obtained from those trades that wish for protection in order to carry their policy into effect."

Look, again, at Italy, that young nationality to which the sympathy of all is drawn so strongly. That country is staggering under the weight of a crushing taxation in order to maintain vast and useless armaments. The annual deficits of Italy since 1860 have been so large, varying from £1,743,000 to £24,680,000, that the public debt, which in 1860 stood at £97,480,000, had increased to £400,000,000 in 1876. Well, what is the effect upon the condition of the people? The effect is, that in all the countries of Europe there are multitudes of people—thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands—sunk in poverty, misery, and ignorance. In the language of one of our own poets—

"The racked inhabitants repine, complain,

Taxed till the brow of labour sweats in vain;

War lays a burden on the reeling State,

And peace does nothing to relievo the weight.

Successive loads successive toils impose,

And sighing millions prophesy the close."

During last winter, I collected a series of extracts from our own and other journals describing the bitter and widespread distress that existed in various parts of Europe. We were told that in Upper Silesia out of a population of 298,000 no fewer than 150,000 "were next door to starvation." In Hungary, destructive floods had swept away whole villages, and some of the unfortunate inhabitants were found frozen to death in the woods where they had sought shelter. From Cettigne telegrams reported that a sixth part of the population were nearly dying of famine. Miss Irby wrote that in Bosnia and Herzegovina,, and in the recently-occupied portions of Novi-Bazar, people were dying of want, cold, and hunger. Sir Henry Layard wrote to Lord Salisbury that in Mossul the people were reduced by want to sell their children. In Italy we read of large meetings of working men demanding—not with clamour and menace, but with a really pathetic moderation—that, if the Government wanted them to pay the heavy taxes imposed upon them, they must first find them work by which they could earn bread for themselves and their families. Nearer at home, in Ireland, there has been distress so severe as to approach to famine. And so in most other European countries, especially in those countries where the mania of militarism is pushed to the greatest length. But, in the meanwhile, what are the Governments of this distressed, paralyzed, half-famishing Europe doing? Oh! they are in full and feverish activity, organizing Armies, Navies, and Reserves; forging rifled cannon, manufacturing Minie rifles and chassepots by the million; building iron-clads and torpedoes; constructing new fortifications; drilling and dragooning the people in martial exercises, and stimulating with lavish rewards the inventors of infernal machines for the destruction of life and property. And thus, the resources of all nations, whether derived from the gifts of Nature or the rewards of industry, instead of being turned to purposes of utility and advantage, are squandered, to use again the words of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the most unsatisfactory and unprofitable of all forms of expenditure. Is it any wonder to find, as we do, that multitudes of people in some European countries are streaming away from their own homes, to seek in foreign lands some rest and relief from this intolerable system of taxation and military servitude? And those who are too poor to emigrate, which is by far the largest number, are driven in sheer desperation into sullen discontent and dangerous conspiracies against the Governments, until Society becomes honeycombed by Socialism, Communism, and Nihilism; while the Governments, instead of removing the causes of these evils, which they dread, seem to have no other resource than to add to the incumbent weight of militarism, which tends only still more to exasperate the angry and mutinous spirit of the people. Now, the question I wish to ask the House to-night is this—Can nothing be done to put some check upon that system? This, of course, is the very knot of the problem with which we have to deal. Of the magnitude of the evil there are no two opinions. All men acknowledge it freely. Even the statesmen who most actively promote it declare, with more or less sincerity, they do so with infinite regret. The more thoughtful among military men, while professing to consider it inevitable, join in the lamentation over such sinister necessity. All our leading statesmen have given their testimony in the same direction, and in powerful and eloquent terms deprecate, deplore, denounce, as preposterous, insane, and ruinous, this system of universal armaments. I have quoted already the words of Lord Salisbury. I could quote equally emphatic words from Lord Derby, from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when he spoke of "the demon of militarism;" I could quote numberless passages from the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and a forcible passage from a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). All the journals of the country are constantly denouncing this state of things; but I shall content myself with quoting one sentence from an article which appeared a little time ago in The Times—

"If such a state of things," says The Times, "is permitted to continue, it will he a disgrace to European statesmen; it is upon their shoulders that the real blame will rest."

What, then, are we to do to get rid of this hideous nightmare, which is sitting on the heart of nations and almost suffocating their life? Is what I propose impracticable?—that the different Governments should come to an understanding with a view to the mutual and simultaneous diminution of their armaments. Sir Robert Peel did not think so, when he said—

"Is not the time come when the powerful countries of Europe should reduce those military armaments which they have so sedulously raised? Is not the time come when they should be prepared to declare that there is no use in such overgrown establishments? What is the advantage of one Power greatly increasing its Army and Navy? Does it not see that if it proposes such increase for self protection and. defence the other Powers will follow its example? The consequence of this state must he that no increase of relative strength will accrue to any Power; but there must be a universal consumption of the resources of every country in military preparations…The interest of Europe is not that any one Power should exercise a peculiar influence; but the true interest of Europe is to come to some common accord so as to enable every country to reduce those military armaments which belong to a state of war rather than of peace. I do wish that the councils of every country (or that the public voice and mind, if the councils did not) would willingly proclaim that doctrine."

