The once that we had an absolute Treaty to maintain our "settled policy" in right to occupy Quetta; that we had favour of Afghanistan, if he would only done so to the advantage of the Ameer; consent to abide by our advice in exand that the Ameer had since expressed ternal affairs. Well, when a settled his satisfaction at the result of the occu- policy was spoken of, he presumed what pation upon the trade of Southern Af- was meant was the policy which was ghanistan. He wished next to make one settled at the time of Lord Lawrence or two observations on the curious and and Lord Mayo. But what happened? discursive speech which the House had Lord Northbrook met the Envoy of the heard from the noble Lord the Member Ameer, and gave him further assurances for Westmeath. The noble Lord jumped of a somewhat vague character. about from one thing to another, asking Envoy was then kept waiting for six for explanations and pointing out con- weeks, and during that time there were tradictions, till no one knew what Go- further conversations; and when the vernment it was of which he was Ameer at last asked for definite pledges speaking; and he should really not against encroachment by Russia, and venture to follow him through the that it should be put in the writing from very curious account of the transactions the Viceroy to the Ameer, instead of which he had given, if he were not any satisfactory assurances having been anxious at once to point out that some given, Lord Northbrook, in a letter of the propositions which the noble Lord dated the 6th of September, informed had laid down could not for a moment him that, in his opinion, the question be sustained. It was, in his opinion, was of such importance that the discusunpardonable in the noble Lord to have sion of it should be postponed to a accused the Viceroy of India of having trumped up a false statement. The noble Lord went on to say that we had attempted to impose Resident Agents on the Ameer contrary to our express promise. Now, he (Mr. E. Stanhope) would venture to say that no such promise had ever been given; and when it was suggested that such a promise had been made by Lord Mayo, he could only reply that no mention of the subject had been made by Lord Mayo in his communications with the Ameer. If hon. Members would look at the paragraph of Lord Mayo's despatch in which the subject was mentioned, they would find that it was described as a boon desired by the Ameer himself. As to the statement of Lord Cranbrook, in the famous 9th paragraph of his despatch, of which so much complaint was made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, he must express his surprise that they were content to rest a complete change of policy on the authority of a single telegram. Having reversed, by means of a telegram, the whole of our Indian policy as regarded the Ameer, they were satisfied to allow it to remain on the authority of that telegram, and in not one single despatch did the Duke of Argyll think fit to place on record an explanation of his views. Let him examine for a moment what the words of that telegram were. The Ameer was to be assured that we were more suitable opportunity." In his despatch of January 28, 1876, Lord Northbrook had said that nothing short of full promises of protection would be satisfactory to the Ameer; and that, consequently, in the Viceroy's letter, the question had been deliberately reserved for future consideration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had called attention to a paragraph in the Address to which he had some objection, and he thought it very desirable there should be some change in the wording of it. He (Mr. E. Stanhope) would ask leave of the House to propose an Amendment of certain words of the Address, which he thought would entirely meet the views of everyone. He would ask, in the third paragraph, to omit the words "to express our regret," and to substitute the words "humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us." Amendment proposed, In paragraph 3, line 1, to leave out the words words "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for in"To express our regret," in order to insert the forming us,”—(Mr. Edward Stanhope,) instead thereof. Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived. Words inserted. Main Question, as amended, proposed. 161 way. MR. CHILDERS said, before the | if it only notified certain points of atdebate closed, he thought some further tack and defence. That despatch had reference should be made to the very been published in a very unusual way pointed remarks by his noble Friend the in the newspapers, a week before the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Papers were issued. It was a carefully Marquess of Hartington) with reference arranged statement for a particular Party to the discrepancies in the despatch, as purpose; but the grounds on which it was based were not made public, so to which remark had been made, and as to which no explanation had been given that the Government deliberately kept either by the Chancellor of the Exche- back from their opponents the defence quer or by the hon. Gentleman who had from an attack which would have been When the whole just sat down. He thought it was impossible if the Papers had been issued absolutely due to the House that some in the usual such explanation should be given before question came to be discussed next week the debate closed, for there were dis- it would be seen what were the real crepancies on which comment might be facts, and we could then enter more fully It was into the matter. Notwithstanding the made on another occasion. absolutely necessary to elucidate the repudiation of the Chancellor of the problem why, when a great change of Exchequer, he contended that parapolicy had occurred, it had been subse- graph 9 of Lord Cranbrook's despatch quently contradicted in Parliament, as conveyed a most unfair inference. That had been done by Lord Salisbury. In paragraph, too, had been said to be not the last despatch it was very distinctly a principal part of the despatch, but stated that a change in the policy to- only part of a long narrative; yet it wards Afghanistan was deliberately made was remarkable that every person in by the Government some time ago, and the country who spoke or wrote on the He was willing to steps were taken in connection with that subject had immediately fixed on that change of policy. Lord Salisbury had 9th paragraph. made a statement in the House of Lords believe that the Chancellor of the Exas to the continuance of the former chequer and his