in moving that the Bill be now read the third time, said, he desired to make one or two observations. What he wished to say was simply this—that after having lost considerable time in endeavouring to bring on this measure, the promoters had at last succeeded in bringing it to its present stage, and that was principally due to the energy and activity of an hon. and gallant Friend who was at that moment accidentally absent. He wished to impress upon hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House that when they heard Irishmen complain of difficulties and wrongs and oppression which they did not seem to comprehend, and which they did not seem even to desire that others should comprehend, he wished them to be able to regard the present instance as an exemplification of these difficulties and wrongs. What were the circumstances of the present Bill? They were simply these. The County of Clare was surrounded on three sides with water, and was connected with the rest of Ireland by a short line running between Loughderg and the Atlantic; the county, consequently, formed a peninsula, and upon that peninsula was an immense extent of district which had been hitherto totally devoid of anything in the shape of railway accommodation. All of the efforts of the people of the locality had been exhausted in promoting short tramway or railway lines so as to bring the different districts into communication with each other. But they had been unable to provide the means; and, therefore, their efforts had been useless. This year they had been able to come to the House of Commons at enormous expense. Instead of being able to complete an inquiry on the spot, as they ought to have been, they had been compelled to waste the capital which would otherwise have gone in the construction of the works in promoting a measure in the Imperial Parliament which was closely, entirely, and exclusively connected with one county in Ireland. They had been obliged to come over here to London at enormous expense. Thousands and thousands of pounds had been expended in order to meet the preposterous demands of a set of English gentlemen who had probably never before heard of the locality; or, if they had heard of it, had only heard of it for the purpose of saying—"It is only an Irish affair, and one that is not worthy of our consideration." He wished hon. Members, before they separated, to understand that this was one of the grievances the Irish people complained of—namely, that they were obliged to spend thousands of pounds unnecessarily upon a matter which, if conducted in Ireland, would cost only a few pounds.

rose to put the following Question which stood in his name:—To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, On what authority he has stated that there are only 10,000 proprietors of land in Ireland, and of whom half are absentees; whether his attention has been given to the results of a Return moved for by himself, and presented to Parliament on the 11th of August 1876, by which it appears that the total number of owners of land in Ireland is 68,716; and also to those of a prior Return, presented to the House of Commons on the 23rd of April 1872, by which it appears that the total number of owners of property in country or rural districts in Ireland is 19,547, of whom 3,134 are stated to be either partially or wholly absentees, and whether he has any reason to doubt the accuracy of the Return, by which it appears that the proportion of absentees would be under one-sixth of the whole; and, whether the statement made by him is not wholly incompatible with such Returns?

asked the Speaker, Whether it was in Order to put such a Question, referring, as it did, to a statement which had been made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in that House during the present Session?

pointed out that, for all the information which could be gathered from the Question, the statement to which it related might have been made anywhere else.

said, the hon. Gentleman who put the Question would not deny that it referred to a statement which had been made in that House during the present Session.

If the Question relates to a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the present Session, it will be out of Order to put it. It is, however, for the hon. Member himself to say whether his Question does refer to a speech made in the present Session or not.

admitted that the Question did relate to a speech made in the House in the present Session.

Perhaps, Sir, I may be allowed to give an explanation, notwithstanding that the Question itself is ruled to be scarcely regular. My statement was not intended to be statistically accurate. The House will recollect that I was engaged in arguing that the great calamity of Ireland was the immense preponderance of the tenant over the proprietary class. I was speaking without having made reference, or, at least, any immediate or recent reference, to Returns, and said, as far as I can recollect, the tenants were 500,000, and the proprietary class 10,000 or 12,000. That is the way I have generally put it. Well, referring to the proprietary class, I do not take into consideration persons who hold one, two, three, four, or five acres of land; but I took a certain class which I understood to be, in a certain sense, socially and politically influential, by reason of its being a proprietary class; and although I did not explain it—and I am sorry I did not explain it, because I think my statement was a little open to misconception—I should have said I took as my numbers generally for the proprietary class the' persons who held land of 100 acres and upwards. During the last few years there has been a considerable addition to the smaller class of proprietors purchasing under the Church Commission and under the Land Act. But, taking it as I have stated it, it seems that of 100 acres and upwards there are over 13,000 proprietors in Ireland. I think I said there were from 10,000 to 12,000. I stated also that the tenants were about or over 500,000; but I think I understated the number a good deal, and I understated also the proprietors. But I believe, however accurately the figures are looked into, they will be equally potent for my argument—that the tenant class is so numerous, and the proprietary class so small, that the opinion of the tenant class is overwhelming in its power against that of the proprietary class, and that it would be an enormous advantage to Ireland if the proprietary class were 10 times as numerous as it is. I hope that explanation will be sufficient. I did not pretend to believe or know that I was precisely accurate, but I think that the argument I was using was a correct one; and I think, whatever the figures, the force of that argument will not be in any way impaired.

in rising to move as an Amendment—

"That, in the opinion of this House, no Census can he deemed satisfactory which does not indicate religious persuasion,"

said, he did not think the House would, on account of the small expense which an extra column in the Census Return would necessitate, refuse to do that which was done in every other country and in the United States. It was objected that it was an impertinent thing to ask a man to put down to what religious sect he belonged; but the House had already sanctioned the asking of that question in Ireland. He argued that it was of the utmost importance, in relation to many matters of legislation, that the House should have at its command authoritative statistics showing how many people belonged to the various religious sects in the country. He did not move that Amendment in any Party spirit, but simply as a matter of expediency, for another Census could not be taken for 10 years. It was also a question of truth, as to whether or not the House was to be placed in possession of reliable information; and, further, it was a question of consistency, the principle of a religious Census having already been applied to Ireland.

hoped the House would not entertain the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer). Interesting as the information asked for might be, any Return of the kind must be illusory. They were told that the Statistical Society favoured the inquiry; but that was not the only subject upon which that Association must remain unsatisfied. They were pointed to the example of Continental Powers. But he would remind the House that in Belgium, in Prance, in the German States, they not only obtained Returns of religious professions, but they subsidized Catholics and Protestants alike, and, he believed, Jews also. Concurrent endowment had a fitful advocacy in that House some 10 years ago; but none of them expected to hear it urged again; and, therefore, the Continental precedent must be abandoned. But, even there, the inquiry was delusive. For instance, Germany was notoriously the country of unbelievers; but they would find the inhabitants all classified under one or other form of religious profession. The like result would, doubtless, follow such an inquiry as that now suggested, and would, no doubt, give hon. Members opposite what they desired—a large apparent preponderance of adherents to the Established Church. He frankly confessed he objected to such a Return on that ground. Such a preponderance was unreal. It had been fairly assumed that the population might be roughly divided into three parts. One part attached itself to the Church, another to some form of Dissent, and a third was indifferent. In a recent debate, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had told them that a considerable portion of the community was indifferent to religious dogma. They might, and most of them did, lament the circumstance; but its truth could not be denied. He thought it would be placed beyond question by some statistics, which, having been carefully pre- pared for a purpose which was not in the slightest degree controversial, he would quote with great confidence. These tables related to the church and chapel accommodation provided in London for a population of 3,500,000. He believed that it was agreed that such a population required accommodation for 58 per cent. But the actual provision was only 1,120,000, or little more than half what would be required were the people habitual worshippers. It thus followed that, were the desolate churches of the City, and the very partially occupied temples in all parts of London filled to their utmost capacity, there would still be nearly one-half of the population outside, and, as he believed, indifferent or hostile. But these facts would not be elicited by the proposed inquiry. He had consulted the Report of the pauper lunatic asylums for the county in which he was a Visiting Justice, and he found that last year the inmates were classified thus—Established Church, 62 per cent; Dissenters, 28; Roman Catholics 8, and unascertained, 2 per cent. Now, it could not be denied that in Staffordshire, when the poorer classes attached themselves to a religious denomination, it was, in an overwhelming degree, to one or other form of Nonconformity. Yet the classification he had quoted showed what would be the Census Return. He had endeavoured to ascertain the religious professions of the inmates of their gaols; but the Reports of the Prison Commissioners were commendably silent on the point. They did, however, classify the soldiers committed to Millbank, and of these military delinquents in 1878, he found that 1,316 were described as of the Church of England, 104 were described as other Protestants, and 568 were Roman Catholics. Of course, he was not to be understood as maintaining that Church teaching made an undue proportion of imbeciles or of criminal soldiers. His contention simply was, that it was idle and impertinent to make to such people, or to those who had to answer for them, any appeal at all as to their religious profession. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had spoken of the value of an authentic Return of religious accommodation; and he (Mr. Woodall) would concur with him in saying that such a Return would be useful, and could be had in a way per- fectly free from objection. He and those sitting near him had no objection to a repetition of the process adopted in 1851. That process had, he knew, been impugned; but its fairness was beyond question, and was not challenged at the time. But, steadily marching on as they were in the recognition of perfect religious liberty, he hoped that the Government would steadfastly refuse to intrude into matters which were wholly beyond its province.

thought the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall) was the strongest argument he had yet heard, not only in support of the expediency, but of the absolute necessity of some trustworthy Return of the religious professions of the people of this country. The hon. Member, with a charming assumption on his part, said that, whereas the Nonconformists were a third of the people of England, only half of the remaining two-thirds attended a place of worship. There was a religious Census with a vengeance, evolved out of the internal conscience of the hon. Member! The idea of having a Return of persons attending various places of worship on the Census Sunday in 1851 was projected rather rudely, and Churchmen, very foolishly, resented it. The Dissenters, however, knew what was in the wind, and therefore attended in force. The Return, consequently, was a fallacious one; and yet, since 1851, it had been used up and down and from right to left ever since by the Dissenters, to show that they stood in an advantageous position as compared with Churchmen. They should never see the daylight in this question until they had something like an authentic enumeration. It was mere juggling with facts to call for a Return as to the number of seats in the churches and chapels of the United Kingdom. As he desired to see a vigorous, broad, and true Census, as near perfection as possible, he should most heartily support the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend.

thought it would save time if he at once stated the views of the Government on the subject. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) was anxious to have trustworthy religious statistics; but it was evident he had not sufficiently considered the difficulty of getting those trustworthy statistics. Voltaire said this was an awful country, for there were 100 religions, and only one sauce; but, judging from the two Tables placed in his hands, Voltaire would find a worse state of things now, for one Table said there were 146 religions in the country, and according to the other there were 164. In one Return many might be included who would also be included in another Return—the difference of the forms of religion to which many belonged being so slight that it was easy to claim for this or that Body, and that constituted one very strong objection against a religious Census. There were many persons in this country, who were by no means irreligious persons, who found themselves just on the border line between one Church and another, and who did not wish to be called upon to draw a sharp line, and take their stand on the one side or the other. He would put this case thus to the right hon. Gentleman himself. He (Mr. Dodson) and the right hon. Gentleman were members of the Established Church, and a very comprehensive Church it was. He, for one, rejoiced at it; but were there not within that Church different sections and different opinions, and were not the more active partizans of those different opinions nearer in many cases to the Body outside the Church, which they most resembled, than they were to the Body within the Church from which they most differed? [Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: Because it is a Church, and not a sect.] It was difficult to draw a line in this matter. If they were to have a complete Census they must distinguish the schools of thought within the Church, and show the distribution of its members under such denominations as "High," "Low," "Broad," "Evangelical," &c. It was all very well to say that the Church did not regard such differences among its members; but, for a Census to be perfect, it was absolutely necessary that such differences should be defined. He did not profess to prefer the argument of either side over that of the other; but he felt bound to say that he thought Nonconformists might very well object to the taking of a religious Census in the manner proposed, for a religious Census would give an apparent undue preponderance of numbers to the Established Church as compared with Nonconformists. This would be caused by the fact that great numbers of persons whose opinions were not clearly ascertained would be set down as members of the Church. But the real, great objection to a religious Census was briefly this—that a very large proportion of the community objected to such a Census being taken. ["No, no!" and "Hear, hear!"] It could not be denied that, in this country, the Nonconformists generally objected to the religious Census. Their reasons might be good or bad, logical or illogical; but the fact was indisputable, and it was a substantial argument against the proposal. Another point was this—that it was often difficult to get an accurate statement of religious conviction, even from persons willing to give it; and how much more difficult, therefore, would it be to get it from those who were unwilling. If only a comparatively small minority of people were to refuse to give full information, the statistics would be inaccurate and misleading. He therefore objected, in the interests of the Census itself, to the endeavour to force this religious Census upon reluctant persons, the inevitable consequence of which would be to involve the Census itself in odium, and to run the risk of its being made utterly worthless. If they gave a religious Census they might equally yield to a similar demand from the humanitarians, the economists, the philosophers, the physicians, the sanitarians, the politicians, and so on. There was another objection, though a smaller one, which he might mention. Hitherto, in this country, it had always taken a long time to prepare a Census, and he had been advocating the desirability of issuing the Census within a considerably shorter space of time than three years, his opinion being that stale statistics were like stale beer. Now, every column of information which the Government were pressed to have added to the Bill must cause delay in the publication of the Census. The voracity of statisticians was insatiable; and if only one-half of their proposals were entertained great expense and delay would be occasioned. The Government had brought in this Bill in the same form in which all other Census Bills had been brought in, with the single exception of the Bill of 1851, and they did not wish to depart from the lines upon which it was framed. He, therefore, must oppose the Amendment that had been submitted to the House.

said, he was not convinced by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) that the religious Census should not be taken. He was of opinion that when it became known that this country was, if not the only country, one of the few countries that refused to give an account of the religious opinions of their inhabitants, it would be thought that England was in a very illiberal frame of mind. The right hon. Gentleman said that in the Church there were various forms of opinion. It was because the Church of England was a Church and not a sect that it had many shades of opinion within it, and yet all subordinated to one definite form of faith. The right hon. Gentleman had altogether mistaken the terms of the proposition, which were of the most moderate and most modest character. Parliament was not asked by penalty to enforce a religious Census. All that was desired was that the people should have an opportunity, if they so pleased, of declaring their religious opinions. This opportunity was given in most foreign countries, and also in Ireland. Why, he asked, should it be possible to give it in Ireland, and impossible to give it in England and Scotland? He believed that the people of England, whether members of the Established Church, Dissenters, or Roman Catholics, were not ashamed of their religious opinions, or afraid to avow them; and to say that a moderate Motion of this nature was an attempt to terrorize over the people, and to force them to state their religious views, was an abuse of language. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the great objection to a religious Census was that a strong minority of our countrymen did not want it. But how did the right hon. Gentleman know that? He (Mr. J. G. Talbot) knew that certain Members of that House, who favoured them with their views of Nonconformity, were opposed to it; but he was of opinion that the members of the lower middle classes of this country who were firm in their adherence to Nonconformist principles would rejoice if an opportunity were given them of recording their religious views. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster once told him that his education was imperfect. Well, he (Mr. J. G. Talbot) came there as an ignoramus, and, in formâ pauperis, he asked for information. He wanted statistics of the religious opinions of the population, and would the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues give them? Until they obtained satisfactory religious statistics, he, for one, should not subscribe to the doctrine, of which they heard so much, that the Nonconformists amounted to one-half of the people of this country.

Sir, as this discussion has been going on I have been amusing myself by admiring the way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite leave out altogether the main and the true reason why they want this change in the Census. I do not deny that on this side of the House a corresponding argument has force, and that we, partly on the same ground, object to have the Census extended to religious opinions. It is mainly a political ground, and affecting that branch of politics connected with the Established Church. If I were to propose that there should be a clause in the Census or a column which should tell us exactly what was the religion of all persons now in Her Majesty's prisons—I will not extend it to lunatic asylums—the Return would come out that nine out of ten of all persons in prisons are not connected in any way with Nonconformist Bodies; that a certain proportion are connected with the Catholic Church, but that the great body of the prisoners in Great Britain are connected with the Church of England. That would be in accordance with the answers given by the persons who are now under confinement. Well, but you might answer that that is a very unfair thing to ask for, and that I could only ask for it for the purpose of using an argument that was false against the Established Church, and to make it appear that the members of the Established Church were more guilty of offending against the law than members of the Nonconformist Churches. I think your answer would be conclusive, and I should be condemned by the House and by the country for asking for a Return of that nature to be used for such a purpose. Well, then, what do you ask for this Return for? We know perfectly well, and you know, only you have not got the grace and the candour to state it. You objected to the Return that was given in 1851.

I rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman repeats the word "You," when he ought, I think, to address the Speaker. ["Order!"]

Hon. Gentlemen opposite objected to the Census of 1851. I am not proposing that that should be repeated; but, at any rate, there was a basis of fact connected with the whole matter of that Return. I do not think that is the best way of taking the Return of those who attend church on a particular Sunday morning. I do not think there is anything in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that there are so many services in the church. There are just as many services in the chapels, and you may rely upon it that the people who do not go to church or chapel on a Sunday morning do not, as a rule, go much at any other time. Besides, it would be possible, and perhaps it would be universal on that particular Sunday, that the clergymen and the ministers would endeavour to get as many people to go to church on that morning as possible; and, therefore, the whole Return would not be very accurate as to the general attendance at places of worship. But you might do another thing, which is what is done in the United States, The hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot) just now said we were behind every other country in the world. I read a very interesting article two or three days ago in The Morning Post on this very question. The writer stated what was the mode of taking the Census in the United States, and the plan was this. They gave a list of all the places of worship, and of all the sects of all the Churches; calling them, of course, by the names which the congregations give themselves. Then there is also a list or column of the seats—that is, the room or accommodation in every place of worship. And then, besides this, there was an estimate of the value of the property of the churches, schools, and buildings connected with the congregations in all cases. That is the Census which they have in the United States. They do not ask people what their opinions are. The thing is offensive and insolent, and in this country I believe it will never be agreed to.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman is it insolent in Ireland?