I will now quote the authority of one who will be admitted by Gentlemen opposite to be a great statesman. Lord Beacons-field, speaking on the 21st of July, 1859, with a special reference to France, said—

"Let us terminate this disastrous system of wild expenditure by mutually agreeing, with no hypocrisy, but in a manner and under circumstances which admit of no doubt, by the reduction of armaments, that peace is really our policy, and then the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) may look forward with no apprehension to his next Budget, and England may then witness the termination of the Income Tax."

Has anything of this kind been done or attempted before? I will not again refer to Vattel's testimony as to what was formerly done in Europe. I will only now allude to the Convention between Great Britain and the United States in 1817, as to the number of armed boats that they would keep on the American Lakes. Nor was that a matter of small moment. The greatest importance was attached to naval supremacy on those Lakes, so much so that the Duke of Wellington thus wrote to Sir George Murray—

"I have told the Ministers repeatedly that a naval superiority on the Lakes is a sine qua non of success in Avar on the frontiers of Canada, even if our object be solely defensive, and I hope that when you are there they will take care to secure it for you."

And yet, in the face of this opinion of that great military authority, the two nations had the good sense to enter into this Convention, limiting the number of ships-of-war upon the American Lakes. And what was the result of that? The number of armed boats agreed upon was four or five; but the effect of this limitation was, that the spirit of jealousy and rivalry having been laid asleep, they ceased to have any armed boats at all on those Lakes. In 1851, the year of the Great Exhibition, the late Mr. Cobden brought forward a Motion in this House expressed in much the same language as I have adopted,—proposing a mutual reduction of armaments between England and France. He was answered by Lord Palmerston in a most friendly and complimentary speech, in which he said he adopted both the Motion and the language of the hon. Gentleman. Lord Palmerston said—

"I am glad the hon. Member has taken advantage of this meeting of the world to declare, in his place in Parliament, those principles of universal peace which do honour to him and the country in which they are proclaimed."— [3 Hansard, cxvii. 941.]

But while thoroughly approving of the object, he did not like to be fettered and bound in a negotiation. The next movement was made in the memorable proposal of the Emperor of the French, in 1863, to hold an International Congress on the subject. In the speech which he made at the opening of the I French Chambers, he shadowed forth his intentions in these words—

"Have not the prejudices and rancours which divided us lasted long enough? Shall the jealous rivalries of the Great Powers unceasingly impede the progress of civilization? Are we still to maintain mutual distrust by exaggerated armaments? Must our most precious resources he indefinitely exhausted in a barren display of our forces?"

Unhappily our Government alone, of all the Governments of Europe, peremptorily refused to entertain this proposal of the Emperor of the French, although the late Lord Derby said that—

"If there was a country in all Europe that had less interest in sending a blank refusal to have anything to do with the Congress it was England."

I hope I shall not appear too egotistical if I refer now for a moment to myself. In 1869 I visited several of the capitals of Europe, including Paris, Brussels, the Hague, Berlin, Munich, Vienna, and Florence, then the capital of the Italian Kingdom, to put myself in communication with members of different Representatives Assemblies in order to see whether we could not promote some concerted action for reduction of armaments in the respective Legislatures. I met many of the leading politicians in these capitals, and found them well disposed to entertain my proposals. Soon after, as the first fruit of my visit, Dr. Virchow proposed in the Prussian Chamber of Deputies the following Resolution:—

"That the Royal Government be requested to use all its influence with a view to reduce within the narrowest practical limits, the expenses of the military administration of the Northern Confederacy, and to seek to bring about by diplomatic negociations, a general disarmament."

There was a very interesting and animated debate upon the Resolution, and although Dr. Virchow did not succeed, he was sustained by no fewer than 99 votes. Soon after a similar Motion was made in the Chamber of Saxony and carried by a large majority. And, but for the outbreak next year, of the unhappy Franco-German War, this would have been followed up in other Legislatures. Another movement in this direction, of which I do not know much, was made in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Otway) has told me that while he was in the Foreign Office as Under Secretary, about the year 1869, Lord Clarendon originated the movement. Communications were opened with various Crowned Heads and leading statesmen of Europe, with a view to bring about a simultaneous reduction of armaments. I do not know why the matter was broken off; but I suppose the Franco-German War put an end to that also. However, it did great credit to Lord Clarendon to have made the effort. In Austria, Dr. Fischoff, a very distinguished writer, published some important articles in a leading journal of Vienna, which led to the matter being taken up by a considerable party. The result was that 49 Members of the Austrian Parliament, headed by MM. Fux and Heilsberg, have lately laid upon the Table of the House this Resolution—

"The House of Deputies express a hope that the united Imperial and Royal Government may take into consideration the plan of such a general, proportionate, and simultaneous reduction of armaments, as shall not alter the respective position of the States of Europe; and that the Government will not withhold such efforts as may he necessary for the attainment of this object. The Imperial and Royal Government is also besought to bring this Resolution formally before the Minister for Foreign Affairs."

