Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page



IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.—MONDAY. Lord Carnarvon read telegrams from Sir Bartle Frero, in one of which it was stated that the necessity for the annexation of the Transvaal appeared to be generally7 recognized. Lord Rosebery asked whether, in the opinion of the Government, the time had not arrived for entering into an amicable arrangement with France and Austria, by which this country might be released from the engage- ments of the Triparite Treaty of the 15th of April. 1856. He said that in the course of the war in the East this country might be called on to act in pursuance of that Treaty, and therefore it was important to decide whether it was operative or inoperative, for he did not believe that it would be in the power of any set of Ministers to induce this country to wage war on the side of Turkey. After some remarks from various speakers, Lord Derby stated that the language held by the Austrian Government throughout the long series of ne- gotians had not been, in his judgment, such as to lead to the idea that they were inclined to stand by the extreme rights given by the Tripartite Treaty, and France, another party to the Treaty, had announced her intentions to adopt a strict and perfect neutrality. If he was asked whether the present moment was not the proper time to take such a step as Lord Rosebery referred to, he must reply that he did not think it was a fit time. When the war came to an end there might then be a re-settlement of the engagements entered into, but at the present time it would be injudicrous to make any attempt for such a purpose. The conversation on the subject then dropped. Lord Hosebery moved the Second Reading of the Game Laws (Scotland; Amendment Bill, which, he said, was founded entirely on the Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. After some discussions, in which the Duke of Buccleuch, Lord Ripon, and the Duke of Richmond took part, the Bill was read a second time. The other business on the paper having been dis- posed of, Their Lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MONDAY. In answer to a question from Mr. Gourley, as to the position of the Khedive, the Chancellor of the Exche- quer pointed out that as Egypt is part of the Turkish Empire, she would be at war with Russia whether the Khedive sent a contingent to the assistance of the Sultan or not, and Russia would be equally at liberty to block- ade Egyptian ports,and stop vessels carrying contraband of war to Egyptian ports. In answer to Mr. Rylands Mr. Lowther said that official information had been received from !Sir Bartle Frere of the proclamation of British soverignty in the Transvaal, on the 12th April, and that, speaking generally, it had been favourably received. The fifth night's debate on the Eastern Question was opened by Mr. Waddy, who justified the course taken by Mr. Gladstone, and argued that the Ministerialists by" their declarations, were bound to support the first two resolu- tions. He enlarged on the inconsistencies of the policy of the Government, and Claimed for the Opposition that it was the party of peace. Mr. Bruce held that the condition of Western Europe, and especially the mutual distrust of France and Ger- many, was tile chief reason why the Government had not succeeded in its diplomatic campaign. Commenting on the past, he was of opinion that there had been a little too much scolding and too much identification of of ourselves with Russia at the Conference, and as for the poli y of t! reatening war without meaning it, Mr. Bruce remarked that England did not breed instruments of such a diplomacy. It was to be regretted that greater pains had not been taken during the years of peace which iollowed the Crimean War to press reforms upon Turkey, for there was a reforming party in Turkey, although the Russian Government and Embassy had always discouraged it. It was unfortunate that the Porte had obstinately resisted our advice, but, the Porte having gone to war in opposition to it, we were not in any way responsible. At! that we were called 011 to do was to defend our own honour and inte. e it" to localize and minimize the war as much as possible, and when war came to an end to secure good government for the Turkish Provinces. Designing to keep the hands of the Govern- nieut umombarrassed, he objected to passing the Reso- lutions. Sir W. Harcour t remarked that whatever might become of the long resolutions, the long debate was justified by the speech of the Home Secretary and the definition of British interests. Although a policy of neutrality was the only one possible to us now it was not altogether satisfactory, because it would leave Turkey at the mercy of Russia. Assuming that Russia would destroy Turkey, if she were moderate she would obtain an overpowering influence in Eastern Europe, and if she were not mode- rate we should have to rescue British interests from the jaws of a victorious Power. Though he was not pre- pared to join Russia in war upon Turkey now. there was a time when we might have joined with the other Powers in a limited coercion, such as that employed in 1827. Our neutrality ought to bo genuine and impartial, al- though Lord Derby's offensive despatch was a very bad preparation for it, but when the time for making peace came our influence must be used to free the Christians from the odious rule of the Turks. Mr. Fawcett expressed his regret that Lord Hartington should have used his influence to prevent a considerable section of the opposition voting on the third and fourth Resolutions, because they had always contended for something more than strict neutrality, and England had contracted obligations to the Eastern Christians. De- precating strongly the irritating language towards Russia which had been used in the debate, lie sharply attacked Lord Derby's last despatch, and asked the front Oppo- sition Bench whether it was intended to move a vote of censure on it. He admitted the policy of reticence pur- sued by the opposition was much to blame, but he pledged himself that if any attempt to go to war to keep the Turks in Constantinople without an appeal to the country, the House should be kept sitting until Christmas. The Marquis of Hartington, who rose at half-past 10, referring first to the amendment, described it as inac- curate and inadequate, because while the passing of the Resolutions would not embarrass the Goverunent, the policy laid down did not include the good government of the Turkish Provinces. The two Resolutions, he main- tained, pointed to the true policy which ought to guide the action of the Government. Replying to Lord Sandon's inquiry, why was not a Vote of Censure moved, lie pointed out that it would have strenthened that section of the Ministerialists from which the Opposition differed most, and would have weakened those with whom they had most sympathy. Undoubtedly the Resolutions as originally proposed would have constituted a vote a want of confidence, but that the Government met by taking shelter under the Previous Question. If it had been thought desirable to move a vote of censure, the papers relating to the Protocol