I do not say it is insolent in Ireland, if the Irish people have been willing to have it. We know that there it had a certain political object; and the political object was that which the Roman Catholic Church, of course, found to be greatly in its favour. The Roman Catholics are the great majority in Ireland, and the division line between one religion and another is so marked that there is nothing like the difficulty in obtaining a Census of that kind that there would be in England. That is a thing that must be notorious to all of us. But why is it that, if you want to have a Census or anything touching religion, you do not adopt the course taken in the United States, a country which, of all others, is the most careful and the most wide-reaching in the statistics which it obtains of its population? There they are content with the number of the places of worship, the accommodation in each, and the value of the property which is comprised in the particular buildings of a particular congregation or church. That you might have; and, so far, it would be reasonable. Someone said the Social Science people recommended a religious Census. No doubt, someone, for political reasons, got some person in the Social Science Association to propose that a religious Census should be taken; and so omni-verous for information is that body that there is not the least doubt, if it were proposed that there should be a Census of all the people in the country with red hair, they would approve of it, and get some Member of that House to make the proposition. The hon. Gentleman opposite said he did not believe that a majority, or even a large minority, of the people of this country are opposed to this religious Census. Well, I think he could not have made a greater mistake. I will undertake to say that the view taken of this question in past years and now by those who represent Nonconformist constituencies in this country is supported, I may say, by almost the unanimous opinion of all the Nonconformist people. They would not object to that which would be fair—namely, an account of the churches and the accommodation, and the value, or even of the people who attend them. But to go to every house, and ask, under this clause—"What is your religion?" Well, we know, of course, what, I will not say millions, but hundreds of thousands, of householders would say. One man would say—"Well, I have not been to church since I married, and another would say—"I don't believe I have been there since I was christened." But in either case, if he was asked under this clause, as a matter of course the word "Church" would be that which would immediately present itself to its mind; and the word "Church," if he made any answer at all, would be his answer. Now, here, in this Census Bill, is a clause—the hon. Member opposite has never read it—which enacts that—

"Every person refusing to answer or giving a wilfully false answer to such questions or any of them"—

one of them being the question which the hon. Gentleman proposes to include in the Bill—

"Shall for every such refusal or wilfully false answer forfeit a sum not exceeding five pounds, nor less than twenty shilling's."

I ask the House whether it is possible that a proposition of this kind can be introduced into this Bill—whether you can send your Census agents into every house in the country to ask, under a penalty of from £1 to £5, "What is your religion?" or "What is the place of worship you go to?" The thing is absolutely impossible; and the House has over and over again, when this question has been discussed, decided against it by such an expression of feeling that even the Leaders of the Party opposite did not themselves dare to propose such a measure to the House when they were in Office. I hope, Sir, that, on this occasion, the decision of the House will be so expressed that we shall never again in our time hear of a proposition which I am of opinion has no honest intention, and which, if it were adopted, would, I am sure, introduce throughout the country a state of feeling which I think hon. Gentlemen opposite would very soon have great cause to regret.

said, it was painful to him to find that one so distinguished as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster could never speak in that House on any subject without infusing into his utterances something of bitterness. The right hon. Gentleman, he might add, had a habit, instead of addressing himself to the Chair, of addressing those who sat opposite to him as "you." That, of itself, was not very pleasant; because one felt, when addressed in such a way, that something unkind was coming. What did the right hon. Gentleman say? He said they had not the courage to tell the truth. Now, that was very kind, very charitable, and very Christian of the right hon. Gentleman. The proposition made by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer) was not to compel people to answer questions under a penalty, as the Chancellor of the Duchy put it, but it was a permissive proposal. He himself saw no reason why people should not be asked to-day whether they belonged to the Church of England or to the Nonconformists. When the right hon. Gentleman talked about questions of the kind being insolent, he would remind him that that was rather a curious epithet to apply to an inquiry as to a matter which every act of his life revealed to his friends and the public. They ought to have a proper Census. The Census in 1851 was so favourable to the Dissenters that they did not want to have another which was likely to be unfavourable. As to insolent questions, it was much more insolent to the ladies to ask them to state their ages than to ask their religion. What they wanted was the truth, and the people might be allowed to answer the question as to religion or not, freely, as they pleased. He was afraid, however, that they could not expect any freedom now from the Liberal Party. His own belief was that one of the chief reasons why members of the Nonconformist Body were so much opposed to a religious Census was that they were so pleased with the results of the Census taken in 1851 that they did not like to incur the risk of having a different result obtained.

said, he had a similar Amendment on the Scotch Census Bill; but it would be convenient to settle the matter on the present Motion. With regard to the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Gentleman had gone wide of the mark. He had, with characteristic insolence, charged the Members of the Established Church with not having the grace to acknowledge that the real reason why they were in favour of taking a religious Census was that they believed the result would tell in their favour. Now, there could be no doubt that if the question of disestablishing the Church were to be raised in that House, one of the first questions which would be asked was what were the comparative numbers which belonged to it and to other religious denominations; and that being so, it was but reasonable, he contended, that the facts should be accurately ascertained. The right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that it would be offensive to ask a Nonconformist in this country what religion he professed; but he failed to understand how that could be insolent and offensive in England which was done in the case of our Colonists, as well as in the case of 5,500,000 inhabitants in Ireland and in foreign countries. He would further point out that the Statistical Society, whose members were free from all suspicion of ecclesiastical bias, 10 years ago passed a resolution praying the Government of the day to add to the Census a religious column. He would, moreover, ask the right hon. Gentleman why it should not be honest to ask an English Nonconformist what his religious opinions were while he lived in this country, and perfectly right and honest to do so when he became a resident of Canada? He hoped the Government would throw aside all consideration of the future conflicts of religious parties, and allow these important statistics to be collected.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) had had his usual fling at the Liberation Society. He had intimated that day that any statistics which might be propagated by the Liberation Society were not worthy of credence. [Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: Hear, hear!] He would respectfully submit to him that it would be as well, perhaps, that he should be less liberal of his scorn in regard to a body of Christian gentlemen, of whom he (Mr. Beresford Hope) knew very little, except that they differed from him on certain ecclesiastical questions; and it might occur to him, in the exercise of his Christian charity, that persons might differ from him on these questions without being either fools or knaves. Certainly, there were members of the Liberation Society in that House—he (Mr. H. Richard) was one of them—who resented his offensive imputations. Now, if it were desirable to have a knowledge of the proportionate number of the different denominations in that country, it was scarcely possible to conceive of a more trustworthy way of obtaining that information than by such a Census as they had in 1851, when Returns were made of the number of places of worship belonging to each denomination, the number of sittings provided by each, and the number of attendants at the most numerously-attended service on a particular Sunday. The result of that inquiry was to show that there were in England and Wales 34,467 places of worship, with 10,212,563 sittings, of which 14,077, with 5,317,915 sittings, were provided by the Church of England, and 20,320 places of worship with 4,894,648 sittings provided by the various Bodies outside the Established Church. The number of attendants at the most numerously attended service was for the Established Church 2,971,258, and for Dissenting places of worship 3,384,964. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge had blown upon these statistics as he always did. He referred to them as "superstitious traditions;" and hinted that, while the Church had been kept in ignorance of what was coming, the Dissenters were in the secret. There was no foundation whatever for such an insinuation. The Nonconformists knew nothing whatever about the Census of religious worship until the papers were in their hands. What ground was there for distrusting the statistics thus obtained? By whom was that inquiry made? The work of the Census was in the hands of more than 30,000 agents called enumerators, appointed by the Government. Did the right hon. Gentleman allege that these enumerators were Nonconformists? Such an allegation would be fatal to his contention; for what he wanted to establish was that the members of the Church of England were an immense majority of the people of England. But if those 30,000 enumerators were Nonconformists, it must have been because the Nonconformists were enormously preponderant in the population; for he (Mr. H. Richard) could assure the right hon. Gentleman that no Government, whether Liberal or Conservative, ever appointed a Nonconformist to any office if a Churchman could be found to do the work. And, in point of fact, he had no doubt the great majority of the enumerators were Churchmen, and not at all disposed unduly to favour the Dissenters. But by whom were the Returns made? As regarded the Church of England, by the clergy themselves. And did they refuse their co-operation? The following was the testimony of Mr. Horace Mann on that point:—

"The extent to which Returns, in answer to this application were received, affords abundant evidences of the hearty co-operation of the clergy and the ministers of all denominations in this voluntary labour. Such Returns have been received from 14,077 churches belonging to the Church of England, and from 20,390 places of worship belonging to all other religious Bodies. From this simple fact alone it will be manifest that these Returns are nearly as complete as could be wished for, and that now, for the first time, there is given to the country a full picture of the state of its religion, as exhibited by its religious institutions."

No doubt, that Census was a startling revelation to the members of the Church of England. They had been paying very little heed to the remarkable growth of the Nonconformists during the preceding half century, and they were discomfited, and almost panic-stricken. The revelation ought to have been salutary to them; and if they had looked upon it as Christians, and not as Churchmen, it might have been in one sense, at least, satisfactory; for it showed to them that, while the Church had failed to meet the spiritual wants of the nation, others had stepped in, and, by their voluntary exertions, had provided the means of religious instruction and worship for millions of people whose requirements the Church had failed to overtake. But, unfortunately, they preferred to look upon the matter from a sectarian, rather than from a Christian point of view. And so they did all in their power to invalidate the trustworthiness of the Returns. The late Bishop Wilberforce especially, who, though, in many respects, a very able and admirable man, was singularly narrow in his ecclesiastical sympathies, raised a great clamour against the Returns, and tried hard to discredit them. But he failed absolutely, and the agitation tended rather to confirm the conviction of their substantial accuracy. For it led, among other things, to a Question being put in this House by Mr. Apsley Pellatt, who was Member for Southwark, and who asked Lord Palmerston, who was then Home Secretary—

"Whether any recent inquiry had been made into the accuracy of the Returns of the Registrar General; and whether, in consequence, any doubt existed as to their fairness?"

To which Lord Palmerston replied—

"That he had made inquiries on the subject, and he entertained no doubt as to the accuracy of the Returns with regard to all the facts to which they had referred…He reposed entire confidence in the general accuracy of the Returns, and in the diligence and care of those under whose arrangements they had been made, by whom, he believed, every means had been taken to render their statements as accurate as possible."

The right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this Bill (Mr. Dodson) had said that the Nonconformists were opposed to the proposal for a Census of religious profession. But hon. Gentlemen opposite denied that. It was very amusing to him to observe how hon. Gentlemen opposite undertook to answer for the Nonconformists. There were a good many Nonconformists in that House, and some sent especially to represent the Nonconformists. But they were constantly told that they did not know anything about their views, but that hon. Gentlemen opposite did; and that day the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot), of all men living, had undertaken to answer for the Nonconformists in that matter. His (Mr. H. Richard's) right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill was perfectly right. They did object entirely to the proposal for a Census of religious profession. They objected to it on principle, because they denied the right of the State to make inquisition into the religious opinions of the people. If anyone were to propose a Census of political opinion, and that columns should be prepared, under which every man should return whether he was a Conservative, or Liberal- Conservative, or Liberal, or Radical, or Home Ruler, or Fenian, he would be at once laughed out of Court with scorn. But to demand a man's religious opinions would be a still greater invasion of the liberty of the subject. Besides which, such a Return would be absolutely misleading. Hon. Gentlemen opposite knew, as well as he did, and, no doubt, deplored as sincerely as he did, the fact that there were millions of people in this country who belonged to no Church, who never frequented any place of worship, who were outside all our religious organizations. And, no doubt, tens of thousands of those, ashamed or unwilling to acknowledge the fact, would enrol themselves as Churchmen, and so swell, by a purely fictitious Return, the apparent numbers of the members of the Church of England. No doubt, it was for the sake of some such miserable triumph as that, that hon. Gentlemen opposite so strenuously contend for that kind of Census. But they would gain very little real strength by such a device. Many of the adherents would prove very much like the man of whom he (Mr. H. Richard) had heard, who, when committed to prison for some crime, was asked—as he believed was, at one time, the custom of our prisons—"Of what religion are you, my man?" and who drew himself up in great indignation, and exclaimed—"Religion, sir; I am of no religion; I belong to the Church of England." And so, I suspect, many of the adherents whom the hon. Gentleman opposite would gain by the process he suggests would be of the same class—men who were of no religion, but who belonged to the Church of England. He was glad the Government resisted the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; and he need not, he was sure, express a hope that they would firmly adhere to their opposition.

said, the hon. and gallant Member who introduced the Motion desired to be so moderate that he would not have a penalty imposed for refusing to answer; but, on that very ground, the Returns must be regarded as misleading, and the Census would not at all effect the object the hon. and gallant Gentleman had in view. They knew that Nonconformists objected to such a Return; and, knowing their feeling on this question, he thought they might fairly come to the conclusion that not a large number of them would consent to state what their religion was. Therefore, the proposed Return would not be of a trustworthy character. The hon. Member did not propose to put a penalty on a person who refused to state what his religion was. He thought the hon. Member did not go far enough. If he desired a religious Census he ought to propose to put a penalty on every person who refused to state his religion. But he thought the people of this country would strongly object to a penalty for such a purpose. Was religious profession a matter for the State to inquire into? He held it was not.

observed, that in Ireland a Return would be asked for of people's religious profession.

said, he knew that there was a Schedule for Ireland, in which it was proposed to ask what people's religious opinion was in that country; but they knew that Ireland was in a very different state from England. The vast majority in Ireland were of one religion, and there was no objection on the part of the minority to such a Census. In England, they had a feeling on the part of the minority against such a Census; and, therefore, he thought the Government were perfectly justified in refusing to accede to the proposition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It was said that when a Nonconformist went to Canada, Victoria, or any other of our Colonies, he was quite willing to join in a religious Census. The reason why he objected to do so here was because there was an Established Church here; but there was no Established Church in the Colonies. The Return asked for by the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be misleading, because many who really belonged to no religion at all would say that they belonged to the Established Church. He thought it was very satisfactory that this matter had been discussed in a moderate tone. He hoped the Speaker would now be allowed to leave the Chair.

said, that he was very sorry to stand between the House and a division; but as the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had stated that he did not intend to press his Amendment on the third reading of the Scottish Census Bill, but to accept the decision which the House might come to on the present Resolution, as applicable to the case of Scotland also, he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) trusted the House would not object to a Scotch Member saying a few words on the question. He thought that the strongest argument brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer), in support of his Resolution, was the fact that a religious Census was to be taken in Ireland. There were, indeed, circumstances which rendered a religious Census less objectionable in Ireland than in England or Scotland; but he did not think that these were sufficient to show that such a Census should be taken in Ireland, and he regretted that the Government had made provision for such a Census in that country. The hon. and gallant Member said that the House was unanimous in agreeing to a religious Census for Ireland. That was a mistake, however, for an Amendment had been moved by an Irish Member. He (Mr. Dick-Peddie) had the honour of supporting that Amendment, and a division was taken upon it. He did not intend to go into any of the more obvious arguments against the Census, founded on the impossibility of getting accurate and reliable Returns; but he wished to say a few words in reply to the argument that a religious Census was needed as a guide for legislation in ecclesiastical political matters. The spirit of the Motion which had been put on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard), who was not then present to move it, was that a Census was needed as an aid in legislation. There could be no doubt that the question most prominent in the minds of hon. Gentlemen, when speaking in this way, was that of Disestablishment. Now, above all things, he objected to the decision of that question being made, to any extent, to depend on the Returns of a religious Census. He did so, not only because the results could not be relied on as accurately showing the relative strength of religious Bodies, but because, even if the Returns were accurate, it would be wrong to infer from the relative numbers of Established and Dissenting Churches the relative strength of opinion on Disestablishment. He knew that, in Scotland, there were Dissenters who were in favour of the principle of an Establishment; and some even who were not opposed to the existence of the present Established Church; but there were many more members of the Established Church who were quite prepared for the severance of its connection with the State. That had been brought out remarkably in the late General Election in Scotland. At that Election the Disestablishment Question was not raised by the Dissenters of Scotland, not be- cause they were indifferent to it, but because they did not wish to divert the attention of the country from the more urgent, if not more important, issues then before it. But the question was raised in almost every constituency by the Conservative and Church Party, who were practically one in Scotland. What was the result? It was that the Church and the Conservative Party were represented in that House by the miserable minority of 7 out of 60 Scotch Members. When he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) said a miserable minority, he did not refer to the quality of the Conservative Members, which was excellent, but to the quantity. If they endeavoured to decide the question of Disestablishment by Census Returns, they might be assured they were going on a wrong basis. That was a question that ought not to be determined by numbers, but by principles. It was a question of right or wrong, not of counting heads; and he considered that the rights of conscience were as much to be regarded as the rights of property. They had heard much in that House lately of the rights of property—and any proposal to make these dependent on majorities would be indignantly rejected by that House—but he thought that the principle of religious equality and the rights of conscience were as little to be subjected to the results of a Census as the rights of property in land, or any other property whatever. He was aware, however, that practically the question of Disestablishment must, to some extent, be determined by majorities; but the opinion of the people should be ascertained not by a Census such as that proposed, but at the polling booth; and he believed that at the next General Election in Scotland an opportunity of ascertaining it there must be given. If there was to be a religious Census at all, it ought to be taken on the American system which had been described by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The true test of the relative strength of religious denominations was the amount of interest which their members took in them, and the extent of the provision which that interest led them to take in the extending of their denomination. The man who was ready to put his hand in his pocket in furthering the interests of his religion was far more worthy of consideration, in dealing with political ecclesiastical questions, than the man who was merely a nominal member of a Church. He need only add that to attempt such a Census as was proposed would be offensive to the Scotch people. If it were attempted to enforce it by a penalty, it would be all but universally strenuously resisted. If the Return were asked without a penalty it would be neglected. He trusted that the House would, by an overwhelming majority, resist the proposals of those who were seeking to bolster up the Church of England by Returns which would credit it with the great bulk of all who either had no religion at all, or who, having so little interest in it as not to connect themselves with any Church, would return themselves as members of the Established Church.