The Minister of War himself, in his Report on the Army Bill, joyfully hailed the idea of a simultaneous reduction of the Armies of the various States of Europe, and acknowledged the idea as a practical one, which he was willing to support. It may be said there are difficulties in the way; but no great service was ever accomplished for humanity that had not to encounter difficulties. The triumph of true statesmanship is to overcome difficulties. I cannot see why, if the various States of Europe pursue the process of increasing their armaments on a principal of emulation, if they can add to forces, batteries, ships, guns, fortifications, &c, against each other; why, in the name of common sense, cannot they reverse that process, and begin to undo the mischief they have been doing so long? I cannot but think that the present time is favourable for such overtures as this. We enjoy a lucid interval of peace; and there seems no present danger of a breach of that peace, except from the existence of these enormous armaments. All the people of the earth are groaning under the burdens which these armaments fasten upon them, and they would hail with gladness and grati- tude any proposal of this kind, especially coming with the approval of a powerful Government like this. I cannot but think that foreign Governments themselves would rejoice to have such proposals made to them. There are ominous signs abroad among them. When Sovereigns are spending their time in congratualing each other on escaping from assassination, it is surely time that they took some means of removing the dangers which threaten them through driving people into such extremities as these by adding constantly to their armaments. Sir, I venture, in conclusion, to make a very earnest and respectful appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, that he will not turn aside from this great question. The task to which I invite him is not unworthy even of his transcendent abilities. It is not unworthy of his high character, as I estimate it, as the passionate friend of justice and humanity. He has already won many laurels by great deeds of practical statesmanship; and a greater than any of them awaits his hand. No greener wreath ever surrounded any man's brow than that which will encircle his if he will only consent to grapple with this high argument, and endeavour to bring the various nations of Europe into general concert to reduce those armaments. Above all, he will earn the grateful benedictions of millions of the people who are now groaning under this baneful system of militarism. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Motion of which he had given Notice.

seconded the Motion.

said, he was glad, whatever the issue of this Motion might be, that it had afforded to his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard) an opportunity of delivering one of his terse and telling speeches in favour of the good cause he had so much at heart to a far more sympathetic Parliamentary audience than he had ever addressed before upon the subject. He (Mr. Baxter) was old enough to remember the time when a Motion of this kind and sentiments such as he had uttered would have been received with derision; but, fortunately, the last General Election had added very largely to the number of Gentlemen in that House who sympathized with those opinions, and, however distant they might be from the time of universal peace and the abolition of those armaments to which his hon. Friend referred, he might console himself with the reflection that his cause was steadily making progress. It had been his (Mr. Baxter's) lot, especially in recent years, to travel very extensively in various countries in Europe, and if there was one thing that struck him more than another it was the deplorable results of this military system. The idea of several millions of men being taken away from industrial pursuits ! What an incalculable loss to a nation through their being abstracted from its productive power! What a waste of time and an interruption of business were caused by the system of compulsory military service. These things had really made him think sometimes that civilization was not advancing but retrograding. They even cast a reflection upon their common Christianity. The other day, after his election, he paid a short visit to France, and spent a day or two in the great frontier garrison town of Bayonne, and it was positively pitiable to look at the streets and boulevards of that city crowded with soldiers in every stage of dress and undress, nearly all of them being boys, very dirty, drafted by the conscription, which was weighing like an incubus on the prosperity of France. Then, what was going on in Germany? They all knew perfectly well that Germany was suffering at the present time, and had been for years past, in consequence of the mighty multitude of soldiers she thought it necessary to support, and they also knew that there was an increasing amount of emigration from Germany to the United States in order to evade military service. He had spent a great deal of time in Italy, and the great difficulty in that country, which imperilled its very existence, was the immense pecuniary pressure occasioned by keeping up such an absurdly large military force. When the Italians were asked why they kept it up, they all said that it was to protect them against France; but directly the traveller got over the frontier into France on the Riviera coast he found himself in the midst of the most preposterous fortifications, some of them still in course of construction around Toulon, which he was told were put there as a protection against the Italians. Then Austria was in constant financial embarrassment in consequence of her enormous military forces; and only the other day he was reading an account of the fearful misery caused by the conscription in the Southern part of Russia. The writer describes the piteous shrieks, heartrending cries, and bitter lamentation of young men and boys taken away from their homes and friends to serve in distant parts of the Empire, most of them never to return. But he wanted to say a few words about military spirit in this country. It was very true, and he was thankful for it, that no such scenes as those he had alluded to were witnessed here; but he was sorry to say —and they had much experience of it of late years-—that the spirit of militaryism was far from being dead in Great Britain. There were some people who said there was really no class amongst them who were in favour of war; but he was not quite so sure about that. There were professional soldiers who, very naturally—and he could not blame them for it—wished opportunities to distinguish themselves in their Profession, and to obtain promotion. There was also a certain class of traders and contractors who had a direct interest in promoting war. He was very much struck with an observation which was made in his hearing by a merchant from South Africa not long ago. That gentleman was conversing about the prosperity of the country, and he made this remark—

"Well, plentiful rains and fine seasons and all that sort of thing are very well of their kind, hut there is nothing so good for business as a jolly Kaffir War."