Colleagues were as policy; and yet when his noble Friend simple as they professed to be; but they (the Marquess of Hartington) had read were the only Members of their Party this despatch the Chancellor of the who were so simple. Besides, the 9th Exchequer made no answer to it. [The paragraph of the despatch was the founCHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that dation of almost all that followed. The arose from an oversight.] He had no whole argument of the central part of idea of impugning the truth, veracity, that despatch was that a wrong policy or honour of the Foreign Secretary or had been adopted at a certain time; that any Member of the Government; but to that error all the mischief the dewhen hon. Members read in a de-spatch described was due; and that, spatch statements which they knew were not accurate, they were perfectly entitled to speak of them in language which was warranted by the despatch itself. He considered that the discrepancies he had referred to were worthy of grievous consure, and that the explanations which had been up to this point given by Members of Her Majesty's Government were not satisfactory explanations, and also that the charges made against them were well founded, and had not been disproved. The House would remember the manner in which that despatch had been published and received, and the very singular argument they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman that evening, that the very incompleteness of the despatch would be advantageous to those it impugned VOL. COXLIII. [THIRD SERIES.] therefore, an opposite policy was wise. G He would give the House an illustra- | Government, that the assurances which tion of what he meant in the shape of the Ameer was seeking to obtain, and a narrative of a similar kind. Suppose the condition which he was seeking to it were proposed to give an account attach to them, were such as it would of the events connected with the last be improper for the British Government Administration, and suppose it were to assent to. He could not, therefore, stated that the late Government at the accept the explanation which the Chantime of the General Election deemed it cellor of the Exchequer had given as to desirable to disestablish the Irish Church, the accuracy and fairness of that deand suppose the narrative then went on spatch. When the right hon. Gentleman to say but Her Majesty's Opposition said that despatch was the act of the did not share the sentiments of the Government and not that of an individual Government, and the Opposition ulti- Minister, it was quite unnecessary to mately succeeded in themselves be- apologise for any strong language about coming the Government." That would it, which absurdly enough had been be exactly a parallel case to this objec- attempted to be called a personal attack tionable paragraph in Lord Cranbrook's on Lord Cranbrook; but it was necessary despatch. All the statements contained promptly to unmask its grossly and unin such an imaginary narrative as he fairly inaccurate character, and that inhad described were perfectly true, but accuracy had now been conclusively it was not the whole truth, and a similar shown in the course of the debate. suppression stamped this despatch with MR. O'CONNOR POWER: Sir, I the character which was now universally shall endeavour to follow the example of ascribed to it. The hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend the Member for Cork who had last spoken had made a most (Mr. M'Carthy Downing), and give exingenious defence of the omission in pression to the feeling I entertain reparagraph 9; but he placed it upon a garding this Address. My hon. Friend ground that appeared to him (Mr. quoted several instances to show that the Childers) untenable. He had endea-practice of submitting a Speech which voured to draw a line between "the contains no reference to local legislation settled policy" of the Governments of is very unusual; and he complained that Lord Mayo and Lord Northbrook and the assurances which Lord Northbrook wished to give in 1873. For that there was not a shadow of foundation. He could prove this by the statements of the Government itself, for the despatch was not the only account that had been given of these assurances. With regard to the assurances of material assistance offered by Lord Northbrook to the Ameer in 1873, if the House would refer to the statements to the Ameer at the Peshawur Conference, and even to Lord Lytton's despatch narrating that negotiation, it would be seen that the present Government considered that those assurances had been of the amplest character; and it was not until the last despatch of Lord Cranbrook was compiled, that it was thought essential to throw blame on the late Government. The fact was that the Ameer wanted more unconditional and absolute assurances than any Government whatever had been prepared to concede to him. In a discussion in the other House, in 1874, Lord Derby, speaking with express reference to those negotiations of 1873, declared in the most emphatic manner, on the part of the present the claims put forward on behalf of the Irish people had been completely ignored. In my opinion, when we have been summoned here from different parts, we ought, at all events, to have been informed of the intentions of the Government respecting our own country, in the condition of which we are far more interested than in the successful policy of the Government in Afghanistan. Although I am opposed to the foreign policy of the present Government, I have not taken part in the Party quarrels or divisions in this House; and I do not intend to take part with the Liberal Party in any division which may be called for on foreign policy, being convinced, as I am, that, as between the two Parties, it is six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. What has this debate been this evening? Not such as to enlighten us as to the right and wrong of the war, but simply an attempt on the part of the Government to vindicate their policy, and an attempt on the part of the Opposition to show that something they did on a certain occasion is not deserving of the censure which has been cast upon it. Neither 166 Her Majesty's Government on the one | Ministers and ex-Ministers; but it rehand nor the Opposition on the other quires too large a stock of English hypohave endeavoured to show that the policy crisy and self-complacency to succeed in of either of them is one that will recom- such a task. I object to the Address in mend itself to liberty-loving men, or to answer to the Royal Speech, because