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had expressed a hope that, by an overwhelming majority, this Motion for ascertaining by some means the religious opinions of the people, as was done in other countries, would be rejected. The hon. Member was one of the Democratic Party in that House, and the democratic test was the test of numbers; but he had utterly refused to apply that test to the religious opinions of the people. Why was that? He had consented to the test being applied to Ireland, where there was, not an Established Church, but where there was a dominant Church. He refused to have that test applied to England, where there was an Established Church, which he was seeking to disestablish. What was his argument with respect to Scotland? There was an Established Church in Scotland, and he immediately applied the numerical test. He said there was a miserable minority of Members in that House connected with that Church. He instantly applied the numerical test, and applied it to the question of the Ecclesiastical Establishment. Could anything be more totally inconsistent? He (Mr. Newdegate) said nothing of the form of obtaining the information that they needed. If they could have nothing else, let them adopt the system of the United States, as recommended by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Why not apply that? Were they for secrecy in voting and secrecy in everything else? Were they to set this educational example in a country where they were spending millions yearly for education, that they would act without education, that the House of Commons would not afford itself the means of education and information according to the only test which the majority of that House accepted—the numerical test? He did not intend to speak on this question; but he could not help saying, with regard to the arguments against not only this Motion before the House, but the American mode of obtaining the requisite information, that if this House refused all information it would be a most extraordinary as well as an inconsistent proceeding on the part of an Assembly which boasted of its intellectual superiority.

said, it was assumed very unjustly, as regarded the Dissenters in England and Scotland, that they objected to a true and accurate Census, if such a Census could be obtained, and, therefore, refused to give their assent to such a proposal. He (Mr. M'Laren) asserted that that was begging the question altogether. The Nonconformists objected to that Census, because they believed, rightly or wrongly, that it would not be an accurate one. Just to illustrate his argument, he might say that, over and over again, it had been stated that in the City of Glasgow there were 100,000 persons out of 500,000 who never entered a place of worship, and who belonged to no denomination. The Nonconformists believed, rightly or wrongly, that, assuming the fact of that 100,000 people to be correct, every one of them would have his name put down as belonging to the Established Church. And the reason was that no one liked to put himself down as a heathen, or a man of no religion; and the Census papers would not contain a column for people of no religion. That being the case, these 100,000 persons would be obliged to put themselves down as something or other, and they would naturally say they belonged to the Established Church. The objections that had been taken to the expense and trouble of such a Census had, he was afraid, not been fully realized. No doubt, the Schedule left in each house would only have one religious column. But the condensed register for each district would require to have as many columns as there were religious sects in the town or district in which the Census was taken. Since this discussion had arisen, he had looked into an authoritative publication; and he found that, in the City which he had the honour to represent, there were 19 different denominations having places of worship. Though it was quite true that there would be only one column in each house Return, the fact was that 19 columns would have to be provided for each district Registrar who had to condense the house Returns for the Census of Edinburgh. Then, if these city and the country districts were all amalgamated into one general Return for the country, 30 or 40 columns might be required, while the general national register would require 140 or 150 columns, in order to include all the different denominations in existence according to the statistics of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. A religious Census had been taken of the City of Edinburgh many years ago, at which he had assisted; and from all the information he then obtained—and from other sources of information—he believed that the Census of church attendance taken in 1851, although imperfect, was, upon the whole, a thoroughly reliable one, and it was regarded as such generally. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman opposite would move for the insertion of columns to show the attendance at places of worship of each denomination, and the number of such places, he would gladly support such a proposal. In the case of Ireland, which had been referred to, he understood that, because there was a dominant Established Church, the great body of the people at first applied for a religious Census, in order to show the injustice that was done to them in consequence of their great majority. The circumstances in Ireland were such that there was not the same chance of misrepresentation as such a Census in England or Scotland would be liable to. The hon. Gentleman next pointed out that in the case of Government officials, including the Army, Police, prison officers, and prisoners, there might be some apology for asking questions regarding their religious opinions; but that in the case of Nonconformists who were not in the pay of the Government, and asked nothing from the Government, and would take nothing from the Government, it was impossible to justify such an inquiry.

said, it was clear, from what had been said, that the members of the Liberation Society, whose object it was to destroy the Church of England, did not think it would be for their benefit to obtain the truth in this matter. If they did not connive at the suggestio falsi, they were, at all events, not averse to the suppressio veri. He had no doubt, for his own part, but that the Return on the question of religious belief would be perfectly trustworthy. He was rather sorry to see so few Irish Members present; for if a religious Census was to be made in Ireland, and not in England, they might—and in this case very properly—make another Irish grievance of it. He should support the Amendment.

said, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), he begged to move in page 6, after Clause 17, to insert the following Clause:—

said, he was sorry that he was unable to accept the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend opposite. The proposal really was that a certain number of persons should be counted twice over. If this proposition was a fair one as regarded the City of London, it was also a fair one as regarded other places. The same principle applied everywhere. In other parts of the Metropolis, in Liverpool, in Manchester, and in all large cities, there were a considerable number of persons who, more or less, worked in the towns whose occupations were in the towns in the day time, but who lived out of them, going away at night, and residing at places in the country. These persons were enumerated, according to the principles of the Census, where they lived; and he did not see why a single exception should be made in the case of the City of London. He thought he could understand the reason why this exception was asked. The City of London was naturally anxious to prove that it had a considerable population. It might have been, in the past, that there were good reasons why it should be able to make out for itself a case as possessor of a large population, and he could understand that there might be reasons in the future to make it also desirable that it should appear still to be the possessor of a large population; but he thought that the hon. Member who had moved the insertion of this clause had himself given a reason why it was not necessary. He (Mr. J. G. Talbot) said that the City of London had no difficulty in ascertaining the number of its population for themselves if they required a record. They had the means at their disposal, and exceptional arrangements which they had already made use of. Why should they not have their own Census? He did not think it fair in regard to other places that this exceptional duty should be taken upon itself by the Government and placed upon the Census enumeration. Therefore, he must adhere to the present provisions of the Bill, and felt compelled to oppose the proposition now submitted to the Committee.

said, he must confess that he was disappointed with the answer of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. It seemed to him that this proposition was not only a reasonable one, but a possible one. Like his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot), he could not speak with first-hand authority except from the general interest one took in all this class of statistics. He did not understand that this day Census for the City of London was to be any trouble to the Government enumerators or to his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board; but it was to be conducted by the City, and it only sued to be conducted under the aegis of the Local Government Board, and, as far as he could see, to receive the imprimatur of a State document or of a Blue Book. This, he thought, was a reasonable thing for the City to ask, considering the valuable information such a Return would contain. His right hon. Friend said that these day sojourners in the City would be enumerated twice over in the Census. That he entirely denied. No one would be enumerated twice over so as to contribute two, not one, to the gross Return of the national population. Nobody would be included twice over in the Government Census, for that, as he understood it, would be published absolutely and independently of this civic record. This would only be a supplementary volume, and the names and numbers appearing in it would be specially conditioned. Of course, with or without any special process of indication, it must be known that the 500,000, 600,000, or 800,000 persons who were in the City of London really appeared in the general Census Returns somehow or other—some in Middlesex, some in Surrey, some in Kent, and so on all round. But in no sense would it be more than the ordinary night population of the City, as it appeared in the Census of 1871, 1861, and every preceding period which the Government book would present. The day Return would be a new aspect of the City. It would give its real living population for the first time, and in a form never before attempted. He must say that he did not think the objection of his right hon. Friend had any foundation in fact. Then it was said, cui bono? His right hon. Friend had given an answer. He used the plea that Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and other large towns would have the right to have a similar Census on similar terms. But, on the other hand, his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford had explained—although the President of the Local Government Board did not seem to have noticed the point—that the conditions of these towns were absolutely different from that of London. They were centres of population in the form of an unbroken whole. But supposing that Manchester was to be divided into wards, similar to the Metropolitan boroughs of London, and suppose that in that way the heart of Manchester, around the new Town Hall, for instance, where the chief wealth of Manchester circulated, and its chief business was done, found that it was apparently distanced, and so considered that it would be to its advantage to have a seporate day Census—then, he said, that Manchester had a right to demand that such a Census should be taken, on the condition of paying for it. Why was this asked on behalf of the City of London? Every man, and, indeed, every child, in the land knew that the City of London was an exceptional institution. It was the centre of the great commercial and financial life of the people. There was the Bank of England, the Royal Exchange, the Stock Exchange, the opulent City Banks, and the counting-houses of the great merchants; there was also the General Post Office—all, together, forming one great institution. There were also the lawyers in the Temple. The City was a creation which represented more brain work, more hand work, more circulation of money, more of that life which made the world's civilization than any other similar num- ber of acres over the whole wide universe could represent. It was not, therefore, surprising that this wonderful City of London should feel indignant that in its real representation it was shut out of the Census, and was represented in the enumeration by a few feeble old women and broken-down old men, who took care of the counting-houses and warehouses during the night, and that the merchant princes and great citizens, all the men who made the life and wealth of the City should be excluded from it. The City of London demanded to have this state of things altered. It would be no trouble to the Government. The City would undertake all the necessary work, and they only asked for the imprimatur of the Government in giving that essential addition to the world's knowledge. He was astonished at his right hon. Friend's refusal, and he hoped that the Committee would think differently.

said, he thought there was a complete answer to his right hon. Friend. If that work was not to be done by the enumerators of the Government, the Government could not undertake to be responsible for it, or to give it its imprimatur when it was done. In regard to the population of the City, he might be allowed to point out this fact. He believed that in the City—and he could be corrected if he was wrong—a good many houses formerly occupied by the working classes had been pulled down and warehouses erected, and, therefore, the population was not now so large as it might have been.

said, that the President of the Local Government Board had hardly treated the proposal fairly. It was only asked that the work of collecting a day Census should be carried out under the sanction of the Local Government Board. If it was undertaken at all, it was desirable that it should the have imprimatur of the Local Government Board; but the expense of taking it, the persons by whom it would be taken, and the whole trouble and expense of taking it, would be undertaken by the City of London. He was somewhat surprised that a Liberal Government should refuse so extremely moderate a demand, and should refuse to allow information to be taken in this way which would be so valuable to the whole world. The right hon. Gentleman said why should not the same thing be done in regard to Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and other large towns? Why not? It was difficult to say what might happen in the case of Liverpool, Manchester, and other large towns 10 or 20 years hence, because, if the removal of the population from the towns into the country went on for the next 20 or 30 years at the same rate that it had been going on during the last 20 or 30 years, a Census taken as it was now would be utterly fallacious. It would show that the whole population of England was living not in the towns, but in the country, and the towns would have dwindled away from their present population into an uninhabited wilderness. That would be the result of a nocturnal Census 20 years hence. A day Census was now asked for for the City of London, because it was a place where that process was going on to the greatest extent. It was going on in Liverpool and Manchester, but not to the same extent as in London. If they took the population of Liverpool and Manchester at night they still appeared to be populous towns, although a considerable number of the population went into the country when their day's business was over. Still, the numbers who left these large towns at night were not so considerable as to prevent the towns themselves from figuring in the Census Returns as populous places. In the City of London it was very different. The City of London was a busy and populous place during the day—the place where the greatest traffic and the largest crowds in the world were to be seen. But the City of London at night was a mere solitary wilderness; and if there was only a nocturnal Census to be taken it would appear that the City of London, instead of being a populous and thriving place, sunk down into the condition of a decayed and uninhabited desert. It was to prevent a misapprehension arising in that way that the City of London was anxious to show what the real population of the City was. He did not think that that was a desire that ought to be discouraged by a Liberal Government of this country. They desired to give information to the world which the world would be glad to receive, not only on the authority of a City officer, but in a way that would show it had received the sanction of a Local Government Board, and that it was, therefore, impressed with the authority of the Government The whole expense was to be borne by the City; the whole trouble was to be undertaken by the City; and all that was asked for from the Government was so much supervision and trouble in the matter as would induce the whole world to say the Census was an honest Census and deserving of complete reliance. He did hope that the Committee would put a little pressure upon the President of the Local Government Board and certain other hon. Members, and support the reasonable demand which was made. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would be induced to re-consider his decision.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would be induced to give way, by assenting to the appeal of the City to be allowed to take a day Census. Three years ago he suggested that such a Census Bill as was now proposed, in order that ample time might be obtained for considering the various proposals connected with the Census, such as the one in the City now requested, should be taken; and he urged it the more confidently because he altogether denied that it would involve any interference with the general Census of the country. Indeed, a general Census taken in the City at 12 o'clock in the day, and another in the night time, would be very valuable; and the two Returns would not in the slightest degree clash. To prove that the Local Government Board would have no trouble in the matter, he might say that Returns of the soldiers in the Army and of the sailors in the Navy were obtained in this way by a separate and district process. He thought it hardly just and fair to deny this request when the City of London came forward with a proposition at the cost of the City to take a Census of that kind, and to insinuate that it had a political object. Let the City have a political object, and, if they liked to try and multiply votes for Members to serve in Parliament, then let Parliament declare that only one vote could be given for one Member, and let the person entitled to vote choose whether he would vote for the Member for the City, or vote in the locality in which he resided. In that way, they would get rid of the real objection to the present proposal of the City in favour of a day Census. He sincerely hoped that hon. Members on this side of the House would divide in favour of the clauses proposed by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford.

was exceedingly glad to find that hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House could be found ready to support that most modest and reasonable proposal. Let them have the truth in both cases, both as regarded the population in the day time and at night. Let them know exactly what was the facts as regarded the population of the City of London, without considering how it might be either politically or otherwise. He had not risen so much to give assent to the proposal, as to ask if he should be in Order in moving a small Amendment, which would, he thought, remove the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board?

The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot move an Amendment until after the clause has been read a second time.

thought he should not be out of Order in stating the object of his Amendment. It was, at the end of line 5, to add these words—"Showing how many of such persons are resident and how many are non-resident therein." That would prevent any objection the right hon. Gentleman could take in regard to a man being counted twice over. He should wish to propose another Amendment, that the day for taking the Census should not be left at the discretion of the Local Government Board, but that it should be Monday, the 4th of April.

did hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not give way to "this most modest proposal" on the part of the most modest Corporation in this country. Whenever a Bill was brought in that was intended to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, the City of London stepped in and asked for some sort of exceptional favour in its behalf. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) said that the City of London had a perfect right to do that. He denied that it had a perfect right to do it. He did not consider that the City of London was in any way better than any other corporation in the country. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) told them that if the proposal was not accepted, people would go away with the erroneous notion that the City of London was an uninhabited desert. Now, did he really consider that that was an argument which ought to be put before the Committee? Did not everyone perfectly well know that at the present moment the City of London in the day time was filled with large crowds of people who were generally absent at night? It was mere idle curiosity to ask for a separate Census. There was no real object to be gained in trying to prove to the country that the City was populated in the day time. Certain gentlemen wanted this for their own purposes, and they would not say what those purposes were. Their object was something beyond having an official imprimatur on the number of persons who were in the City of London in the day time. If the right hon. Gentleman did give way, he should take it into serious consideration whether he should not put at least 50 Amendments on the Bill. He had the honour to represent a large city. There were many curious points in regard to that city which he would like to have generally circulated through the medium of the Census Returns. But he did not think there would be any necessity to do so. He could only say that if the right hon. Gentleman did give way, he must bear in mind that he would have to look in the face 50 Amendments which he (Mr. Labouchere) would have to submit.

said, he could not help thinking that there was some slight difference between the City of London and the town of Northampton. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that this was a mere piece of caprice, and a personal matter, on the part of the City of London. The City of London was asking for this information on public grounds. There was but one City of London in the world, as had been well described over and over again. He could not imagine anything of greater interest than a book which was to convey to the whole population an idea as to how population was distri- buted, and how it was employed. He could not imagine anything of more unique interest than to show that a place so full of the activity of life in the day time was comparatively deserted at night. Such a circumstance was not to be found in any other part of the world. There was no comparison between the City of London and Manchester, and Liverpool, and other large towns, because those places did not empty in the night as London did. The population of the City of London went on diminishing from year to year; it was too expensive a place to live in. Every valuable spot was occupied for mercantile purposes, and it was idle to say that the Corporation of London wanted a day Census for purposes of their own. He could not understand the meaning of the objection. The City of London wanted a supplement to the Census. It would be a thing of singular interest and value, and they wanted to have it under the imprimatur and control of the Government, but at their own expense.

hoped the President of the Local Government Board would not give way. It seemed to him the very idea of a Census was associated with the place where you 'lived with your family, and that could not apply to offices in the City of London, which was too expensive as a place of residence. The City of London was a place of business, and to have any exceptional Census would throw discredit on the real Census. As to the fact that the business people of London lived outside the City, that applied to every large manufacturing town in the United Kingdom. There had been a Return on the Table of the House for the last three months, showing the amount of income tax and house duty paid by every town and county in the Kingdom. Thus, it appeared that where there was a town like Brighton, or Edinburgh, where the higher classes resided within it, the amount of house duty was very large; while, in large towns like Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, and Glasgow, where many of the more wealthy individuals lived outside the towns, the house duty was but comparatively small. In illustration of that, he might state that the City he had the honour to represent paid £24,000 a-year of house duty; but Glasgow, which was two and a-half times as populous, paid only £15,000. Edinburgh paid 25 per cent more than Manchester, although the population and income of Manchester were much greater. The reason was that many of those who conducted business in Manchester lived outside; while those who conducted business in Edinburgh, and other wealthy inhabitants, lived inside. It would be fatal to permit such a principle to be introduced as to allow in London what would not be allowed in Manchester.

confessed that he did not understand the jealousy which was felt on this side of the House of the proposed enumeration. The City of London was ready to undertake the whole of the expenses, and was willing to have their Returns regulated by the control of the Local Government Board, so that his right hon. Friend would have the whole matter entirely within his own power and could not possibly be deceived. Such a Return would undoubtedly have an important bearing upon the social and sanitary condition of the City hereafter. The facts would be misleading if taken solely in reference to the City in the night time; and it was because he regarded it as important that there should be an enumeration of the population of the City of London in the day time, that he should be prepared to support the clause.

said, he considered that the question as to having a religious Census had been decided by the action of the House in relation to the English Bill. He would not, therefore, proceed with the Motion which he had placed on the Paper for re-commit- ting the Bill, in order to introduce a clause providing for a religious Census.