Therefore, there were many people who were directly interested in promoting war; but, not only so, he was sorry to say there was a vast body of people in this country ignorant and barbarous enough to take delight in the pomp and circumstance and vain-glory of victory, without the slightest regard to the justice of the case or the sacrifice of human life. It must not be said that such people were to be found principally, or even largely, amongst the working classes. There was no class so much to blame in that respect as that which was called "Society." "Society" was constantly getting up and fomenting panics, suggesting and playing upon unrea soning and unreasonable fears, and inventing hobgoblins to terrify the community in order to increase the national expenditure. He recollected at the time when the people of this country had gone a kind of crazy about French invasion and the wild utterances of certain French colonels, a distinguished politician, now deceased, telling him that if he went about as he was doing, laughing at the whole thing as a mere bugbear, he would certainly lose his seat at next election. We were ashamed now of that panic. At the close of the Civil War in America, the same wise people told us that the 1,100,000 men there in arms would certainly make an attempt to annex both Canada and Jamaica; and, therefore, that it was our duty at once to raise a force sufficient to cope with the United States. The French and Americans were now very good friends, and so, he ventured to predict, would be the Russians when this deplorable national enemy game should have been entirely played out. He maintained that the verdict of the nation at the recent election was against this spirit of militaryism and these unnecessary wars. That was the main issue that was brought before the country; and a clear indication was given to the "Services" that in future they would be expected to obey, and not to control, the Government of the country. The attitude of the constituencies offered a very strong encouragement to those who took the view of the author of the Motion before the House; and another reason why the time was favourable for bringing it forward now was that they had got rid of pretty nearly every remnant of the unfortunate Treaty of 1815, which was founded entirely upon the interests of Kings, Princes, and Dukes, who were all to be provided for without the slightest reference to the wishes of their subjects. He was reading yesterday the newly published autobiography of Prince Met-ternich, in the introductory explanatory note to which occurs the following re- markable sentence, written in December, 1844:—

"Architects present themselves on all sides; not one, however, is permitted to see the work concluded; for that, the life of man is too short. Happy the man who can say himself that he has not run counter to Eternal Laws. This testimony my conscience does not deny me."

Was there ever such a delusion? This was precisely what he did do. Eternal Law requires that statesman should consult the wishes of the people. Metter-nich disregarded them entirely, and he had not been 20 years in his grave when his cherished edifice fell to pieces, like a house built of cards. The principle of nationalities had received many practical illustrations of late yearn, and this consideration of itself removed one of the principal causes of war. Italy had now become free and independent. The long-desired unification of Germany had taken place, and the same process was going on on both sides of the Lower Danube, and the best results might be hoped for from the permanent establishment of a peaceable and peace-loving Republican Government in France. Dynastic ambition had been the bane of that country; and, now that the Napoleonist, Legitimist, and Orleanist factions were losing strength every day, he hoped they might look forward with some degree of confidence to seeing France playing an entirely new roóle in the history of Europe. The principle of international arbitration had advanced considerably in the estimation of public men all over the world during the last 25 years. It was recommended in the Protocol of Paris in 1856, and received a most practical illustration in the settlement of the Alabama Claims. During the next two or three years Her Majesty's Government would have ample opportunities of recommending to the other Cabinets the principle of international arbitration. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had many times and in many difficult and complicated circumstances, which Members of the House as old as he well recollected, in connection with the French Treaty of 1860 and the Fortification Vote, proved himself pre-eminentty a man of peace; and now that he had a powerful majority at his back, elected and sustained by the sense and conscience of the nation, he had no doubt that his foreign policy would be in accord with the spirit of the Motion now before the House.

would take this opportunity of reminding the House of the words uttered by Lord John Russell at the time of the Duke of Wellington's death, that England had buried a man whose greatest horror was of war. He believed that that feeling was shared by every military man, and by none more than himself. He thought they might congratulate themselves on the fact that this country had never set an example that would encourage other nations to keep up great armaments. He quite agreed that European armaments were at present too large. There were 9,500,000 men under arms at this moment, the odd 500,000 being our own countrymen. That number was as small as it possibly could be consistently with the safety of our shores from invasion. The number of our troops actually under Colours was 135,000. Foreigners often said that our Army made up in efficiency for its want of numbers. One matter for congratulation was the great improvement in our Volunteer Force, which now numbered 200,000 efficient men—24,000 of them trained to the use of the cannon, and this auxiliary would render it unnecessary for England ever to resort to foreign mercenaries, as she did at the time of the Crimean War. He feared it would be found very difficult for any Minister to bring about the disarmament of this country, much as he might wish to do so. The great object which they should keep in view was the uprooting of national rivalries and enmities. Until that object was successfully accomplished he feared foreign countries would turn a deaf ear to any advice we might give them. In conclusion, he urged the House to believe that he and most of his comrades would be very glad to see a reduction in the armaments of Europe, for he had the greatest horror of war in common with the majority of military men.