disclosed ample grounds for it. Justifying the course taken by Mr. Gladstone, he said that though he entirely agreed with the objects aimed at in the four Resolutions, he could not concur in all the means, nor in the ex- pediency of pressing them at this time. These objects I he took to be to secure the country from the shame and guilt as appearing as the defender of Turkey, to make the country an aetive agent in giving freedom to the Turkish Provinces and Peace to Europe, and to guard British interests in the only way in which they could be permanently safe by making them identical with peace and freedom. The first object would be obtained by passing the first two resolutions. Remarking on the part which British interests had played in the debate, he said he was as ready as any one to fight for them, but he denied that they were identical with the mainten- ance of the Ottoman Empire," and what, he asked, had British interests to do with the conduct of Russia, which had been so freely denounced during the Debates ? Dis- cussing the third and fourth Resolutions, he pointed out that a free Greece and a free Servia had already been es- tablished by us in concert with Russia. He admitted that these Resolutions pointed to the employment of force, and though there was a time before the Moscow Declaration, when a small display of force without re- course to violent measures would have sufficed to bring Turkey to reason, things had changed now, and he saw no way in which a concert of the European Powers for this purpose could be obtained. No doubt the country would sustain the Government in a policy of strict neu- trality, but sooner or later we should be called on to in- terfere either as mediators or to deal with the events of the war; and the policy laid down in the Resolutions would be the guide to our conduct. He did not quarrel with the Home Secretary's definition of British interests"—he was willing to say that no territorial aggrandizement should be forbidden to Russia, and that the navigation of the Suez Canal should be secured, but no more must these objects be secured, as of old, solely by the maintenance of the Ottoman Empire." The Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that, after all the debate, he was still at a loss to know what was the precise issue to be submitted to the House. It was impossible to say how many Resolutions were actually before the House for, notwithstanding all that had been said of the withdrawal of all but the first two, Mr. Gladstone still insisted they are five." As to meeting the issue by the Previous Question," it was the tactics pursued by Sir John Lubbock which had prevented the Government making any motion. Replying to Mr Gladstone's criticism, lie denied that the policy of the Government had been ambiguous, and claimed that it should be tried, not by Mr. Lowe's criterion of success, but by the standard of international right and reason.' Looking at all the circumstances, he contended that the Government was right in abstaining from the use of lan- guage unnecessary violent and harsh to Turkey, and that it was their duty to do all they could by good advice to improve the internal condition of that unhappy country. The other Powers took exactly the same view. He ad- mitted that they had failed to bring about those reforms, owing mainly to the deplorable obstinacy of Turkey, and partly owing to the deplorable impatience of Russia. As to the future, the landmarks of the Ministerial policy would be, first, strict neutrality. But this was a struggle which could not be confined to the parties principally concerned. We had interests—some in com- mon with other nations, some which were peculiar to ourselves. IN-, might expect with confidence that other nations would be ready to protect their trade and com- munications, and we ourselves, though there was no need to be over-hasty, should watch with vigilance for any turn of events which threatened our route to India. Defending Lord Derby's Despatch, he insisted that it was not provocative in its language, and that the Go- vernment had only done its duty in declaiming all re- sponsibility for the war. Referring again to the question of coercion, he showed that in the Protocol which was proposed by Russia force was not mentioned, and pointing to Mexico as a warning against entangling alliance with Powers which might not have the samo object as ourselves, he mentioned that the Government had done more wisely in keeping its ands free to act as might seem best when occasion for interference arose. Mr. Gladstone, in his reply, after touching on points raised by Lord Eleho, Sir H. Wolff, and others, came to the speecii of Mr. Cross, of which he expressed approval so far as it went, but pointed out that it "was in direct contradiction with Lord Derby's Despatch. This dualism pervaded all the later policy of the Government, aud it was to its want of eonsecutiveness and consistency that he attributed the failure of the Government to attain the objects which it had laid before it—the maintenance of the status quo, the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire, the Treaties of 1856, and the improve- ment in the condition of the Christians. With regard to the Resolutions, he did not agree with Lord Hart- ington that the time had passed for an authorita- tive interference of combined Europe. That, he believed, was the only weapon by which a satis- factory settlement could be arrived at. The Resolutions did not contemplate a sole alliance with Russia, nor did he believe that combined actioa of the other Powers was even yet impossible. Replying to the question so often put in the debate-does coercion mean war ?-lie emphati- cally replied No." Adequately supported, coercion needed not be followed by war, and as instances of the successful employment of foreign armies in the internal affairs of other nations, he mentioned Holland, Spain, and Portugal. Insisting once more on his interpretation of the Treaty of Kainardji, and on the obligations im- posed on us by our destruction of the Protectorate which Russia exercised under it, Mr. Gladstone argued that the shortest way to put an end to the war aud stop blood- shed would be by drawing a Naval cordon round Turkey, and neutralising the Turkish Fleet. He concluded an eloquent peroration by expressing his regret that the voice of the nation had not prevailed, and that England had not been permitted to take her place Íü this great work of civilization. After some observations from Major O'Gorman the House divided on Mr. Gladstone's First Resolution and the numbers Avei-e- For the Resolution 223 Against it 353 Majority against the Resolution 131 Majority against the Resolution 131 The announcement of the numbers was received with enthusiastic and long-continued cheering from the Ministerial Benches. Sir H. D. Wolff's amendment declaring the inexpedi- ency of embarrassing the Government by passing any resolution at this moment was then agreed to without a division, and Mr. Gladstone announced that he would not press his second resolution. Some other business was disposed of, and the House adjourned at 25 minutes past 2 o'clock.







[No title]



[No title]