Among the Acts which are to be renewed by this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is the Ballot Act, which is to be renewed only for a year, and I am anxious to take this opportunity, however late in the Session, to draw the attention of the House to some of the circumstances connected with the operation of the system of secret voting; because I feel more and more convinced that, when the House meets after the Recess it will be found that under the system of voting, the majority of the will become so completely pledged as to have lost much of its deliberative character. This, I am sorry to say, as one of the effects of secret voting, is perfectly understood in the United States. It seems to be there understood that the Members elected under the system of secret voting, and the abuses which are inseparable from it, cease to be Representatives, and become mere delegates. The evidence of these defects in the system of secret voting is too strong already in this House. I wish, therefore, to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the Government and the House to some of the facts connected with this system of voting which is as yet novel in this country, but which, at the same time, after only a short experience, has began to manifest some of those evil characteristics that are so well understood in the United States. I speak of the United States, because I have a somewhat peculiar knowledge of the electoral system in the United States, and can speak as a witness of the operation of the Ballot in that country; and I do not suppose that there is any other Member of the House who was present at the election of the President at the General Election of 1841—in the United States. I went there for the purpose of seeing the merits or the demerits of this system. I had peculiar advantages. I had letters of introduction to eminent Americans, amongst others to the late Mr. Webster, with whom I had two conversations on this subject. I happened to travel to the United States with a gentleman who had, perhaps, better opportunities of letting me behind the scenes than any stranger living could have had. I went out in the steamer with the late eminent comedian Mr. Buckstone, and through him I became acquainted with the late Mr. Power, the great Irish comedian. Those gentlemen fully entered into my object, and, both being extremely popular with all classes in the United States, they afforded me opportunities for informa- tion such as I think very few Englishmen could have obtained. They assisted in getting me behind the scenes. In this country the system of secret voting is at present new. In the United States it has manifested characteristics which have alienated many of the intellectual and educated classes from it; and I can adduce no better proof that its disadvantages are known and felt in America than the fact that the Dominion of Canada, lying contiguous to the United States, has, with the exception of the Province of New Brunswick, rejected, and continues to reject, the system of secret voting. Our fellow-subjects in Canada, who are in a position to witness what I have seen, are determined not to follow in this respect the example either of the United States or of the Mother Country, but to continue the system of open voting as being necessary, in their belief, to the maintenance of free institutions, and for the continuance of their connection with this country, to which they are much attached. I have no personal reasons for disliking the system of secret voting. In the constituency which I have so long had the honour to represent in Parliament, changes were proposed, but none were made, in consequence of the last Reform Act—that of 1867. The extension of the borough of Birmingham, so that it might include its great suburb of Aston, was recommended by the Boundary Commissioners in 1868; but their recommendation was rejected; and I was told that, under the system of secret voting, owing to the exclusion of a great suburb of Birmingham from the borough and its remaining in North Warwickshire, I was certain to be unseated as soon as the Ballot came into operation. I said in this House that I did not believe anything of the kind, and I was returned at the next General Election—that of 1874—by the largest majority I ever had, and at the recent General Election my seat was not contested. I have, therefore, no personal feeling on the subject; but I entertain, as strongly as I have ever done, since I have witnessed the wholesale corruption and intimidation in New York and other parts of the United States, a rooted distrust of the Ballot. I entertain the same aversion to secret voting—the same convictions, which the late Lord Palmerston entertained. I hold that it is not only false in principle, an evil in itself; but in the United States the evils it generates have increased until the House of Assembly has completely lost its former representative character. I am so convinced of this that I venture now, before hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House, especially Supporters of the Government, are pledged to any particular measure with respect to this secret voting, to call the attention of the House to circumstance which are within my knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) has been one of the great advocates of the Ballot. But there is this peculiar circumstance with respect to that right hon. Gentleman. He has often cited the operation of the Ballot in the United States with approval; but he has never been there to see its operation. I have been there, and have formed my opinion on the spot, after conversation with some of the most eminent American statesmen of that day. I may be told that mine is an old experience; but the late Mr. Graves, formerly Member for Liverpool, was in the United States just before the debates in this House on the introduction of the Bill for establishing secret voting. His evidence, given from recent experience, gained more than 30 years after the evidence which I desire to tender to the House as obtained by myself, so corroborates all that I saw, is so confirmed by all that I have since heard, that, with the permission of the House, I will quote what Mr. Graves said, the more particularly as he referred to documents which he had procurred in the United States. Among these was the Report of a Committee that inquired into this very system. He lent it to me and I returned it to him; but I am very sorry to say that his premature death precluded his procuring a copy for me. Speaking on the 29th of June, 1871, Mr. Graves said—

"If the Government had called for the views of the Canadians on the question, they would have been informed that no later than last Session a Bill had been introduced into the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of changing the mode of voting from vivâ voce to the Ballot, and that it had been rejected by a large majority. He would now turn to the United States. America always used to be put forward as their great guide on this question; but now it suited the advocates of this change to ignore altogether the operation of the Ballot in the United States, and to say that Australia should be their guide in bringing about this great change. Now, he held in his hand the Report of the Committee which inquired into the New York election frauds in 1869. The Committee declared that these frauds were so varied in character that they comprehended every known crime against the elective franchise; that they corrupted the administration of justice, degraded the judiciary, defeated the execution of the laws, subverted for the time being in Now York State the essential principles of popular government, robbed the people of that great State of their rightful advantages in the election of President, Vice President, Governor, and other officers, disgraced the most popular State in the Union, and encouraged the enemies of Republican Government to decry its institutions as a failure. More recently still the Governor of New York, in his message to His House of Assembly, said that all laws and measures to aid in establishing purity of election would fail if they did not reach this great evil; that no power would guard the Ballot-box, if the voters were influenced by the corruption of money. It was money, not measures, that secured the result of an election. This influence pervaded all society, and it was practised with impunity because the offenders could not be convicted and punished. From the impression that he derived from a personal visit to that country very recently, however, he was bound to say that in this country, individual corruption was more frequently practised than in America; hut in America it was the corruption of party platforms, and through the operation of the Ballot the independence of the voter was lost, because it passed into the hands of committees and party wire-pullers. These influences managed elections and they corrupted the constituencies. He noticed with regret that there was not in America the same ambition among the leading men to enter public life that existed hero. On the contrary, there they rather shunned taking part in Parliamentary representation, and he hardly met an enlightened citizen who did not join in the regret caused by this circumstance. He feared that in our own country the Ballot would cause a worse state of things than existed at present. He was bound to say, however, that when he went into the West, and got among the farmer class, he found an entirely different state of things to what he had seen elsewhere; and it was, in his opinion, of great value to that country that it had so steadying an influence in the farmer class. He passed some time in Kentucky, where he was astonished to find that the institution of free voting was practised as in this country, and the feeling there was that there was less corruption, quite as much freedom, and quite as much quietness in the elections as in those States were there was secret voting. The people said they should be sorry to change their system of open voting for secret voting, and his impression was that in Virginia the same system prevailed."—[3 Hansard, ccvii. 806–8.]

In the United States, under the secret-voting system, the so-called representatives cease to be in the service of their constituents, and become mere delegates of the various caucuses, who combine for their return. It is, therefore, in the capacity of delegates merely that they go into the House of Assembly. The caucuses are the absolute masters of these delegates, because they have the opportunity of making the individuals, whom they return as Members, their victims, answerable at any time for the abuses which the caucus practices. Now, this is what I heard myself; and it is confirmed by the Report cited by my hon. Friend the late Mr. Graves. If Her Majesty's Government mean realty to inform themselves of the evils to be guarded against in secret voting, let them send for this Report which I have read—the Report on the New York Elections, published in 1869. I feel sure they will be convinced that I am speaking, not of an imaginary state of things, but of facts which I have tested by personal observation of the system as it works in America. Let me remind the House that secret voting is no safeguard against civil war. In the United States, we all remember a terrible Civil War; whereas if you look back through the annals of our own country for more than 100 years, you will find that England has been peaceful under the system of open voting, while only a few years have elapsed since the great nation on the other side of the Atlantic was torn by Civil War. My Friend Mr. Graves mentioned that he passed some time in Kentucky, where he was astonished to find that the institution of free and open voting was practised as in this country. Therefore, in the United States, the system of secret voting is not universal. The feeling which prevailed there was that far less corruption, and almost, if not as much, quietness existed as in those States where the voting was open as where there was secret voting. The people of Kentucky said they should be sorry to change their system of open voting for secrecy. The same system, said Mr. Graves, prevailed in Virginia. I heard Mr. Graves make these statements to the House. Other hon. Members had not the same opportunity of verifying the truth of his observations that I had, when he placed in my hands the document which recited the very corruption that I myself saw in 1841, and proved its increase up to 1869. I hope that the House will excuse me for taking this opportunity, while we are calm, for urging these considerations on their attention, of showing that a partial remedy will not suffice to secure us against the evils that prevail under the operation of secret voting in the United States. I well remember that the late Mr. Webster, during the election of President Harrison, told me—and I see no reason why I should not now repeat his remarks—that he did not think the system of secret voting was adapted for England. He said—"America is comparatively a young country. Our electoral divisions are more equal; they are more proportioned to population than those of your country. The condition of our people is more equal altogether than yours; so the system of secret voting is better adapted to this country than it can be to yours." We have not in this country yet reached manhood suffrage as it exists in the United States. We have not yet reached equal electoral districts; and I believe that the inequality which prevails in our electoral system is one of the principal guarantees for the full representation of public opinion, for the due representation of advanced education, and of refined intellect—an advantage that has not of late years prevailed in the electoral system of the United States. The proof of this is, they have been obliged to supply the failure of the House of Assembly, in that respect, by increasing the power of the Senate, and by arming the Supreme Court with such powers as have not been committed to any Court in this country. ["Question!"] The hon. Member who cries "Question!" thinks I am proceeding a little too far in my remarks; but I am speaking as one who witnessed what he has not seen. It is one thing to act on the report of others, and another to see the evils of secret voting with one's eyes, and to hear on the spot the opinions of eminent men with respect to the difficulties of avoiding or curing these evils, opinions which many of these eminent persons would not publish. There is evidence enough of the growth of these evils in this country. This House has sent an Address to Her Majesty praying Her to authorize eight Commissions, because, not satisfied with having punished for corrupt practices the Members who were returned to this House, we have already found it necessary to extend our inquiries to the organizations that returned these Members, with a view to extend to them also the punishment due to corruption. Let me ask the House and the country to weigh that fact. I have heard some who are inclined to impugn the conduct of the Judges appointed under the Act of 1868, because they have warned this House of the danger and of its magnitude. I remember the passing of the Statute for the appointment of those Judges; and it was expressly stated in debate, that they were appointed to sit at the sites of alleged abuse, and from those sites to furnish Parliament with information. These Reports have been made strictly in accordance with the duty assigned to the Judges; and though they may be disagreeable to the advocates of secret voting, they are none the less valuable to the country. I wish to point to one other circumstance. During the last four or five Sessions this House has witnessed a disposition to disorder such as I never, in my long experience, saw before. The system of Obstruction organized for the purpose of coercing the action of the Legislature is novel to this House. We have been obliged to adopt a Standing Order for the prevention of that evil, and for the protection of the independence of the House against such coercion. I will, with the permission of the House, read the opinion of one who is now a Judge in Ireland as to the probable effect of secret voting there: and then I will ask the House to compare his anticipations, with the fact that a section of the Irish Members had, during the debates of the last two or three years, proved rebellious against the authority of the Speaker—in fact, against the authority of the House itself—to a degree that never existed before. The extract I am about to read is from a book, which deals with other subjects, by Gerald Fitzgibbon, esquire, then a Master of Chancery, and now one of Her Majesty's Judges. Writing on the disturbed state of Ireland, he says—

"Three objects now float in the agitated surface of the Irish political sea—Denominational Schools, Home Rule, and Vote by Ballot. The priests are navigating the school question, unaided by the laity; the laity conduct Home Rule, unaided by the priests; and vote by ballot is allowed by both these parties to drift on to its destined port upon the current of Ministerial influence and power. In vain, the priests are goading their congregations to help them in their agitation for the schools, while they, themselves, turn a deaf ear to the solicitations and reproaches of the Fenians and agitators for Home Rule. The policy of the priests is easily explained; they have the Ministry half pledged to comply with their demand of the schools, and they see, with characteristic sagacity, that Home Rule is embarrassing to their friends in power, and is not yet ripe. They say of it what the First Napoleon said of the Empire, when he was urged to assume it prematurely—namely, 'That pear is not ripe yet.' They, therefore, discountenance the pressure of that most embarrassing question on the Ministry; while they are engaged in overcoming the obstacles which must be encountered on the school question. The leader of the priests is not a desperado, but a cool, far-seeing, and hitherto successful, ecclesiastic of the mediaeval type."

This allusion is to the late Cardinal Cullen.

"His policy is to bide his time; to concentrate his own forces on valuable points, and to crush his opponents in detail." While he and his subordinates have cautiously abstained from giving help or countenance to the Home Rule sedition, they have equally refrained from every expression, which may hereafter bring upon them the reproach of inconsistency, when—the school question being happily settled—the Home Rule pear will be ripe. In the meantime, they look upon the Ballot as an accomplished fact; and although they regard it as a powerful arm for the battles yet to come, some of them, whether ignorantly or craftily, express apprehension of the effects of that measure on the influence which they have, and which they prize, over the minds of the voters. There is no foundation for their fears, if any such fears exist. The Ballot will enable every voter to support whatever candidate he pleases; and adopting that most successful principle' of keeping his secret from brother and from son, so clearly explained by the Reverend J. Ryan, he may amuse his landlord, or his creditor, or his friend with promises before the election, and with significant assurances after it, and thus escape the resentment of all except the priest. The priest he cannot escape; if he commits the mortal sin of voting against the right man, he knows that at confession that sin 'will be dragged out of him,' as the sin was dragged out of the bad child when on trial for heaven or for hell, and will not be forgiven."

This allusion to "the bad child" has reference to the school system of the Christian Brothers, so-called, which the author has elsewhere in his pamphlet described.

"The Ballot, therefore, is a desideratum for the priests. If, with the proper use of the Ballot, after the schools shall have been conceded, the Irish contingent in the field of Party strife can be substantially augmented, then will be the time to aid the agitators of that question, and get home the Parliament to the Island of Saints. The expulsion of obstinate Protestants from Ireland are triumphs which no Jesuit would hope for, or attempt to accomplish in a year, or even in a generation. Such results must be attained in due time, and by slow, insidious, and ostensibly constitutional means. The Irish House of Commons, when they obtain it, must be first well packed with subservient Members, who will easily become an overwhelming majority when free from the vices and the votes of 500 English and Scotch Members. The United Parliament has, by the Church Act and the Land Act, made two clear precedents for the breach of national compacts and the invasion of private property. The case will be much clearer, and the arguments much more cogent, for restoring Ireland to the Irish, than they were for confiscating the Church property, and charging, by an ex post facto law, the property of Irish landlords with encumbrances for the benefit of tenants, which have been variously estimated at a value of from £15,000,000 upwards. To come at the property of Irish Protestants in this legal, peaceable, and constitutional method will require time and patience—two things which the everlasting Church and the far-seeing Jesuits are always ready to bestow."

It was through priestly power that the electoral evils grew up to the extent described by Mr. Graves as prevailing in New York. That was proved in New York. No influence can be superior—none equal—under the Ballot to that of the priest. This was one prime aggravating cause of the evils which grew up. I trust that the House will excuse mo for drawing their intention to the magnitude of the evils which arise under secret voting. Under this system it is not so much against individual as against wholesale corruption you have to guard. The Government have intimated that, during the Recess, they are about to seek a remedy for these evils, which promise to be wholesale, and an Address to Her Majesty has been voted for the appointment of several Commissions of Inquiry. With the permission of the House I will cite the deliberate opinion of the late Leader of the Liberal Party, Lord Palmerston, whom for years I supported in his opposition to the establishment of secret voting. I communicated to him all the information which I had gathered from the United States, and he told me himself, that it was confirmed by the wide information he derived, having been so long Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with respect to the operation of secret voting in various parts of the world. Speaking on the Motion of Mr. Henry Berkeley, in 1864, Lord Palmerston said:—

"I object to the Motion because it is founded on an erroneous assumption. The hon. Member deals with the right of voting as if it were a personal right, which an individual was entitled to exercise free from any responsibility, whereas I contend that the vote is a trust to he exercised on behalf of the community at large. Even if the franchise were ever so extended—even if we had a manhood franchise, if every man arrived at the age of discretion were entitled to vote, it would be only a trust, because there would still be a large portion of the community, women and minors, affected by the laws, by taxation, and so on, whose interests would be committed to those who had votes. Indeed, our legislation is based on the understanding that a vote is a trust, and not a right. If a vote were a purely personal right, would not a voter be entitled to ask on what principle of justice you should punish him for exercising it in the manner which he thinks most for his own individual advantage? But you attach a penalty to the man who employs that right of voting in a way at variance, as you deem, with the public interest, for bribery, or any other such consideration. I say, then, that a vote is a trust, and I maintain that every political trust ought to be exercised subject to the responsibility of public opinion. The whole political framework of civilized nations rests on the principle of trust. The interests of the important, committed to a selected few who are community are in various degrees, more or less charged with duties, in regard to particular things, on behalf of the people at large; and their action in fulfilling that trust ought to be subject to responsibility towards those on whose account they exercise it. But I contend that the Ballot as proposed is intended to withdraw the voter from that responsibility which the public exercise of the trust confided to him would impose, and in that respect I think it would be a political evil. We have been told about the system in other countries—in America, for instance. But in America, as everybody knows, ballot voting is not secret. It is ticket voting. A man votes for a great number of officers at a time, and he sticks his ticket in his hat, and is proud of the party and the cause he espouses; he does not think of concealing the members, judges, governor, or other officers appointed by public election in the United States for whom he gives his voice. The Ballot, then, I hold, is founded on a mistake in principle, and is at variance with the fundamental assumption on which all our political institutions are based."—[3 Hansard, clxxvi. 44–5.]