I have no desire to obstruct the declaration of opinion by an hon. Gentleman; but the appeal made by me by the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion, and by my right hon. Friend behind me, has been sufficiently pointed to make me think I shall be consulting the convenience of the House if I proceed at once to declare the sentiments with which I regard the proposition it- self, and the general opinions upon which it is based; but I must draw a distinction between the basis of this Motion and the opinions and convictions that have been expressed, which I place on one side, and the adoption of a Resolution of this kind by the House at the present moment, the effect of which is not only to indicate a particular course as the course desirable to be pursued; but to indicate that course in such a manner as to commit the House to the proposition that the moment has arrived for taking the step described in the Motion. Now, Sir, upon that subject I will presently state my reasons for being compelled to act and speak with some reserve. With regard to the speech of my hon. Friend, and that of my right hon. Friend behind me, and in the same manner and in the same sense of that speech we have heard from the opposite side of the House, I need hardly say that they command my fullest concurrence. My hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution before the House has quoted from speeches made by me a strong expression of opinion, not, I am sure, with a desire to catch me tripping by a reference to those speeches, but because he thought that he was expressing the opinions which were really in my mind; and it is, I will at once say, impossible to exaggerate the mischief and. the danger attending many of the operations to which he has called our attention. I must, however, point out to my hon. Friend that great operations have been accomplished in Europe in the course of the last 30 years, and that, although those operations have been accomplished by the sad and painful and deplorable, but sometimes necessary, means of war, they have been favourable in the result, in various important instances, to the permanent happiness of mankind. I will now speak of the Crimean War— for in that I had, perhaps, a particular concern—except to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend in the censure which he passed upon it. But when I consider such great constructive operations as the creation of a really national and united Italy in lieu of the number of sectional fragments of people among whom violence and corruption were resorted to in large portions of their country, if not entirely, to keep down the spirit of freedom and the sentiment of nationality, and to extinguish the glorious traditions of the race, I find, I am sorry to say, that it is not by peaceable means that that great change has been effected. In the same way the reconstruction of Germany, however attained, has been a great advance in the political system of Europe. Nor can I refrain from saying that when I recollect that within the last two years from 10,000,000 to 15,000,000 people have obtained a new position, and made a great advance on the road from the most degrading servitude and violence to freedom, and through the means of war, while agreeing with my hon. Friend in everything he says as to the deplorable consequences of war itself, yet I will not travel with him in holding the opinion that those wars—wars of liberty—however we may lament that an end desirable to be attained was not attained by other means, are to be regarded as unmixed evils. As to dynastic wars for the purposes of aggrandisement, needless wars, wanton wars—and I am sorry to say we have not to go far for our experience of them —no words which my hon. Friend can devise, or which the wit of man can invent, are strong enough to describe the folly and the guilt of wars of that description. But I think the distinction is a real one which may be drawn between a war made for lawful purposes, and carried through with benefit to mankind, and wars which have no such justification, and which are to be regarded as among the most terrible plagues that can afflict mankind. Even though we may refrain from censuring the objects of a war, yet I go all lengths with my hon. Friend in expressing a desire that we should endeavour to devise and encourage other more rational, less costly, and less demoralizing means of securing these objects. He has quoted figures which must have startled the House as to the cost of wars. The cost of wars belonging to the present and the past, and the preparations for the future, he places at £500,000,000 a-year in Europe. I wish I could re-duco greatly that estimate, but I cannot. I believe my hon. Friend has not greatly overstated the cost of past wars and of the preparations for future wars. I have not had an opportunity of minutely examining the figures; but he was, no doubt, very near the mark when he spoke of £150,000,000 of actual Military Estimates, and I think I am justifying in saying that the conse- quence of the withdrawal from useful industry to military purposes of a vast number of hands doubles the cost; because not only are men occupied in an employment which does not produce, but they are taken away from the business of production in which they might otherwise be occupied. I am not, of course, saying that this is an argument against adequate, rational, and becoming measures of defence for the security of a country which is bound to have regard to its own safety; nor am I contending that the pecuniary aspect of the question is the whole, or even the most important part of the various branches of the subject. But if my hon. Friend, on account of the withdrawal of labour from peaceful industry to warlike purposes, doubles the £150,000,000 I cannot find fault with him. We have, first, to consider the effect of the War Estimates; next, the withdrawal of labour from other pursuits; and, thirdly, the consequences of former wars of which we are now bearing the charge. In this matter it is wonderful to see how much more easy it is to judge our ancestors than ourselves. It is exactly the case of judging one's neighbour as compared with oneself. It is very easy for us to find out that other nations are extravagant in the military and naval establishments which they maintain; but the hon. and gallant Colonel opposite (Colonel Burnaby) has told us that his friends in foreign armies have pressed the point upon him that we have the advantage of an insular position, and that we ought, in consequence, to be able to afford a better example to the world. I shall not enter into any argument on that point at present; but I may observe that, as a general rule, the wars which have led to the creation of the National Debts of the world have been chiefly dynastic or religious or re-action-ary wars, and almost all of them wrong and unjust. If those wars have left behind them National Debts now passing £4,000,000,000—I was not aware that the figures were quite so high—there has to be paid in the shape of interest an amount little short of £160,000,000, to be added to the £150,000,000 which my hon. Friend has mentioned in his computation. I am afraid, therefore, that £450,000,000 or £500,000,000 is somewhere about the actual charge to Europe for past wars and its present preparations for the same purposes. That is the pecuninary view of the matter; but there is a point at which this pecuniary question becomes connected with another question. My hon. Friend was quite right when he said that, in many countries, what may be called war interests are created by the extraordinary expenditure which is indulged in. The case of the Cape of Good Hope has been quoted, and I do not think a fairer or better instance could be cited. Nothing can be so ruinous to a country, nothing so mischievous as to its progress and the formation of a just civilization, as to be in the position which we have too often witnessed in the case of the inhabitants of our own Colonies in later times, of having the privilege of provoking wars for which they were not called upon to pay. When we say to a community—"We will pay the expenses of your wars," they may imagine that we are conferring upon them a great favour; hut I believe their worst enemies could not devise a scheme more lowering to the character of free citizens in a free State. Going back to the debates of 30 or 40 years, we find Mr. Cobden in a very marked degree, and Sir Robert Peel in a degree less marked, but, no doubt, not less sincere, even then deploring the enormous scale on which the military establishments of Europe were maintained, and