it those who profess to be actuated by is the duty, Sir, of the Representatives Christian principles. Ireland is often of the people to demand the redress of regarded as an integral portion of the grievances before granting Supplies. I, Empire; but my first duty as an Irish for one, shall exhaust all the Forms of Nationalist is to assert the distinct the House in refusing the Supplies for nationality of Ireland. And why? Be- this wicked war. cause, in ordinary times, Ireland is shut constituents I denounce it as a base and In the name of my out from the observation of Europe, and cowardly aggression on an independent her aspirations are judged by the cari-State. I shall vote against the Address, catures given in the English Press. It because I condemn and abhor the brutal is, therefore, when questions of an inter- policy which has been pursued towards national character are before the House, the Afghan nation. I shall vote against that it becomes the duty of Irishmen to the Address, because the Government stand forward before Europe and declare has turned a deaf ear to the cries for that their first consideration is the justice which have been repeatedly nationality of their own country. Union between Ireland and England is this House. The raised on behalf of the Irish people in only a Union in name. union of hearts. It is the result of the perialism, which tramples on the rights It is not a her heart and soul this blood-stained ImIreland repudiates from blackest crime ever perpetrated by one of nations; and though I care not who nation against another-the destruction may betray her honour, by associating of the Irish Parliament. And the Im- her fair name with the unhallowed perialism of Lord Beaconsfield in 1878 policy of the Government in this unholy ought to be as odious to the Irish people war, I assert that her sympathies are -certainly, it was liberty-as the Imperialism of Pitt in of struggling freemen in every oppressed as destructive to now, as they have ever been, on the side 1798. It has the same object in view-land. English aggrandisement; it adopts the same means of reaching its object-cor- fell last Session upon Her Majesty's MR. SULLIVAN said, that the curtain ruption and violence; it proceeds from Ministers placing on the back of John the same arrogant, liberty-hating Tory Bull Asia Minor. Now they were going Party, and marches forward to the same to place there Asia Major too. dishonoured victory over the bodies of policy of Her Majesty's Government brave patriots fallen in defence of their seemed to him to be one of universal native land. I have read all that has annexation and war with smaller Powers, been written and spoken recently by with those who might be weak enough English statesmen of both Parties on to be safely bullied, in order that their the subject of the Afghan War, and I territories might be added to that alam bound to say that a good deal of ready overgrown Empire. The state of what they have said of each other is sub-home affairs in England and Ireland stantiated by the official Correspondence which has been placed in our hands. The accusations they have levelled at each other are well sustained in the official Papers; and as an Irishman I have the greatest pity for England, whose politicians are plunged in such violent dissensions that they seem determined to fight each other like the Kilkenny cats, until there is nothing left but their tails. We Irish are so often lectured on the sin of disunion that we would be justified in preaching a sermon on the beauty of Christianity for the benefit of Indian Viceroys and ex-Viceroys, and English The was far more serious and far more worthy of a winter Session than this Afghan business, or any of these aggressive wars of Her Majesty's Ministers. What was the condition of Ireland at that moment? In a commercial and industrial point of view her condition was eminently worthy the attention of Her Majesty's Government; yet it was at that moment, when trade was depressed, and finances paralysed, that they came forward and prevented the revival of public confidence by creating gloomy apprehensions of further financial burdens and additional wars. They must H lay at the doors of Her Majesty's Govern- | public opinion in England had been misment the guilt and blame of whatever led by inspired telegrams from India? financial disaster might occur in Ireland from that broken confidence which could only be restored by a policy of peace. They had fondly hoped that after the Berlin Treaty and the return of the Prime Minister from that capital, there would be an end to the torture and suspense to which they had been accustomed for the past two years, but they had been mistaken. Every interest in the country was groaning under the present condition of affairs, for they could not tell from day to day what policy would be brought forth by that Ministry of surprises. Indeed, next week might see the Government spring upon them another war, and that at a time when great numbers of the people of England-in Staffordshire and elsewhere-were suffering from absolute starvation. He should have thought there would have been some reference in the Queen's Speech to the distress from which the people were at present suffering. Grave evils were at the doors of their manufacturers, and that was the moment selected by the Government for a military promenade with a Mission that would not, perhaps, be characterized truly in our day, but which 20 years hence England would blush to name. It was an unjust and aggressive war; and no greater crime that he knew of could be charged to a public Ministry than that of making war on an uncivilized community with an unjust cause. No nation should draw the sword lightly. What were the grounds for the war? The Prime Minister said that we wanted a" scientific Frontier;" and although that had not been avowed by Ministers to-night, he would rather believe Lord Beaconsfield's statement at the Guildhall than some of the reasons which had been advanced in that House. No. That was good for the Guildhall, but it would not do for the Houses of Parliament. They spoke of an "expedition." But what was an "expedition ?" It might be scientific or geographical. They euphemistically called the war an 66 expedition "because they were ashamed to give it its proper name. The Indian Secretary, in his final despatch, was far more anxious to convict the Opposition than to convict the Ameer of wrong. Why had these voluminous despatches been withheld and then flung upon us in a mass, while The object clearly had been to fan the |