What have we in Birmingham? We have there a fictitious tribunal, erected for the purpose of dominating the return of the Members of that borough. If we are to have the Caucus, and if the system of secret voting is to be continued, I trust that, those who seek its amendment will not overlook the Italian system, in which the Caucus is regulated and incorporated by law for the improvement of the representation. In Italy they have the system of electoral colleges. I myself believe, that, if we are to have manhood suffrage, which seems to me an inevitable consequence and adjunct of the Ballot—I see not how we can ultimately escape from it under the Ballot—if we are, I say, to have manhood suffrage, and equal electoral districts, as remedies for the evils which secret voting is already generating in our electoral system, then I trust, that the Government, or whoever may be charged with the duty of curing, or rather of mitigatgating, the evils which I consider are inseparable from secret voting, will give their careful attention to the system of electoral colleges, the system by which, in Italy, one great object is attained—that the less educated—that is to say, the masses—are combined by law, in the exercise of the franchise, with the more educated classes. The Italians thus obtain much of the power of the Caucus, and, at the same time, escape from some of the evils of the Ballot. If you covet this power, which is so liable to abuse, and would avoid some of the evils, and amongst the rest the wholesale system of corruption, the Italian system is worth your attention. I myself believe that the evils of secret voting are incurable. I hold this proved by the example of the United States. I think the tendency to corruption and intimidation evils inseparable from the system of secret voting.

observed that no Catholic clergyman in the Confessional would think of exerting pressure upon a penitent in order to ascertain how he had voted. If, however, the system of open voting were reverted to in Ireland, the power of exercising undue influence would again be thrown into the hands of the landed interest.

moved that the Lords' Amendment to leave out sub-section 3 of Clause 1, which partially abolished the defence of "common employment in certain cases," be disagreed with.

was extremely glad the Government were going to oppose the insertion of this Amendment, which had been moved in "another place" by a distinguished ornament of their Party. The Amendment was utterly opposed to the principle of the Bill, and he should not think a voice would be raised in its favour.

thought the Amendment should be agreed to.

said, he proposed to amend the Lords' Amendment limiting, the operation of the Act to two years, by inserting the year 1887 for the year 1882. He did not think the limitation of time was for the advantage, either of employers, or workmen, or Parliament. It was not to the advantage of workmen or employers; because the term of two years was so short that it would tend to prevent either a voluntary or a natural adjustment of the differences existing between them. It would be disadvantageous to Parliament, because it left them such a short time before they must take up the Bill again. Although he never admired the general principle of the insertion of a limitation of time in Acts of Parliament, in this case it was open to a two-fold objection. The period was so short, that, even if Parliament should find by experience that some clause in the Bill required alteration next Session, it might almost be raised as an objection to doing so that it must expire a year after. On the other hand, if the Bill was found to work fairly well it would be, especially when Parliament was pressed with other Business, exceedingly inconvenient to be necessarily called upon to deal with this question in the Session but one after the present. At the same time, though he objected to any limitation, he was willing, in the present position of affairs, and to prevent difficulties arising between the two branches of the Legislature, to make a concession. He proposed, therefore, to make the limitation seven years, and not two, so that the question would have to be considered by the next Parliament and not by the present. He wished to impress this distinctly on the House, that in no way whatever did the Amendment he proposed fetter the hands of the present Parliament in dealing with the question as soon as it might be found necessary.

expressed his regret that the principle of limitation should be agreed to, though he would not, in the circumstances, oppose the course recommended by the Goverement.

thought it extremely undesirable that limitations of that nature should be introduced, which would simply tend to unsettle the relations between employers and employed. He could not accept the Amendment of the President of the Local Government Board. He should, therefore, propose to move the rejection of the Lords' Amendment.

said there were already two Amendments before the House, and until the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was disposed of, the hon. Member would not be in Order in making the Motion he had suggested.

was sorry to oppose the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. He regretted the course taken by the other House, and he thought their Amendment a very foolish one. But he thought the shorter limit would be better than the longer. The former would practically be disregarded by employers and workmen; whereas a longer period would tend to the unsettlement of their relations. He hoped it was not too late for the Government to re-consider their determination and to reject the Lords' Amendment.

observed, that the fixing of a time limit, whether long or short, would prevent that re-adjustment of the relations of capital and labour which would be the natural effect of the Bill if it were really operative. Both the inane Amendment of the House of Lords and that now proposed by the Government were, therefore, in his opinion, objectionable. If ever there was a Ministry of good intentions frightened out of their senses by the House of Lords, it was the present Ministry. In his opinion, the introduction of either a longer or shorter period of limitation would be fatal to the whole underlying principle of the Bill; he hoped, therefore, the Government would not knock under on it, but stand firm, in one instance, at least, against the House of Lords.

trusted the Government would reject the Lords' Amendment, as he was convinced nothing could be more mischievous than a limitation to two years. There could not be the same knowledge of the Bill in "another place" as Members of that House had, and the limitation would only bring into contempt the honest efforts of the Government to improve the relations between employer and employed. He hoped the House would stand by the Government, who were animated by a sincere desire to benefit the working classes, and who, on the present occasion, took the course which seemed to them most likely to achieve that result.

reminded the House that the subject, although one of great complexity and full of questions which required the most careful and grave consideration, had not been very fully considered by the Government before they introduced the Bill. The Amendments of the Upper House were, therefore, entitled to very respectful consideration. He was no great admirer of the House of Lords; but if they had unreservedly passed the Bill without discussion, they would have surrendered their responsibility. He saw grave objections to the principle of limitations in general; but, in the present case, he felt that it was perfectly justifiable. The Bill was admittedly incomplete. In two years' time the whole subject would necessarily come up for re-consideration, and the doctrine of common employment would, probably, then be swept away altogether. He did not think the working men would be satisfied with the extension of the time proposed by the Government.

said, he had no particular admiration for the principle of limitation in legislation; but, if a limit of time was to be fixed, a period of seven years was better than one of two, inasmuch as it would do away with any feeling of uncertainty. He did not believe that a limitation would be at all prejudicial to the interests of the working classes. Parliament would never retrace its steps in this matter; the only possible amendment of the law would be in the direction of further concession. But the Government had to look at both sides of the question; and it seemed to them that the employers would seriously suffer from the limitation of the Bill to two years. They would be subject to the Bill meanwhile, and there would be no time for any readjustment of matters which might compensate them in another direction. It was impossible that things could settle down into a new groove in two years, but they would in seven. He failed to see any grounds for the plea of the House of Lords in favour of this Amendment—namely, that the Bill was brought forward at a time when it could not receive full consideration. He could not understand why their Lordships' intellects should be more feeble in September than in any other month in the year, or that they wanted more time to study the measure. Although sent up to them at the end of August, it was discussed in a House as full as was usually seen in May or June, and they actually disposed of it before dinner. That House, it seemed to him, had already sufficiently proved that it could stand its ground by rejecting the most important of the Lords' Amendments. He was not, as he had said, particularly in favour of any limitation at all; but the question was one on which a compromise might fairly be arrived at, seeing that no great practical inconvenience could result from it, and that otherwise the passing of the Bill might be endangered.

hoped the House would disagree with the Amendment; for, in his opinion, either limitation would act injuriously to employers and employed, and in any case it would render impossible the establishment of a satisfactory scheme of voluntary insurance. Everyone connected with accidental assurance companies or the cost of their establishment would understand that the expenditure of the first two or three years was most heavy, and no company could be solidly established to undertake such risks with a limitation of this kind in the Bill.

supported the Government, who, he was willing to believe, were the best judges of what should be done in this matter, with a due regard to the safety of the Bill; and he was surprised that hon. Members opposite, who had been returned to support the Government, should not have the same confidence in them as himself. If he might venture to give advice to hon. Gentlemen opposite, it would be that, in matters of procedure like this, they should defer to the opinions of their natural Leaders.

said, the question of a time limit was not one of primary importance, and he was not disposed to quarrel with the Government over the compromise they proposed. It did not greatly matter whether they waited two years or seven years for a complete measure. He might be permitted to remark, however, in connection with these Amendments, that it was excessively inconvenient that that House, after spending a great deal of time on the Bill, should have its labours summarily overhauled in "another place;" it was an inconvenience which, he believed, would not be long tolerated by the people of this country. He begged to tender his acknowledgments to the Government for disagreeing with the Lords' Amendment to omit sub-section 3, which, to his mind, was the very kernel of the measure. The Bill had already, to his knowledge, produced beneficial results. A large employer of labour in the City had confessed to him, only that day, that he had taken additional measures for the prevention of accidents to his men. This was the true effect hoped for by the class of employed; not the mere assurance of a trifling money payment to a man's widow and children.

said, he was sorry he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) in supporting the Bill. He contended that if there was to be a period of suspense, the shorter it was the better. The whole subject, he believed, would require to be dealt with again at the end of two years. The Bill was imperfect in many respects, especially in this—that it took no account of the different circumstances of different classes of employers.

said, he did not think it of much importance whether the limit adopted was two years or seven, because the question would, ere long, have to be again dealt with by Parliament. The effect of the Bill, as it must add to the cost of production, would be to reduce wages, and might, therefore, very seriously interfere with the comfort of the very class it was intended to benefit. Such legislation needed more caution than had been bestowed on this Bill. It was framed for the advantage of railway servants to the injury of miners. If the inspectors of factories had done their duty this Bill need not have called for additional measures for the prevention of accidents.

urged that it would be much better to have no limitation at all. It seemed to him, after hearing the speeches in the Upper House, that the noble Lord who first proposed such a change had no proper idea or conception of the scope and purpose of the Bill. A limitation, whether long or short, would prevent the formation of a proper scheme of assurance, and would retard the settlement of the relations between employer and employed, and if the Bill needed Amendment, which was very probable, such Amendment would be delayed till the period of the limitation had expired. He begged, therefore, to move that the House disagree with the Lords' Amendment, as amended.

held that the injurious effect of the limitation would fall upon the employers only, and they were quite capable of defending themselves. He could not see that the interests of the workmen would, in the least, suffer by this proposal; or that it would necessitate any postponement of further amendment of the law. He had come to the House intending to vote with the last speaker; but the course of the debate had convinced him that it was the duty of the House to support the proposals of the Government. The Amendment was, on the whole, rather a silly one, seeing that Parliament could amend the Bill, if it thought fit, next year; but the discredit of it fortunately attached, not to that House, but to "another place."

while acknowledging that the opinion of the Government ought to be regarded with the greatest deference by new Members on the Ministerial side, yet observed that no Minister had spoken in favour of this limitation which had been sent down from the House of Lords, and that neither from Minister nor independent Member had he heard any argument in favour of the Amendment on its merits. He could see no difference between this Bill and any other measure of ordinary legislation, and he, therefore, could not but regard the kind of limitation which the Lords' Amendment imposed as of the most dangerous character. He utterly failed to comprehend why, if a limitation in point of time was to be admitted in a Bill which was neither of a temporary, nor of an experimental character, it should not also be inserted in any other Bill whatsoever; or why there should be any limitation in a Bill intended to settle rights, to alter the law, and to affect the relations of an enormous number of persons in this country. The grievance was not a purely sentimental one. Although, as the hon. Member who had last spoken had said, the employers were quite able to protect themselves, it was, nevertheless, the duty of the House to give both to them and to the workmen even-handed justice. It was urged on their behalf, when the Bill was under consideration by the House, that its injurious effect upon the employers would be avoided or minimized by some system of insurance; but if this Amendment were allowed to pass, and the Bill to become only of a temporary character, no firm basis of arrangement could be made, so as to protect the employers from the effects of the Bill. If the noble Lord with whom the idea of a limitation originated wished to benefit the employers, he had entirely misconceived the effect of his Amendment. So far from benefiting them, it would injure their interests; and, though he had hitherto voted with the Government on every occasion on this Bill, he now felt it his duty to vote against the admission of any part of this Amendment.

said, he hoped there would be no misunderstanding as to the position which the Government occupied in this matter. They certainly did not introduce the measure as a temporary or experimental measure, and they did not think any limitation of time desirable. Nor did they regard the limitation of any time for the operation of the Act as being absolute as a matter of legislation, if they thought the Bill should be altered; but, in the present circumstances, they had to choose, not the course which most commended itself to their minds, but that which appeared to them most practicable. They were anxious to carry this Bill during the present Session; and they had to consider whether it would be better to adopt Amendments of the kind inserted by the other House, and see the Bill become law; or, whether they should forego the latter object, and refuse to accept any restrictive clauses. A Liberal House of Commons, perhaps, would seldom obtain from the House of Lords, as it was at present constituted, all it desired. The Government had entered into no negotiation with anybody on this subject. They proposed a concession on a matter which did not affect the principle of the Bill. Their view was, that the limitation proposed was perfectly harmless, and would not, in any way, affect the operation of the Bill. It practically was no limitation at all, as when the law had been in existence seven years, both employers and employed would have adapted themselves to it, and there would be no desire to alter it.

said, he objected altogether to any limitation, as it would cause uncertainty, and lead to a great deal of litigation. He contended that the arguments of the Attorney General were conclusive against a limitation to seven years. In the first place, the Attorney General said the Bill was not brought in as a temporary measure; in the next place, he said that, practically, seven years was no limitation at all. He was astonished to hear a man with a mind of the acuteness of that of his hon. and learned Friend attempting to delude the House with such an argument. It was a limitation with all the vice of a limitation, because it told the employer and the employed that the Bill was a temporary one. If the rejection of the Amendment resulted in the loss of the Bill for the present Session, no one would gain more by it than the Government, because, if the Bill were carried in its present form, it would not redound much to their credit. The Bill was illogical; it was drawn with carelessness; its language was almost unintelligible. As a lawyer, he was unable to say what the real effect of it would be. It would produce an unlimited amount of litigation. If it passed, he believed Her Majesty's Government would regret it, and be the first to propose that it should be amended.

said, this was the 2nd of September, and as the question was, whether a limitation to seven years should be accepted, or the Bill should not be passed, he thought the House should agree to that limitation. He disapproved of all limitation as much as any hon. Member. He would suggest that if the Bill was so defective as represented by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Watkin Williams) the hon. and learned Member might bring in an amending Bill next year for the purpose of introducing those valuable Amendments which he seemed to think might be necessary. If the Bill was so bad, why had the hon. and learned Gentleman never been present in his place to propose Amendments to it?

explained that he had been at Norwich during the time the Bill was in Committee.

was not surprised that many lawyers had opposed this limitation, for he believed that no Bill which ever passed the House of Commons produced more litigation than this Bill would. He doubted whether, at the end of seven years, any Government would be found bold enough to propose to re-enact it. He believed this Bill would injure the working classes, a good deal more than capitalists. It would cause dissension among them, and of that we had quite enough already.

hoped the House would disagree with the Lords' Amendment, that the Bill might go back to the House of Lords and not become legislation this year. The Bill ought to have been referred to a Select Committee.

said, that he had been a firm supporter of the Bill from the beginning, and he thought that hon. Members below the Gangway who had opposed the Bill might now allow it to pass. He had taken the opinion of the hon. Members for Stafford and Stoke (Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Broadhurst), and he thought they were quite competent to advise as to the operation of the Bill. As the Representatives of working men, they were certainly more likely to know what was required than many other hon. Members who had objected to the measure as being inefficient, and they were both in favour of the Bill as it stood.

in rising to call attention to the probable interference of this country, by force of arms, in the affairs of foreign nations, and to ask for information on the subject, said, nothing could be further from his inten- tion than unnecessarily to prolong this unusually prolonged Session, or do anything to embarrass Her Majesty's Government; but it appeared to him that this was a suitable opportunity, and he did not think that any other occasion was likely to be available to him before the Prorogation, to bring forward a matter in that House which he thought ought to be brought forward. It was, in his opinion, desirable that, before the House broke up, the Government should make a statement to the House, and through the House to the country, of the position in which they now stood with regard to what was commonly called the Eastern Question. He thought the Government ought to state what undertakings they had entered into on the subject to which he referred. He was not, he thought, taking an unusual course in asking for a distinct statement as to the naval preparations made by the Government, of which they had heard so much. The House would remember the course taken by the late Government in 1878 in ordering troops from India, and the great interest manifested throughout the country in that step. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) on that occasion moved a Resolution stating that by the Constitution of the Realm no forces could be raised or kept by the Crown in time of peace without the consent of Parliament. A great Party debate ensued, and the bulk of the Liberal Party supported the noble Lord. Now, surely if it was so important to know about the raising and keeping of military forces, it must be still more important that the House should have the fullest information as to the use to which those forces were to be put. He thought that they should take the same view of these matters, now they belonged to the Party that was in power, as they did when in Opposition. In those days, when they were in Opposition, they condemned what was called the policy of surprise, and insisted that no military enterprize should be undertaken unless the character of it was first mentioned and explained to the House. If they were in Opposition, and the Government announced, as the present Government did, that they were not in a position to tell them what they were about to do, he knew what would happen. The present Postmaster General would have moved the adjournment of the House, and the present Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would have supported him in an able speech, and a great many of the Liberal Members would have voted for the adjournment. Now, he said, let them be fair. The late Government had gone the way of all Governments, and the country had got a Government in its place which was more bound than any other Government ever was to deal frankly with the House on questions connected with peace and war. He rejoiced—no one more so—at the advent to power of the present Government, and he did so because they came into power on the good old Liberal cry of "Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform." Well, what did peace mean? When he spoke of peace, he meant peace. He did not mean by it peace with all the world except with the Turks. That would not be a policy of peace, but a state of things which reminded him of the American slave-owner, who said that his political creed was that "men were born free, except negroes." Some people, in like manner, thought they ought to be at peace with everybody except the Turks. He was not going to dispute that the Turkish Government was about the worst that had been seen for a long time. He believed that the Turks were fanatical, very unjust, and extortionate. But it was not the only wicked Government in the world. The Russian Government, for instance, was a very bad one. But he did not believe that tyrannical Governments could be made to govern their subjects better by menacing them with force of arms. Nay, such a course was likely to strengthen a Government, because the more one foreign Power abused another the more likely were the subjects of the latter to overlook the evils from which they suffered in the endeavour to oppose foreign combination. This threat of war was not the way to make the Turks introduce reforms in their Government. Now, he believed in the principle of non-intervention; and, if it was a sound principle, he held that it was applicable in all cases. He wanted to know what was meant by what the newspapers called a "policy of coercion," and what was the object of the Naval Demonstration which they read about so often? Was it genuine? Was it real? There were great doubts upon that point throughout Europe as well as at home. If the reports that appeared in some papers, to the effect that the demonstration was in the nature of moral suasion, were true, the step would not be as objectionable as it otherwise would be; but it would be a sham, and something like what his Irish friends wished the Constabulary Force to be—a force which, being deprived of its arms, could do no harm. Now, he did not like shams, although they were better than wars. But he was left in great doubt as to the meaning of this policy of coercion. One Liberal paper said—"Coercion is not war, but an act of national police." But who had commissioned us to perform the functions of a national police? Another paper said—"The adoption of actual coercion is, in other words, a resort to war, and would be a matter of the utmost gravity." When authorities were opposed to one another in this way, what wonder that he should be doubtful about the meaning of this word "coercion?" He, however, believed that if coercion was to mean anything at all it must mean either war or a step to war. The views he was enunciating were views which he had held ever since he had begun to sit in that House. He had been ready to oppose the celebrated Resolutions of the present Prime Minister, and would have done so, but for the alteration they underwent; he had opposed the Vote of £6,000,000, and he had also opposed the calling out of the Reserves. Then came the bringing to Malta of the Indian troops, and now it was said that our honour was involved in the present position of affairs. That argument would not, however, in his opinion, hold water. He did not think that we were bound by the provisions of the Anglo-Turkish Treaty to interfere at all in the affairs of Turkey, as seemed to be intended; for that Treaty simply said that we would do certain things, if Turkey did not carry out certain stipulated reforms; but Turkey had carried out no reforms, consequently the conditional engagement in the Treaty fell to the ground. He, however, rested his argument upon another basis. In 1878 he had heard a speech from the Prime Minister, in which he described the policy of the Anglo-Turkish Convention as an insane policy. Well, the nation had since come to its senses, and had put sensible men on the Treasury Bench; and he maintained that they were not bound in their sane moments to that to which they bound themselves in their insane moments. But, supposing the Treaties were technically binding on us, he had high authority for saying that we were not called upon to act upon them; for, in reply to a Resolution which he had moved in that House in 1872, the present Prime Minister had stated that—"The truth was with regard to those guarantees which bound us to interfere by force of arms in the affairs of other nations, that they depended for their recognition and fulfilment very much on the national opinion of the time." The right hon. Gentleman, he might add, on that occasion quoted the words of Lord Palmerston, who said that "in accordance with the guarantee" of which he was speaking "we had a right to interfere; but that it did not constitute in itself an obligation to interfere." Now, that was his (Sir Wilfrid Lawson's) case; and he maintained that, as a guarantee depended upon the national opinion of the time, the Government of the day were bound, before it took any action in the direction of carrying out those Treaties by force of arms, to consult the national opinion of the time, which could only be done by consulting the House of Commons as the Representatives of the opinion of the country. That was the reason why he took that opportunity, now that the Session was drawing to a close, of asking the Government to give some explanation as to how they stood with regard to those Treaties. As for the question of the concert of Europe, he would not say much, as it really seemed almost too ridiculous to talk about. The idea of this free country setting to work to give good government and wise laws in conjunction with Austria and Russia was one of the most extraordinary things he had ever heard of. He very much regretted, he must confess, to find that the present Government should have got into such bad company in the matter. He assured the House and the Government that he would not have brought forward the subject at that time, were it not that he felt more strongly than he could express the danger of the situation into which he was afraid the country was drifting. He entreated the Government to tell the House and the country that they would not enter upon any warlike proceedings; and he reminded them that that was not the commission which was given to them when the country put them into power. He recollected the admirable address of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, in which he said that every advance in the direction of civil and religious liberty, popular education, and matters of that kind had been the true cause of the growth of the power of the Empire. Such things it was that made a nation really great and glorious; but he believed that if we engaged in warlike demonstrations it would be utterly impossible for the noble Lord to carry out that policy. Surely we had had enough of the contrary policy. We had supped full of horrors. The country was deluged day after day with the accounts of horrible British atrocities, if he might so describe them, carried on in almost all parts of the world. The moment at which he was speaking was a most solemn one; they were holding their breath waiting for news to arrive from India which might tell that one more bloody battle had been fought—news which would carry misery and desolation and mourning into numberless homes—desolation and misery caused by one of the most unjust and infamous of wars ever waged. He therefore would beg of the noble Lord to say, before the House broke up, words which would enable hon. Members to depart in the confidence that they would not, some day, find that we had been plunged into one of those miserable wars which led to nothing but crime and discredit, and were every day becoming more and more disastrous to the country.