the tendency of those military establishments not to preserve peace, but to weaken the securities for its continnance. Since that period— since Sir Robert Peel thought it his duty in his place in Parliament to call attention to the dangers which menaced Europe through the maintenance of needless establishments—these establishments have been in some cases doubled, or trebled, and the cost of them is advancing at, perhaps, even a greater rate. Amid all our boasts of civilization—amid all our ideas of incessant progress—we have this sad, almost plague spot, as it may be called, upon us; and, as my hon. Friend says, we delude ourselves with the notion and cling to the idle and empty formula— for such it has become—that to be prepared for war is the best way to avert it. My hon. Friend has said, and said with truth, that at one time an endeavour was made by Lord Clarendon, in conjunction with the Government of which I had the honour to be the head in 1869, to setin motion if we could some small measure, at least as a beginning, of disarmament. It was not an attempt to combine the armed nations of Europe for that purpose. Lord Clarendon's belief, in which I still share, was that if you could gather the Plenipotentiaries of Europe round a table to hear a discussion on disarmament, their meetings would end in no positive and substantial result, and that the only way in which a measure of disarmament can be initiated is in detail. It is to take advantage of some occasion when particular countries are in face of each other—burdening their own people, exhausting their own resources, and endangering peace—and to endeavour to prevail on them relatively to these particular circumstances to pursue a more rational course. Lord Clarendon was apprehensive, in 1869, of those difficulties with respect to which his prognostications were but too speedily and surely verified. He thought the relations between France and Germany were menacing to Europe; and he endeavoured to prevail on those two countries to begin the good work of some small measure of disarmament. It is not for me to refer to this matter in the character of a judge between those two great countries. What happened was simply this: The French Government adopted the first part of Lord Clarendon's proposal to this extent—that they offered to make a reduction in their Army of 10,000 men. It was not a large reduction; but it was a reduction. On the other hand, the Government of Germany stated that the force they had under arms was smaller in proportion to their population than the force of France, and that, consequently, they could not undertake to make any reduction whatever. That is the history of the effort made by Lord Clarendon; and I would ask my hon. Friend to note that the effort made in 1869 was not forced upon the Government by any Parliamentary movement. It was an effort made by them spontaneously, and from a desire, if possible, to make some progress, however small, in the beginning of an undertaking which would, if it acquired any considerable development, be of immeasurable benefit to Europe. It is on that ground I ask my hon. Friend not to compel me to vote upon his Motion. What I would say to my hon. Friend is this: If he has reason to suspect a want of inclination on the part of the Government to move in the direction of promoting peace and pacific means in the reduction of armaments, then he would be perfectly justified, whatever our general political relations may be, in striving to force the Motion upon us. But if he really believes that we are associated with him in the desire he entertains, then I would ask my hon. Friend to allow us some discretion in regard to the time and the circumstances of our action. With regard to addressing other Powers upon the question, that is a very serious step. When Lord Clarendon made overtures to France and Germany, there was nothing in our policy in any portion of the globe that at all weakened our position or made it otherwise than desirable to be the authors of such overtures. This was an essential point. It was necessary that we should stand recti in curiâ, and that we should not be met with the remark—"What are you doing yourselves? You preach the gospel of peace; but are your hands free from the stain of blood? Have you purged yourselves effectually from that stain? Have you retired from the positions into which you have been driven?" I need not enter into particulars; it is not necessary, for everyone would understand the allusions I might make. I hope my hon. Friend will agree with me that we must have some regard to the situation in which we are able to place ourselves before we undertake the lofty and, in certain circumstances, the pretentious office of instructing other nations. There are, in my opinion, three distinct modes by which, apart from application to other Powers, the Government of this country may walk in the direction indicated by my hon. Friend. The first and the most essential is that they shall pursue a foreign policy of peace and justice. Unless they do that, the words of admonition they may use to others will be a bitter mockery in the estimate of others. The second condition is that they shall study to the best of their ability whether they can honestly moderate their defensive establishments. That is a point on which Her Majesty's Government are not in a position at this very early period of their existence to make any announcement or to give any definite promise. Of course, when I speak of moderate establishments I esti- mate moderation by the just proportion between the real demands of the country for its honour and its safety and the charge and the extent of establishments which are required by Parliament and by the people in order to maintain these essential things. There is a third way, however, in which I think it is in the power of the Government to qualify itself for becoming a missionary for those beneficial purposes which are contemplated by my hon. Friend; that is, by showing their disposition, when they are themselves engaged in controversy, to adopt those amicable and pacific means of escape from their disputes rather than to resort to war. Need I assure my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Baxter) that the dispositions which led us to become parties to the arbitration on the Alabama case are still with us the same as ever; that we are not discouraged; that we are not damped in the exercise of these feelings by the fact that we were amerced, and severely amerced, by the sentence of the International Tribunal; and that, although we may think the sentence was harsh in its extent, and unjust in its basis, we regard the fine imposed on this country as dust in the balance compared with the moral value of the example set when these two great nations of England and America—which are among the most fiery and the most jealous in the world with regard to anything that touches national honour—went in peace and concord before a judicial tribunal to dispose of these painful differences, rather than to resort to the arbitrament of the sword. These are the means by which I think it is in the power of the Government at all events to prepare the way for holding the language of peace, and even for recommending on the proper occasion disarmament among the assembled Powers of Europe. Some time must, in my judgment, elapse before these conditions can have been sufficiently realized in our case to qualify us for the duties which my hon. Friend benevolently and philanthropically wishes us to undertake. My hon. Friend has been referring, as I have been referring myself, to the proceedings of Mr. Cobden on this subject. In 1849 Mr. Cobden made a Motion very closely corresponding in its terms with that of my hon. Friend. On that occasion, when Mr. Cobden had in view something of the nature of general disarmament, Lord Palmerston made a speech expressing his great admiration of the sentiments of Mr. Cohden, and expressing the conviction, which I entirely share, that a discussion of this kind is not a thing to be viewed with jealousy or grudge, but to be regarded as an opportunity—a beneficial opportunity—of declaring one's opinion on matters of the highest importance. Lord Palmerston, on that occasion, moved the Previous Question, in order that he might not appear to negative Mr. Cobden's Motion. Mr. Cobden, however, thought fit on that occasion to go to a division. In the year 1851 Mr. Cobden renewed his Motion in substance, but gave it a more specific application, and made it refer only to the relations between England and Prance. He moved an Address to Her Majesty, praying her—