said, he was glad the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had admitted that the Liberals, when in Opposition, had not scrupled to embarrass the late Government in their foreign policy by constant interpellations and frequent attacks, and did everything they could to degrade the country in foreign parts—

said, what he stated was, that they had persistently asked for information from the late Government on subjects of which they thought the House of Commons ought to be informed.

trusted the Conservative Party would not pursue those tactics to embarrass the present Ministry in the prosecution of their foreign policy. He should be glad, however, if the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India could, without embarrassing the Government, give the House some information as to how matters were now going on in the East. As to the concert of Europe, of which so much had been said, he had always contended that such concerts led generally to the display of bad faith in the case of some one of the Powers which were concerned in them; and, as an illustration of the justice of that view, he might point to the fact that, while the negotiations were going on at the Conference of Constantinople, Russia was engaged in organizing her Armies in Europe and in Asia for the purpose of attacking Turkey. If, indeed, by the concert of Europe the Government succeeded in maintaining peace in those Eastern districts which were disturbed, no one could be more glad at such a result than he would be; but he found, at the present moment, while such a concert was said to exist, that the Government were unable to deny the fact that Russia was pouring officers, troops, arms, and munitions of war into Bulgaria, with, it could be, only one object—that of depriving Turkey of a portion of her dominions. He did not wish to criticize the conduct of the Government. Turkey, having accepted the Treaty of Berlin, must promulgate the reforms which she had promised to carry out. At the same time, he trusted that we would be no party to the plunder of Turkey, and he would object to any attempt to coerce the Albanian nation. The only way to reform Turkey was to decentralize the Administration; and he hoped, therefore, the Government would urge the execution of the reforms which had been so ably supported by Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice in the European Commission. England had done everything to bring about the concert of Europe to force Turkey to make concessions to Greece and Montenegro and other nationalities. But she had done nothing to urge the carrying out of those conditions which were in favour of Turkey. Why had nothing been done to obtain the destruction of those fortresses in Bulgaria which were to be demolished in one year? Why had nothing been done in the way of pressure upon Servia? Why did not the Government look as anxiously to the interests of Turkey as to those of Greece and Montenegro ^٭? When he had questioned his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—whose absence from illness they all lamented—on this question, he had been told that we could not act alone, but must have the concurrence of the other Powers. But why had they not pursued the same course in favour of Turkey as they had against her? The Treaty of Berlin was intended to be a settlement between Turkey and her subject Provinces. No one desired the happiness of those Provinces more than he. He could not conceive a more lamentable state of things in respect of government or society than that which existed in those Provinces. But a grave political question was involved in any change of the Government and in the internal arrangements of Turkey. It would be difficult to say what course would be necessary if the Turks were turned out of Turkey. He would not, however, press the Government to tell the House more than they thought it was right to tell them. In foreign affairs, the Opposition was not entitled to embarrass the Government, or to cross-question them as to the future. In foreign affairs, the Executive Government should have its hands free. He might take this opportunity of complaining of the extraordinary conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers in concealing from the House all information in regard to the advance of General Burrows from Candahar. He had more than once asked for such information; and he must say that the answers which he had received from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had not been consistent with that fairness which generally characterized his statements. The noble Marquess had said that he was not in a position to inform the House as to the reasons which induced the extraordinary advance of General Burrows on the Helmund. The noble Lord had referred to confidential communications. He maintained that if there were such communications he had no right to refer to them. The noble Lord had said that the advance of General Burrows was ordered by the Viceroy on the advice of Colonel St. John, the Political Agent. It appeared that, on the 27th June, the noble Lord received a despatch from Lord Ripon, and that was little more than a fortnight after Lord Ripon had been sworn in. Why had the noble Lord kept that despatch from the House? The noble Lord had said more than once that all the information which he had received with reference to Afghan affairs generally consisted of meagre telegrams. Whose fault was it that the telegrams were meagre? Surely, it would not have been a great expense for the noble Lord to have telegraphed to the Viceroy, asking him to forward such details as were necessary. A letter published in The Morning Advertiser, from an officer in Afghanistan, showed that, as far back as the 27th June, the officers at Candahar had accurate information of the forces with Ayoub Khan; and a letter to The Times, from Major Leech, a distinguished officer on General Burrows's staff, showed that they were aware of the disaffection among the Wali's troops. Notwithstanding this, they were forced to go to the Helmund, which was simply sending them to certain slaughter. ["No!"] Well, the hon. Member who said "No!" must be aware that to send 2,000 men to meet 20,000 was to send those 2,000 men to certain slaughter. But the noble Marquess did not appear to know why they had been sent; and his only account of that transaction was a telegram he had not shown to the House for two months. The noble Marquess had, on more than one occasion, endeavoured to throw discredit upon the late Government, and had stated that the Administration of Lord Beaconsfield was responsible for the force stationed in Afghanistan. No doubt, that was the case; but, if the late Government was responsible for having an inadequate and insufficient force in Afghanistan, it was the fault of the present Government that the advance of General Burrows should have been ordered, when they knew that the force was inadequate and insufficient; but the question of the responsibility of that advance the noble Lord had always avoided. Why had the Viceroy consulted Colonel St. John, Political Agent, instead of General Primrose? If Colonel St. John, with the knowledge which he must and ought to have possessed, advised that advance—as to which he felt some doubt—then, no punishment could be too severe to inflict upon him. The noble Lord said that General Phayre's reserves were ordered up; but they had not yet arrived, and, coming from Quetta and Chaman, they could not possibly have arrived in time to anticipate a Sir H. Drummond Wolff battle between General Burrows and Ayoub Khan. He contended, therefore, that it was either through ignorance, incapacity, or negligence on the part of the Indian Government, that the troops of General Burrows were sent forth to be slaughtered. He did not ask the Government to state what their policy was; but the House would like to know by whose orders, on what responsibility, and with what object General Burrows was allowed to detach his force from the garrison of Candahar, and leave it with a force of only 1,700 troops, 1,000 of whom were Natives; and whether he and General Primrose, or any of the military authorities on the spot, were consulted by the Viceroy when the orders were given from Simla; or whether the troops were moved simply on the responsibility of the Political Agent at Candahar?

Sir, before answering the question of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and the observations of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) on the same subject, I think I had better say a word or two on the concluding portion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth's speech as to the advance of General Burrows. The hon. Member accuses me of having concealed information from the House. The hon. Member must be perfectly aware that a number of telegrams are received by the Government from India, and also from foreign Governments on foreign affairs, which are of a confidential character, and cannot be communicated to the House. With regard to the telegram I have read to-day, the substance of it was indicated to the House by me some time ago. The hon. Member says I have endeavoured to throw the responsibility of the disaster upon the late Government. I have endeavoured, as far as I can, especially to avoid any such imputation. My only desire is that injustice should not be done to Lord Ripon and his advisers; and, with that desire, I have pointed out that the force which Lord Ripon found at Candahar was decided upon, not by himself, but by the late Government; and the late Government are responsible for the amount of the force they considered necessary for the garrisoning of Candahar, and for the protection and maintenance of the Wali, whom they had established as Ameer of Candahar. The hon. Member says it had long been known that the advance of Ayoub Khan from Herat with a large force was threatened. But did the late Government think it necessary to strengthen the garrison at Candahar? Not at all. [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: They mobilized a division at Scinde.] From time to time, up to the very moment of the arrival of Lord Ripon in India, rumours were received, almost day by day from Herat, that troops were about to start; and it was not considered by the Government of Lord Lytton, any more than by that of Lord Ripon, that it was necessary to strengthen the garrison of Candahar. At last, authentic information arrived that Ayoub Khan's army had actually moved, and it became necessary for Lord Ripon and his Government that action should be taken with regard to that state of circumstances. I altogether deny that the Government had at that time, or could possibly have had, any accurate information as to the amount of the force that was moving from Herat to attack Candahar; because I do not believe that anything like those numbers left Herat which eventually attacked the army of Candahar. It is perfectly evident that the force was enormously swelled on its march; and up to the last moment it seemed doubtful whether Ayoub would be able to lead his troops at all to the banks of the Helmund. The reserve, which the hon. Member says was mobilized by the late Government, was ordered to advance to reinforce General Primrose at Candahar; but it was impossible that that reserve could reach Candahar without considerable delay. All that could be done then by the Government was to decide in what way the force left at Candahar could be best used for the purpose of securing the safety of Candahar, and allaying excitement and agitation throughout the country. What could the Government do but take the advice of their responsible military advisers? They took counsel on the subject, and they came to the conclusion—and, as far as I am aware, it was not questioned by a single military man in India; and I am quite certain General Primrose would be the last man to question it—that the best step was to advance a brigade up to the Helmund, which nobody appears to doubt was quite competent to prevent the passage of Ayoub's force. It is said that the Government were, at that time, not unaware of the mutinous spirit among the Wali's forces; but I am not aware from what source that information was obtained. The mutiny did not take place until the middle of the month, a fortnight after the advance had been ordered. There was no information in the possession of the Government until a very few days previously, or any sign of mutiny or insubordination among the Wali's forces. As I said before, it is very easy to criticize after the event, and to say that the force sent under General Burrows was insufficient to cope with the enormous army of Ayoub Khan. But the House will recollect that a successful resistance to the advance of Ayoub Khan by General Burrows would not have been an isolated event in Indian history. If British forces, whether British or Native, are never to engage an enemy except when they do so on favourable terms, and when they can insure superiority, or only a moderate superiority of strength, we should not have obtained the great military successes we have obtained. I venture to say that there was not a single officer in India who doubted the sufficiency of the force that was sent forward for the purpose of coping with any force that it was likely Ayoub Khan could send against it. The hon. Member sneers at advice being taken from Sir Donald Stewart; but Sir Donald Stewart had reconnoitred from Candahar; he was intimate with the country, and was intimately acquainted with the condition of the Wali's forces; he was as thoroughly and intimately acquainted with everything connected with the position, military and civil, at Candahar, as any officer could be; and I do not know where advice could be sought for more appropriately than from Sir Donald Stewart, although he did not at that moment happen to be on the spot. I think the hon. Member would have done better to wait until he saw the Papers, which have been laid upon the Table, and will, I hope, be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow. I do not mean to say that these Papers themselves will throw complete light upon all the occurrences which have taken place up to the present time. But I am sure the House will not be disposed to indorse the severe censure of the hon. Member, until they have in their hands all the documents and Papers which show the ground upon which the Government of India acted. Above all, I am sure this House would be the last to condemn the action of the Government, taken on the best advice and the best consideration they could give, simply from the fact that, in the result, it has not been successful. As I have stated, it is easy to judge after the event; and I ask the House what it would say if a British force of very considerable amount had been cooped up within the walls of Candahar, while levies of Ayoub Khan's were driving the forces of the Wali, our protégé, before them, overrunning the whole Province, and, perhaps, cutting off our communications with Cabul? Had the Governor General of India, or General Primrose, adopted that course they would have been open to the just reproach that they were doing that which was unworthy of the honour of the British Army. Although we all deeply regret and deplore the unfortunate loss of life that has occurred, yet it is, I am certain, a consolation to every one of us to know that, at all events, as regards the courage and conduct of the British Army, there is nothing, so far as we yet know, that in the slightest degree reflects upon the character of our Army in India. A question has been asked me by the hon. Member for Carlisle and by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, with regard to the position of foreign affairs in Eastern Europe. In replying to that Question, I must say that I fail to see the precise relevancy of the precedents to which the hon. Member for Carlisle referred, in justification of the step he has taken in making this inquiry of the Government. The hon. Member referred at length to the Motions which were brought forward by us when the late Government were in Office. Those Motions have not, in my opinion, the slightest connection with the inquiry which the hon. Member now makes of us. On one occasion, certainly, we thought it desirable to raise a question as to the legality of the action of the late Government in bringing a portion of the Indian Army into Europe. Although Parliament then decided against us, we still believe that we did our duty in calling the attention of this House and of the country to what we regarded as the grave Constitutional question which was involved in that proceeding. The hon. Member spoke of what was now going on in the East as an attempt on the part of this country, and of those with whom we are acting, to improve the position of certain nationalities by means of menaces directed against Turkey. I do not know where the hon. Member has obtained that idea from. The action of Her Majesty's Government has been taken not with the view of improving the position of any nationality by force of arms. What we are doing, in strict union and harmony with our Allies, is with the view of securing the performance, by Turkey and by the other Powers, of the international engagements into which they have entered. The hon. Member for Carlisle says that while the late Government were in Office we availed ourselves of many opportunities of making Motions of this kind. During the tenure of Office of the late Government, we brought forward Motions relating to foreign affairs on three occasions. We opposed the Vote of Credit for £6,000,000, asked for by the late Government; but that matter stood upon a perfectly distinct footing from the present case. The late Government then told us that it was not so much the £6,000,000 they wanted, as to obtain the assent of Parliament to their foreign policy, and to show Europe that they were acting with the assent of Parliament. That being the case, we felt it to be our duty to give Parliament an opportunity of expressing its opinion one way or another with regard to that policy. I have already referred to the case of the Indian troops. That was a question of importance involving a Constitutional matter—namely, the power of the Crown to increase the Forces at its command in Europe. We desired to bring and did bring that Constitutional question under the notice of Parliament. The third occasion on which we brought forward a Motion of the kind was when we desired to censure—and I am glad to remember that we did so—the Anglo-Turkish Convention. That, however, was not a Motion brought forward while very difficult and delicate negotiations relating to the subject were in progress. The negotiations were concluded; and no steps that we could then take would have embarrassed the then action of the Government. It was a question on which we were entitled, in- deed, bound, to ask the opinion of the House and the country. I perfectly admit that, while these negotiations were proceeding, we did ask across this Table many questions of the Government with regard to them; but I appeal to those hon. Members who were in Parliament during the last Session, whether those questions were pressed to an inconvenient extent, or whether we did not always cheerfully accept any intimation from the Government that they could not give us a reply? Now, Sir, as negotiations are going on at present, I have, as I told my hon. Friend the other day, little more to add to what I have, and what my noble Friend in "another place" has laid before Parliament. It would be an act of discourtesy to the Turkish Government, and we are not authorized by the other Powers with whom we are acting, to state precisely the measures we shall propose to take in certain contingencies and eventualities. A great danger exists in the East, and threatens the Turkish Empire as well as the peace of Europe. In our opinion, and in the opinion of Europe, that danger is due, to a great extent, to the failure by the Turkish Government to fulfil certain international engagements into which it has entered with respect to its Frontiers, and to reforms which were to be executed in its own Provinces. We have always endeavoured to avoid, and have, in fact, avoided, the language of menace; and it is still our earnest hope that no necessity for armed coercion may arise, our object being not to embarrass, but to strengthen the Turkish Empire. If we cannot strengthen that Empire, then we wish to render its existence possible, by the settlement of those disputes and difficulties which threaten that existence. The assembling of the Fleets of the Allied Powers, with whom we are acting in perfect union and harmony, proves the determination of the Powers not to allow decisions based upon the Treaty of Berlin to be set aside either by direct opposition or by too long and protracted delay. I have said that these decisions are based upon the Treaty of Berlin; and on that point my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle somewhat misquoted the words of the Prime Minister, who has always spoken in terms of great respect regarding that Treaty. What my hon. Friend did was to speak of the policy of the Anglo-Turkish Convention as an in- sane policy, and he never applied that epithet to the Treaty of Berlin. I believe that the House and the country would be disposed to support the Government in abstaining from any declaration which might, on the one hand, lead us to use language of menace towards Turkey, and, on the other, might encourage in the mind of the Turkish Government the notion that they might set aside the decisions of Europe. I am perfectly willing to admit, what I am sure the House will admit, the perfect consistency and sincerity of my hon. Friend in his desire to avoid measures which might, at no distant future, tend to lead in the direction of war; but I must point out to him, and to many who share his opinions, that it is far more likely to lead to the result he desires to avoid, if every day he tries to draw from the Government a declaration which it is impossible for them to make consistently with their good faith and honour towards those Allies with whom we are at present acting, and from whom we have not received authority to state fully the policy on which they are prepared to act.