"To enter into communication with the Government of France, and endeavour to prevent in future that rivalry of warlike preparation in time of Peace, which has hitherto been the policy of the two Governments, and to promote, if possible, a mutual reduction of armaments."

I am interested in finding a difference between Mr. Cobden's two Motions, because I think he perceived that an attempt to act on all Powers simultaneously was not as likely to succeed as an invitation to one other Power to enter into communication with a view to disarmament. On the occasion in question Lord Palmerston said—

"I am glad that the hon. Member for the West Riding has taken advantage of this meeting of the world (the Exhibition of 1851) to declare in his place in Parliament those principles of universal peace which do honour to him and the country in which they are proclaimed; and, if I object to being sent bound and fettered into a negotiation through which I confess I cannot see my practical way, it is not because I object to the end the hon. Member desires and proposes to accomplish, but because I think that end is more likely to be accelerated by the language of the hon. Member, and the sentiments he and the House have expressed, than it would be by the particular and specific Motion he has this evening brought before us."—[3 Hansard, cxvii. 941.]

He went on to say—

"Her Majesty's Government feel as ardently on the subject as any man in this country or in the world can do; and as far as their influence, and power, and persuasion may extend, they will, so long as it may be their lot to have anything to do with the affairs of the country, use every effort in their power to avert the miseries and calamities of war."—[Ibid.]

Mr. Cobden expressed his unfeigned satisfaction with the tone of the debate and with the declaration of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, and withdrew his Motion without pressing it to a division. I venture to express my hope that that course may be taken by my hon. Friend on the present occasion. It is not desirable, under present circumstances, that the House should place the Government in a position in which they would be compelled either to seem to slight the great authority of the House, or to be driven at a time which we do not believe yet to be ripe or opportune to make overtures to other Powers of the world under circumstances and at a moment from which we could not anticipate beneficial results.

said, that while he was prepared to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Merthyr, he was also ready to acquiesce in its withdrawal, or in any course his hon. Friend might think it wise to take after the speech of the Prime Minister. He quite appreciated the force of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gladstone's) remarks, and understood that in many cases it was more easy to teach by precept than by example. He could not help thinking that in the present complicated state of Europe the great armaments which they saw were as much a result as a cause. He could not help feeling that the unhappy state of the political organization of many countries, the unhappy union of Provinces that ought more properly to be parted, and the separation of States and sections of States from their natural connection, led to that antagonism between nation and nation which had its natural outcome in those increased armaments which had been referred to. He did not wish to particularize by illustrations, because where responsible Ministers shrank from pointing their remarks by apposite illustrations which were in the minds of all, it was better for others to follow the example of eloquent silence. In the Parliament of England and in the House of Commons they had a right, as it was their duty, first of all to look at home, to do what was practical, and to ask themselves whether, in proclaiming their love for peace and disinclination to armaments and military preparations, it was not possible to do something to give effect to their views. The course of this country ought to be one of peaceful progress, not of military aggression; and the expression which that sentiment had found in the House of Commons in the course of that debate would strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government if they should choose to enter on a course of peace and military retrenchment. It was perhaps by example that they could best promote the course the hon. Member for Merthyr had at heart. He feared that if they were to go at that moment into the councils of Europe, and invite the nations to simultaneous disarmament, they would say—"Would you guarantee us against the consequences of the jealousies and hatreds resulting from past wars? Will you secure to us that the state of Europe, so eminently unstable, shall become stable?" When they thought of these things they must see that it was difficult, say oven for such a country as Spain, to consent to something which involved the relinquishment of an object of national longing on their part. He thought, considering all these things, it was more possible for them to do something by acting on those organizations where they were complete masters of the situation within the region of their own authority and political responsibility, and then, when they had washed their hands of that blood of aggression of which many of them felt that they were guiltily enjoying the gains, they might go, fortified by example, and speak a word of counsel that might be advantageous in Europe.

said, he thought they might all be satisfied at hearing that the spirit of the Government was in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend. In the belief that that opinion deserved to be recorded he would propose an Amendment to that effect; but before doing so he wished to observe that he would not be the first to denounce the employment of force for a just object. Almost the first speech he had the honour of making in that House was a speech distinctly in favour of the employment of force for the procuring of what he believed to be just ends. He would not, therefore, engage in any abstract condemnation of war when justified by such an object. The Prime Minister referred to the case of Italy. No one could deny that the unification of Italy, which had given so much satisfaction, could not have been produced so soon, if at all in this generation, if force had not been employed. The Austrian Government did not withdraw its forces from Lom-bardy and Venice from any conviction of the injustice of its domination over the Italian people. Nor was it simply from a feeling of injustice on the part of the Bourbon dynasty that the Two Sicilies became lost to them. He would have been glad if in the course of recent years a desire had been shown by the British Government and Parliament for the promotion of the great work of liberation further in the East of Europe. All that brought him to the conclusion that if there was a desire to promote peace and the disarmament of Europe their efforts must be primarily devoted to the establishment of just international relations in Europe. It was in the establishment of justice between nations that they should have the best security for the establishment of peace between nations. As long as they had injustice between nations they could not possibly prevent a spirit of international antipathy from being maintained, nor avert the danger of war. The Government over which the Prime Minister formerly presided did something towards establishing partial disarmament between France and Germany. When the Franco-German War unhappily seemed to be certain they entered into a Treaty with the two principals in that war, by which they bound themselves by certain definite obligations to incur the risk of hostilities in order to maintain the just rights of Belgium. No act of the Government could be regarded with greater satisfaction. But the Prime Minister would forgive him when he said that he wished the conclusion of the Franco-German War had been accompanied by some similar act. They all knew perfectly well that there was no danger to the peace of Europe so formidable as the terms of the Treaty between France and Germany which closed that war. The French were not satisfied; the Germans were apprehensive. Therefore, the terms of that Treaty were a standing menace to Europe. He was speaking in ignorance of the efforts of Her Majesty's Government at the time; but he would have been glad if there had been some public record that they had approached the two belligerents and proffered to enter into some engagement which, upon a just termination of the war, should have bound the Powers of Europe to maintain that just termination. That would have been a real step towards peace. But, as he said before, he rose to move an Amendment to which he hoped Her Majesty's Government would assent, an Amendment which would enunciate the sentiments which had been heard with great satisfaction from the Prime Minister, and which might satisfy the ambition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard) by putting on record the policy of England on the matter. He begged to move to omit all the words after the word "that" in order to insert—

"In the opinion of this House, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government on all occasions, when circumstances admit of it, to recommend to Foreign Governments the reduction of European Armaments."

seconded the Amendment.

I should rather acquiesce than concur in the adoption of this Amendment, but simply upon the ground that I am not friendly, as a general rule, to the assertion by the House of Commons of propositions not susceptible of immediate application to practice. I doubt the policy of it. At the same time, I should not wish, in the present state of things, to go so far as to resist the passing of the Amendment, embodying, as it does, what is undoubtedly true, and what is likewise in itself of the highest importance. I therefore will not take any steps, even by moving the Previous Question, to prevent the adoption of the Amendment, if there be a general wish in the House to adopt it; but, on the ground I have stated, I confess I should not have recommended that course.

expressed the extreme satisfaction with which he had listened to what he must call the magnificent speech of the Prime Minister, which was one of the most eloquent expositions of the policy of peace he had ever heard, and its effect, he was sure, would be most beneficial. He would withdraw his Motion; but it would be very gratifying if the Prime Minister would allow the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liskeard to be passed without a division.