said, he should be careful, in the few remarks he had to make, to refrain from saying anything that could have the effect of embarrassing the action of the Government. It was true that Her Majesty's present Advisers had not made more than three or four directly hostile Motions in regard to foreign affairs when the late Government was in power; but it could not be forgotten that they asked for explanations on points of foreign policy almost every night. This was notably the fact at the time when the British Fleet was ordered up to Constantinople. It was the duty of an Opposition to take an answer from the Government as conclusive; and, when they said that further information, if given, would be prejudicial to the public interest, to leave the responsibility of future interest with the Government. But there was a good reason why the Opposition should not have harassed the Government with questions on foreign affairs, and it was this—that the avowed object of Her Majesty's Government was to complete the carrying out of the Treaty of Berlin. He would not enter upon the question whether certain eminent Members of the Government, while in Opposition, did not use language which was of a character very hostile to that Treaty, he would only remember that in Office the Government had stated that they would give effect to the Treaty. They announced that they hoped to do so with the concert of Europe; but, over and over again, the late Government stated that the concert of Europe was a most desirable end to obtain. When Lord Salisbury went to Constantinople he brought about a concert of Europe; but the late Government knew how dangerous it was to place all their confidence upon that concert, when they were not aware of the manner in which its decisions were to be enforced. They had not been told whether the Powers were agreed or not as to the means to be applied to obtain the execution of the decision of concerted Europe. It is impossible, therefore, to form an opinion as to whether this concert of Europe is wise or unwise, or in what direction it was likely to lead them. He would remind the House that, just before Lord Salisbury left Office, he proposed that a mixed Commission should go to Greece, and consider what should be the new boundaries of that Kingdom. The European concert, which it was the boast of the Government now in power to have restored, and of which they had recently heard so much, had, for the present, only led to the Fleets of Europe being brought into Turkish waters, with objects in regard to which they were utterly kept in the dark. Her Majesty's Government would, he thought, admit that they had received from the Front Bench no undue criticism. The Opposition had abstained from offering the slightest embarrassment to the proceedings of the Government, either by Questions or Motions, for as the general object of the Government had been declared, and to which no objection could be raised, they left the details to be carried out by the Government on its responsibility. It was refreshing to hear from the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) that, had his Party been in Opposition, they would have asked for more information. When these measures might bring the country to the brink of war, it was, no doubt, a very inconvenient position for the House and for the country to be told that the Government could not, consistently with the public interest, communicate information in their possession. Other countries did not adopt the system, which prevailed here, of questioning Ministers as to matters of great importance; and it therefore happened that the Government of this country were compelled to withhold information which they possessed in common with Powers with whom they were acting. With respect to the proposed Naval Demonstration, no unprejudiced person could say that its objects were not objects which were very desirable to obtain. So far as Montenegro and Armenia were concerned, there could be no doubt that the demands made on the Porte ought to be acceded to. The accession of territory to Montenegro was agreed to at the Berlin Congress; so also, in principle, was that to Greece; but he thought that, in the latter case, it was a pity that Her Majesty's Government did not carry on the negotiations which had been initiated by the late Government. He could not help saying that it was a painful thing for a Power like Turkey to have to cede so large an amount of territory as she was called upon to do. The decision of the Conference went beyond the requirements of the Treaty of Berlin; because the Conference had proposed a much larger accession of territory to Greece than was indicated by the Treaty; and, diplomatically, the Conference had laid down a fixed line, and in that respect had abandoned the mediatorial character contemplated by the Treaty of Berlin. He did not say that what was being done was wrong; but he said it was desirable we should be moderate in our judgment with regard to the action of the Porte in reference to the demands made upon it. He wished to say a few words with respect to the Naval Demonstration. There had been demands and a refusal of them; and we were brought face to face with the awkward fact that, in consequence of these negotiations, the Fleets of Europe were putting on a hostile appearance. Therefore, it was fair they should ask the Government, against whom was this hostile demonstration made? We had not the smallest idea against whom it was made. It might be against the Albanians, or against the Turkish Government, or against the subject-nationalities. Everything connected with this demonstration had been carefully concealed from the House and the country. He would not press the Government to say more, if it would be injurious to the public interests; but he really thought that, if he were sitting on the Ministerial Bench, he could give a little more information without doing injury to the Public Service. There were certain questions he should like to ask. Upon what Power or nationality was it intended that the combined Fleet should act? Had any Convention been entered into between the Powers as to the intention or object of this Naval Demonstration? Were the instructions given to the British Admiral identical with those given to the other Commanders? Had any of the other Powers declined to place their squadrons under the command of the British Admiral? He need not remind the House that this country was in a totally different position from the other Powers with regard to this question; and the consequences to us might be totally different from the consequences to them; therefore, information which the British Parliament might ask for might legitimately be refused by other Powers; and this country was entitled to receive the fullest information which the Government could give with safety. The interests of England in the East were so different from those of any other European Power that he had little confidence in the maintenance of European concert except for very limited objects. It was impossible to say what would be the consequence of an outbreak of hostilities in this region. He did not wish to allude to the excited condition of the Albanians, to the condition of the Greek Army, or to the position of Russian troops in Bulgaria. All these points, no doubt, were present to the mind of the Government; but, he must say, the risk appeared to be increased by the presence of the combined squadron in the neighbourhood of these excited populations; and he could not help expressing his conviction that this step was unwise and dangerous, and likely to bring about a state of things perilous to the peace of Europe, and calculated more to retard than to expedite the reform of the Turkish Empire. If the Government could, in the just performance of their duty, answer the questions he had put, he should be glad; if they could not, he should, at least, have done his duty in putting them, and should not be responsible for the reticence of the Government, or for the consequence of their measures.

Sir, I should not have thought it necessary to immediately follow my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bourke), but for some of his remarks with regard to the Naval Demonstration. Otherwise I should have waited until others had taken part in this debate. But one or two questions were put by him to me in regard to some of which he ought to have an answer, and in regard to others be told the reason why I cannot give him one. My right hon. Friend has asked what are the objects of the Naval Demonstration? He says the Fleet has been moved, and the House has been kept quite in the dark as to the reason. He also asks what are the arrangements made with regard to the command of the combined Fleet, what are the instructions to the officers and whether the arrangements are the same with regard to all the Powers. The arrangements as to the command and the instructions to the officers are not at this moment absolutely complete; but I believe I shall not be going too far if I say that the instructions to all the Admirals will be the same. I think I can also state that the senior Admiral will command, and will consult the other Admirals on political questions only. [An hon. MEMBER: Who will it be?] I believe it will be the English Admiral. Then he says that the Fleet has been moved for purposes as to which the House has been kept in the dark. I can only say in reply that the object of the present demonstration is mainly to show to Turkey, and to produce to her ocular proof of the absolute agreement of the Powers; and, by doing so, to exercise pressure on the Porte. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has spoken to-night in the name and as the advocate of peace; but this agreement of the six Great Powers of Europe, and the action which they are taking, is in favour of, and in defence of, the principles of peace. The action which the whole of the European Powers are taking is not only intended, but is believed to be calculated to prevent a catastrophe which would be full of danger, not only to the Turkish Empire, but to the peace of Europe as a whole. The six Powers are of opinion that the delay and neglect of the Porte to carry out certain of its obligations under the Treaty of Berlin is a danger to European peace. I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend shares that opinion, and I do not think that upon this point there is much difference between the two sides of the House. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), in his speech to-night, or in one portion of it with which I very much agree, asked us to go much further. His complaint, apparently, was that we were only acting on certain portions of the Treaty of Berlin, and were not insisting on the carrying out of the whole of it; and I think he mentioned portions of the Treaty which pressed unduly upon Turkey which were not being carried out. But he also mentioned other portions which affect the subject-nationalities, because he spoke of the promulgation of the Statutes, and of the necessity of exercising pressure upon the Porte, not only with regard to Montenegrin, Greek, and Armenian Questions, but also with a view to a settlement of other European questions which had been dealt with by my noble Friend the Member for Calne [Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice). Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that there is not much difference of opinion between the two sides of the House as to the necessity of settling these pending questions. Now, Sir, the Powers hold this language, and are persuaded that their action is not only calculated to secure European peace, but is also calculated to preserve the power of the Porte itself, and that it is short-sighted policy of the Porte if they any longer resist the settlement of the Frontier questions which has been demanded of them by the Treaty of Berlin. With regard, Sir to this particular demonstration—the Naval Demonstration—to which my right hon. Friend has referred, from the way he has spoken, he seems to suppose that it has reference to the Greek Question. He seems to think so, because he spoke of the hardness of the terms insisted upon as regards the Porte. But the question at present preparing for solution is not the Greek, but the Montenegrin Question. It has been placed in the first rank, and is more likely than any other to lead to an actual breach of the peace. There has been, indeed, a certain amount of fighting upon the Montenegrin Frontier, and, that being so, it was thought that this was the first question to be dealt with as the one most calculated to lead to an immediate breach of the peace. Then, as I have said, the demonstration which is about to take place has been led up to by the delay on the part of the Porte to settle the question of the Montenegrin Frontier. We have every reason to believe that our endeavours to settle that Montenegrin Frontier Question will be completely successful, and that within a very short time indeed. The delay which has already taken place has, no doubt, been great; but we hope that no coercion of the Porte itself will take place, because no coercion of the Porte will be necessary. As long ago as the 4th May last, Lord Granville pointed out that the 28th section of the Treaty of Berlin had not been executed through the delay of the Turkish Government. Of course, we were in no way responsible for what is known as the Corti Compromise, which was agreed upon before we took Office; but, it having been agreed upon by all the European Powers, whatever doubts we might have with regard to its wisdom, we were, of course, bound to give the Porte the opportunity of carrying it out. Another proposition, an alternative proposition, was placed before the Porte; and it was said if the Corti Compromise was too difficult to carry into effect, a new scheme, which had been agreed upon by the Austrian and the English Consuls, known as the Dulcigno Arrangement, might be carried into effect instead. The consent of the Porte has never been given to it; but, at the same time, it has never been distinctly refused, though the Porte has made no less than three replies to that single arrangement. Those replies do not agree, and no two are exactly the same; but we have often found that the authorities at the Porte are not very good geographers, and that they sometimes refuse an arrangement simply because they do not know exactly what it is. We have, at the present moment, considerable grounds for saying that we believe that that Dulcigno Arrangement will be carried into effect. I think that the fact that the unanimity of the Powers is to be shown in this conspicuous way by the meeting of the Fleets of all the Powers at the port of Ragusa, which has been thrown open by the Austrian Government, will quicken the action of the Porte with regard to carrying out this Dulcigno Arrangement, and so of executing the 28th Article of the Treaty of Berlin; but the absolute unanimity of the Powers so displayed must also have the best effect upon the execution of the remaining unfulfilled Articles of that Treaty. I believe the unanimity shown on this occasion, which is known to the Porte to exist also upon other questions, must assist the execution of the Treaty, and must have a beneficial effect both upon the Greek and Armenian Questions as well as upon the arrangement with regard to the European Provinces, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) has spoken to-night. I may remind the House that the unanimity of the Powers exists, not only with regard to this Montenegrin Question, but with regard to the other Frontier questions also. That unanimity has been placed upon record, in regard to the Greek Question, as late as the 26th August. As to this point I wish to make a remark upon something which has fallen from my right hon. Friend. He asserts that the Conference went far beyond the Treaty of Berlin geographically. I think he also used another epithet. [Mr. BOURKE: Diplomatically.] I will not stop to discuss the question as between my right hon. Friend and myself; but that, at any rate, was not the opinion of the Conference, because as late as the 26th August the whole of the six Powers have placed their opinion upon record—I am quoting from a document already laid upon the Table of the House, which I hope will be circulated in some new Turkey Papers very shortly—that the line proposed to the Porte is in conformity with the Treaty and Protocols of Berlin, and, that being so, it has been proposed to the Porte. The Powers are equally united in regard to the subject of the reforms in Armenia, and a Note on this subject is now being prepared with the consent of all the Powers. In other points the Powers are acting completely together, and in regard to the Asiatic Frontiers the boundaries have been laid down with perfect success under the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin, while the proceedings of the European Commission under the 23rd Article have also been marked by this complete unanimity. The whole of the documents which will be laid before the House, and which are already laid upon the Table, and will be very soon circulated, show that the six European Powers, through their Representatives, have acted together, and that they have concurred in everthing that has been done. Every document has been signed by the whole of their Representatives with one exception—the Declaration with respect to the application of the law to Albania, which was signed by five Commissioners, but was not signed by the Russian Commissioner. With that single exception, the whole of the action of the Powers on the 23rd Article has been marked by absolute unanimity. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, in the course of his remarks, rather complained, as I stated just now, that we should take so active a part, as it were, against Turkey upon certain questions, and he seemed to think that we only insisted upon certain Articles of the Treaty of Berlin being carried into effect. I may say, with regard to the only two points he mentioned in confirmation of his views—namely, that of the Bulgarian fortresses and the condition of the population of those Provinces—that in both these matters Her Majesty's Government have taken so active a part that I think I may claim for them that they have taken the initiative, both in regard to the dismantling of the fortresses, and also with regard to the condition of the population; and the inquiry which has been carried out by Colonel Wilson and Mr. Stephen at Phillippopolis with regard to the condition of the Mahometan population in Eastern Roumelia is one for the inception of which we think that this country will deserve credit. I think that, in that point also, we may be said to have taken the initiative among the European Powers. It is the desire, Sir, of the Government that the whole of the Articles of the Treaty should be carried out, as the best means of preserving European peace—both the Articles which tell in favour of Turkish power, and those which may be said to tell against it. I think my right hon. Friend made one remark with regard to the concert of Europe, in which he must have forgotten something which fell from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) in "another place" not very long ago. My right hon. Friend, when he praised the concert of Europe, added that he hoped we might be able to maintain that concert. I cannot speak of that without referring to the most unfortunate remarks which some months ago fell from Lord Salisbury in "another place." I must say that the effect of those remarks was rather to ridicule the concert of Europe, or, at any rate, it seemed to me that the object of them was to cast a certain amount of ridicule on that concert of Europe which we have succeeded in carrying into effect. My right hon. Friend said that the concert of Europe had been desired by the Conservative Party; but the effect of what Lord Salisbury said was to ridicule that concert, for he spoke of the instruments playing out of tune. At the present time we have not found that. We have found that the instruments have played together, and I can assure the House that in every detail that concert has not only been maintained, but has been most successfully maintained, and we believe that there is a real prospect of its having serious effect. I hope that nothing will be said here to-night which will weaken the effect of the concert, or tend to detract from the great principles which it has in view. The question at present before us is the question of Montenegro; and in regard to that I have every reason to suppose that the concert of Europe will be found to have produced a settlement which will be satisfactory to this House, to this country, and to Europe at large.

said, that the speech of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) reminded him of a form that was used at the Foreign Office, called an "extender." Information in that Office was frequently communicated by means of telegrams; afterwards the substance of the telegram was embodied in a more extended and verbose manner in a despatch. Well, it appeared to him that the speech of the noble Marquess stood in relation to the speech of Lord Granville in "another place" exactly in the same relation that a despatch stood to the telegram on which it was founded. It stated in a good many more words precisely and exactly the same thing. The reason he called attention to that was that he was not satisfied with the reply of Lord Granville; and, therefore, he was, of course, not more satisfied with the remarks of the noble Lord. With regard to the speech of his hon. Friend who had just sat down, there was no doubt that he had told them more than they knew before in regard to the negotiations in progress at this moment. With regard, however, to the future to which they were all looking forward, he confessed that the thing which struck him most in what fell from his lips was the assertion that the European concert was to use force. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: No!] Was he in error in that?

Oh! certainly. I made no reference to the subject whatever.

begged pardon. He had evidently been under a misapprehension. His hon. Friend, however, had alluded in an adverse sense to the remarks of Lord Salisbury with regard to the concert of Europe, and seemed to find some inconsistency between the assertion of one hon. Gentleman that the concert of Europe was most desirable to have, and some other remarks made by the noble Lord in "another place" which seemed to his hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to throw ridicule on the concert of Europe. But his hon. Friend did not exactly touch the point of Lord Salisbury's remarks when he seemed to think he cast ridicule at the European concert. It was the European concert as an instrument for carrying out a continuous policy, as an instrument which was to be used through a lengthened course of international arrangements, to which Lord Salisbury alluded; and he was bound to say, regarded from that point of view, he thought everything said by the noble Lord had been entirely justified by the past, and he was afraid might be justified in the future. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said his remarks were entirely repudiated by the fact that, up to this time, the European concert had been undisturbed, or, at all events, that, so far as they knew, it had been undisturbed; but then nobody ever contended that it was not perfectly easy to get the European Powers to agree to do anything. The real difficulty was when action was demanded, and when force had to be used, which he sincerely hoped would not be required. Until force had become necessary these questions did not arise, and until that concert had been tried as an instrument for carrying out a policy of that kind it would be perfectly impossible to say whether it would or would not be maintained. At present it was merely playing an interlude and taking the parts. It was only when they were in the middle of the symphony that they would be able to see whether the instruments were in tune and would act successfully to the end of the piece. With regard to Montenegro, they ought also always to bear in mind that between the case of Montenegro and the ease of Greece there was a very wide distinction. The Porte was a party to the arrangements which the Government was now trying to induce them to carry into effect. They were bound at this moment to carry out that Treaty, and to carry out the arrangements which he understood the European Powers were pressing upon the Porte. The case of Greece was undoubtedly different. His right hon. Friend the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke) observed that the line marked out by the second Congress of Berlin was not in accordance with the line marked out by the original Congress. That observation was met by the present Under Secretary of State, who replied that, at all events, the Congress at Berlin and the Powers of Europe maintained that they were the same; but this was not a matter of dispute, this was a matter of plain geography, and any persons who looked at the original Protocol and compared the new line with that laid down as the old one could decide it for themselves. He could not help being reminded of what his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State had himself said of the weakness of the Porte with regard to geography. It appeared, however, that it was not only the Porte that was ignorant of geography, for if the European Powers believed that the line now laid down was the line originally suggested by the Protocol of Berlin the charge of ignorance of geography might certainly be turned against those Powers. The danger with regard to Greece, however, was that we might encourage her by our action to commence a proceeding which we should afterwards withdraw from, and thus leave her in the lurch; that we should, in fact, put ourselves in the extremely awkward position of having either to use force, or to leave Greece to fight her own battle. He was sorry to say it, but he did think the action of the present Government might possibly or conceivably lead to an event of that sort, and it was a possibility which he thought ought most carefully to be kept in view. What had been the conduct of the present Government? Just before they came into Office, the late Government attempted to mediate in accordance with the Treaty of Berlin, and by means of a Commission to settle a line which should be satisfactory to both parties. That particular method of proceeding did not commend itself to the present Government. They thought they were bound to try the concert of Europe; and, at any rate, whatever their motive was, they proceeded to substitute for a foreign Commission a much more pompous, and not more efficient, machinery, by which the same object was to be obtained. That fact alone, he thought, was one calculated to raise the hopes of the Hellenic Party. There must also, however, be taken into account the action of the present Government before they came into Office. The action of certain Members of the present Government was even more suspicious. The Prime Minister in one of his speeches called the late Government to task for preventing the Congress at Berlin from handing over the whole of Thessaly and Epirus to Greece. He said that the whole of that territory ought to be given to them, and that it ought not to be watered down into a voluntary arrangement between the two Powers. They all knew, also, that many Members of the present Administration, before they came into Office, were Members of some sort of society—he forgot its exact name—which used to meet, and where they used to make speeches sympathizing with the Greeks, and pouring a certain amount of odium upon the late Government. These circumstances, and this action of Members of the present Government, all tended in the same direction. The object to be gained was to put in an emphatic form that the European concert was still unbroken, and that it was not enough to send Identic Notes; it was necessary, in addition, that our Fleet should go to Ragusa, and that there should be some kind of exhibition of physical force. He was greatly afraid, however, that the Hellenic Government, looking at all these things and weighing them, and unable to distinguish as accurately as they could between speeches before Office was attained and the policy pursued afterwards, might be misled by all these circumstances, and might be induced to take action which Europe, when it came to the point, might not feel itself in a position to assist. That would be a most serious state of things, and it was one which the Government ought most carefully to keep in mind. Though he entirely sympathized with all their objects in regard to Montenegro, and wished as earnestly as any man that every part of the Treaty should be carried out, he did think that the means which they were employing, so far as he understood them, for carrying out that Treaty were means which in future might be the cause of great danger to the peace of Europe.

said, after the statements made by the noble Marquess and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he did not rise to ask for any further declaration of policy from them, or to put any further questions to them. He was sure the House had listened with the greatest satisfaction to those statements, and, perhaps, most of all, to the assurance given so strongly by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the joint action of the Powers, and the perfect harmony of the Powers, was being so well maintained. If the instruments were now playing in tune, perhaps it was because the conductor of the orchestra knew how to lead them. He was surprised that a responsible statesman occupying the position of the late Minister for Foreign Affairs should go out of his way to cast scorn upon the concert of Europe, as that was the only instrument by which the welfare of the East could be secured. It would be, he would not say more patriotic, but it would be more thoughtful, and would show a better sense of the duty of a statesman to this country and to Europe, if they were to support the Government in maintaining that policy. Statesmen like the noble Lord must know that everything said in this country was read and marked at Constantinople, and that everything tending to depreciate the concert of Europe was likely to encourage the Porte in that policy of blank resistance which at present it was so inclined to follow. With regard to the Greek Question, to which the hon. Member (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had just referred, he confessed that he was somewhat surprised that the hon. Member should have raised it at all, for he should have thought that was a page in the history of the late Government which they would certainly have been unwilling to re-open. This country was bound to do something of the Greek people entirely because of the way in which we had led on the Greek people to believe that something was going to be done for them. When the Greek people were going to take arms in order to obtain their Frontier in Thessaly and Epirus they were induced, on the solemn pledges and assurances given by Her Majesty's Representatives, to abstain; and, so far from thinking, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government could be censured for putting the Greek Question on a level with that of Montenegro, he should have thought that to England no case appealed more strongly than that of Greece. He wished also to be permitted to make one or two remarks in regard to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), because the position which the hon. Member occupied in that House, particularly among the Liberal Party, was so important and honourable that considerable value must attach to whatever he said; and it was, therefore, the more necessary that some independent Liberal Member should express generally the sentiments of the Liberal Party on the question of intervention. He must confess that he listened to that speech with admiration and sympathy—admiration for the rigid consistency with which he had followed those doctrines of non-intervention, and sympathy with the motives of humanity which prompted them. He would even go further and say that he was willing to agree with him that if it were possible for this country to pursue a policy of absolute non-intervention that it should be so. That policy was possible for America; but it was not possible for us, because we were already involved in so many arrangements that we could not make a tabula rasa and start afresh for the future. He wished to point out what the application of this fact was to the position of the country on the Eastern Question. The hon. Member seemed to think that we were not bound, in any special way, to go on and carry out the Treaty of Berlin; but he would remind that hon. Member that by the Treaty of San Stefano Russia had undertaken the protection of the subject-races to a very much larger extent even than by the Treaty of Berlin itself, and had incurred obligations which would have secured to them the reforms that they so much needed. In these circumstances this country, backed by the other Powers, set aside that Treaty and attacked it, and effaced it, amidst the applause of hon. Gentlemen opposite. There was nothing the Conservative Party prided itself more upon than that that Treaty had been set aside, and the Christian populations placed under the protection of the European Powers as a whole. That was the line taken up by the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government. If he might presume to confirm what had been said by the noble Marquess, he would like to remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman had almost praised the Treaty of Berlin for having upheld and maintained the principle of the European concert. It was only to the Anglo-Turkish Convention that he applied the term of "an insane covenant." The one point which he singled out for praise in the Berlin Treaty—a point which was re-echoed by the whole Liberal Party—was that it transferred to all the Powers of Europe those obligations to all the subject-races of Turkey which had been undertaken in the Treaty of San Stefano by Russia alone. By this act, then, we had deprived those subject-populations of the protection which Russia had bound herself to give them, and had taken that protection upon ourselves. Were we not, then, bound to carry out that policy completely, and to carry it out by all the means which our power and influence placed in our hands? He would only like to add one or two words as to the particular position in which the Eastern Question now stood, because he doubted whether the House generally had quite realized the extreme gravity of the question. Mahommedan fanaticism had been greatly excited during the last few years, and it was at present almost at explosion point; and a very little more would be needed, in the oppressions which afflicted Macedonia and Asia Minor, to produce an outbreak of massacres as terrible as those which took place in Bulgaria. The only means of averting such a catastrophe was to compel the Porte to yield. But, so far from doing that at present, the Porte seemed to be doing its best to stimulate that fanaticism. Hon. Members would recollect that a few years ago some conversation took place with regard to the dissemination, by the Imperial Printing Press of Constantinople, of inflammatory literature addressed to the Mahommedans of India. Information had also recently reached the House that a league of Kurdish Chiefs in Armenia was being organized similar to that Albanian League with the object of hounding them on still further against the Christian population, and making it still more difficult to obtain that peace and security which we had been ourselves endeavouring to secure. He should have thought it necessary to justify a course of coercion on the part of the Government in the interests of the subject-populations, but that hon. Gentlemen opposite had abstained from making any attacks upon the Government on that score. They might congratulate themselves that the tone of the House in that respect had been singularly unanimous. There had been a general admission by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Government was doing no more than their duty in endeavouring to carry out that part of the Treaty of Berlin. He hoped that the House would rise content with the assurances they had had that the Government was doing its very best to secure peace, and that it was continuing in the course which it had followed since it came into Office in endeavouring to carry out the Treaty of Berlin. He hoped, further, that while they did what was needed for the cause of Montenegro and Greece, that the Government would not forget the even more pressing case of the Christians in Asia Minor. Hon. Members might, he was sure, feel confident that a Government, composed as the present Government was composed, would not resort to coercion without need; and if, unfortunately, it should become necessary, they might be sure that the Government would not use it until it had become the only available remedy, the only alternative to a disgraceful abandonment of those to whom we were pledged, and whom every motive of interest, as well as every motive of humanity, called upon us to protect and maintain.

said, that he wished to make some remarks on the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) on the subject of the concert of Europe. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had called attention to the remarks made by Lord Salisbury as being in the nature of a scoff at the concert of Europe. The explanation given by the hon. Member for Hertford of the view taken by Lord Salisbury upon that subject was that the concert of Europe never could, in his opinion, be regarded as a permanent instrument for the accomplishment of the object contemplated by the Powers. In his opinion, the concert of Europe could not be looked upon as an instrument otherwise than temporary in its application and character. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Temporary and occasional.] That was the extraordinary view taken by one who was a Plenipotentiary at Berlin. It seemed to him to be a most extraordinary view for a Plenipotentiary at the Congress of Berlin to take; for, if the Treaty of Berlin were looked to, it would be found to contain provisions which were intended to spread over a very considerable period. Was it meant that the Treaty of Berlin was to be an idle instrument, and that it was to be left to the goodwill of Turkey alone to give effect to it? Let them consider the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin in favour of the people of Asia Minor. Then there were the Articles with reference to the internal reforms in Turkey in Europe. Some years had elapsed since the signature of the Treaty of Berlin, and these things were not yet accomplished, and never would be accomplished, except by the pressure of the concert of Europe. The reforms n Armenia were not even commenced; and how was it possible that they could be carried out except by the action of the concert of Europe? He did say that it was entirely inconsistent with the duty of those persons who were responsible for having given the pledge of England, as well as other Powers, to the accomplishment of these objects, to turn round now and allege that the duties of England were at an end before these reforms were accomplished. The course the present Government had taken was one in accordance with the views they had always advocated. They condemned the late Government at the time of the Berlin Memorandum, because when all the Powers of Europe were prepared to press reforms upon Turkey, they used no effort to keep the concert of Europe together, so as to bring European action to bear upon the Porte. His hon. Friends around him did not, he thought, blame the late Government for not accepting the Berlin Memorandum itself. There were complaints with regard to the manner in which it was presented, and there were great objections to it. What they complained of was that when the late Government did not accept the Berlin Memorandum they did not make an independent effort to bring European action to bear upon Turkey. The Liberal Party had always maintained that that should have been done; and from the moment of his accession to Office Lord Granville had proceeded to carry out the policy which he had maintained that the late Government ought to have carried out. They had endeavoured, even at the eleventh hour, to do what they maintained the English Government ought to have done. What was the view they took at that time? The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) had been able to state that the concert of Europe was entirely unbroken, and that it was acting in the direction that it always ought to have acted in—namely, to press upon Turkey those reforms which they believed ought to have been made. The late Government, after scoffing at the concert of Europe, tried their own independent action without having the concert of Europe to rely upon. They did not set Europe at loggerheads; but they said—"If we can only act alone with respect to Turkey we will reform Turkey in our own manner." They wrote single Notes to the Porte in connection with the Anglo-Turkish Convention; but they met with signal failure. Those hon. Gentlemen who ridiculed the Concert of Europe tried their own independent solitary experiment, which was an absolute and total failure. He confessed that responsibilty at that moment rested upon those who stood up, as his hon. Friend had done, to indorse the speeches of those who scoffed at the concert of Europe. His hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) said that anyone who maintained that the Frontier of Greece, as laid down at the second Conference, was the same as that laid down at the first Conference, must be exceedingly ignorant of geography. With regard to that, there were individuals present at the second Conference who were also present at the first, and it was not to be supposed that any alteration could have been made without their knowledge. As to the last charge brought by the hon. Member against the Government with respect to Greece, the hon. Member charged the Government with holding out to her hopes not likely to be realized. He should like to know who had held out hopes to Greece? They knew that before the Representatives of England went to the first Conference at Berlin, they held out certain anticipations to Greece, and induced Greece to keep quiet. When the war was being waged between Russia and Turkey, and when the influence of Greece might have been a very important element in the struggle, they induced her to keep quiet by the promise that when the time came, Greece should not suffer by her tranquillity. The late Government succeeded in keeping Greece quiet; but how did they fulfil the promises they held out, and the anticipations they encouraged on the part of Greece? They went to the Conference at Berlin—he was not going to enter into any disputed questions as to the exact course taken by the English Plenipotentiaries—but what did they do? Everybody believed that it was the English Plenipotentiaries who placed Greece in the remarkable position in which she stood by the result of that Conference. It was determined to leave two parties, whose interests were absolutely and diametrically opposed, to settle matters between them. Every man of sense must feel that that was not likely to be a solution of the difficulty. How could they leave two parties, each claiming the territory of the other, to settle their differences between them? It was not likely that either would be satisfied. The manner in which the late Government left Greece, after the settlement of Berlin, was an utter failure. As to encouraging Greece with anticipation that could not be fulfilled, he thought that the persons who did so were those who led Greece before the Conference at Berlin to expect that her demands would be satisfied. He remembered that it was said by Lord Salisbury that Greece should obtain what a reasonable country might expect; but now two or three years had elapsed, and Greece had yet obtained nothing. The hon. Member for Hertford now came forward and charged the present Government with encouraging Greece with anticipations which were never likely to be fulfilled. That seemed to him a very rash and ill-advised charge to bring against the present Government. The present Government were engaged in the very difficult task of fulfilling the faith of this country to Greece, which faith was pledged to her by the late Government. There was that continuity of Administration, that, as the late Government had pledged its faith to Greece that she should receive reasonable satisfaction, it was now the duty of the present English Government to carry out that pledge. The late Government made the Treaty of Berlin, which he would venture to say was utterly inadequate to satisfy the reasonable expectations of Greece, and the present Government were placed in the difficult position of finding a way out of the embarrassments caused by the late Administration.

said, that he wished to explain, with reference to his remarks upon the Concert of Europe, that he had no authority to bind the Marquess of Salisbury or to speak on his behalf. What he had said was simply an expression of his own views on the subject. He might further say that he had made no charge against the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Greece, because he did not know what their policy was. He only stated what, in his opinion, would be the consequence of what Her Majesty's Government was now doing.

said, that his firm belief was, that had the late Government remained in Office, the disaster to General Burrows's Force would not have occurred. He grounded that belief upon the following facts. There was no doubt that when the present Government came into Office, the immediate evacuation of Afghanistan was decided upon, and was being carried out as rapidly as possible. The cause of the disaster to our Forces at Candahar was due to the weakening of the base at Quetta, and by not keeping up the transport and supplies of General Phayre in a proper manner. The base was weakened so much that, although two months had elapsed since the approach of Ayoub Khan was known, it was only now that General Phayre had been in a position to make any advance at all. General Primrose sent forward General Burrows with all the force he could spare to oppose Ayoub Khan. In point of fact, so much was this the case that the garrison of Candahar was reduced to the lowest possible state; and there was no doubt that if General Phayre's transport had been in a proper state of efficiency he would have been able to send up a strong force to Candahar, a large part of which could have been sent on to strengthen General Burrows, and to oppose Ayoub Khan. He thought that the Government ought to state why General Phayre's transport had been left in such a position.

said, that, in his opinion, the remarks of the hon. Member who had just sat down with regard to Afghanistan, had been answered so clearly in anticipation by the noble Lord, that he was surprised they should have been made. With regard to the Eastern Question, he did not wish to make a speech upon the subject, but only to state that he had always been a constant advocate of carrying out the resolutions of the Treaty of Berlin with a firm hand, and by coercion, if necessary. He had always differed on that point from the view held by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and he would state some of the reasons which led him to that conclusion. In this particular case it seemed to him that, if necessary, they might proceed to use coercion. In his opinion, there was a great difference between intervening on behalf of freedom and intervening on behalf of tyranny and oppression. Further, he thought it was made clear that coercion was justifiable in this case, because Turkey owed her present position solely to the intervention of Europe, and especially of England. As another reason in favour of coercion, it might, in this case, be especially needed, because, while half the Turkish Empire was in Europe, the Turkish inhabitants of the other half suffered just as much. He believed that in Afghanistan, as well as in the case of the Turks and of other Mahommedan people, they were not so much influenced by fanaticism. He did not desire to oppress those people, but he desired to relieve them from a government which was in its nature oppressive to them as well as to everyone else. The statements made by the noble Lord seemed to him to be extremely satisfactory, and he was only somewhat afraid that coercion, if attempted, might be too slow and dilatory. They had been told that the concerted action of Europe would be used to settle the Montenegrin Question. They were then in September, and the season was rapidly approaching when it would be impossible for the Fleets to act, although they had still before them the settlement of the Greek and other questions. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) in saying that there was one matter connected with this Eastern Question even more important than Montenegro, and that was the question of Provincial Autonomy. He earnestly hoped that the efforts of the European Powers would be directed to complete autonomy being granted to the Provinces as arranged by the 23rd Article of the Treaty of Berlin. He hoped that the Turkish Government would be made to understand that the concerted action of Europe would be used for the purpose of insisting upon the entire execution of the terms of the Treaty of Berlin.