precisely produced that perfect good | relations with the Ameer unchanged, feeling which the devisers of the system but to make them more friendly than hoped for. Then there was an act which they had been. He refused our adreflects great credit on Lord Northbrook, vances, and when I spoke in the House who was then Viceroy, but which much I knew that those advances had been displeased the Ameer. That was Lord refused. My statement, therefore, was Northbrook's interposition to save the son in all its parts strictly in accordance with of the Ameer, Yakoob Khan, from suf- the facts. We have now before us not fering the worst results of one of the the original Address, but an Amendmost atrocious acts of perfidy which even ment to it; and the noble Earl has an Afghan Ruler ever committed. What based his Amendment on statements I desired to express, and what was a implying that the Prerogative of the distinct and a true answer to all the Crown has been used to encroach on questions of the Duke of Argyll, was, the privileges of Parliament. It is that the policy which led to the Confer- saying, in a more distinct form, what ence of Peshawur had not made any un- was again and again intimated by favourable difference in the dispositions the noble Earl who opened on that side, of the Ameer-his feelings were already and what has been stated by Mr. Gladas hostile to us as they could well be. I stone at Greenwich. It is the charge can only go to the official documents. included in that curious phrase "perThe noble Earl says-what is perfectly sonal government," of which we have true that I received the despatch of heard so much of late. I always beLord Lytton about a week before I made lieved-and every one else believedthat answer in the House. Well, what that when this phrase was constantly are we take as proof of the Ameer's re- reiterated it meant some return to the lations towards us? I will first take days of Charles I., and some overthrow the Ameer's own account. I find this of the Constitution established in 1688. in Lord Lytton's despatchBut now it appears from Mr. Gladstone that he never meant that. He says the "So completely had the whole movement collapsed before we closed the Conference at phrase is awkward perhaps, but it is one Peshawur, that the first step taken by the to which they are well accustomed, and Ameer, fimmediately after that event, was to that it applies, not to Her Majesty, but to send messengers to the authorities and popula- Her Majesty's Ministers. Well, personal tion of Candahar, informing them that the jehad project was abandoned, requesting them government of some kind you must have. to do all in their power to allay the religious Somebody must do the work of governexcitement he had till then been endeavouring ment. If it is not done by the responsible to arouse, and adding that his relations with Ministers, it must be done by the permathe British Government were eminently satis-nent officials; or, if not done by the latter, factory."-[Afghanistan, No. 1, p. 171.] With that statement in my hands, I could not say in this House that our relations with the Ameer were unsatisfactory. Lord Lytton, in the meanwhile, said "We see no reason to anticipate any act of aggression on the part of the present Ameer;" and he added "Our relations with him are still such as we commonly maintain with the Chiefs of neighbouring and friendly countries."-[Ibid.] That is exactly the position which it was the ambition of Lord Lawrence, and, subsequently, of Lord Northbrook, to maintain. What was my own official estimate some three months later of the state of things? I said we had been engaged in negotiations, the object of which was not to maintain our it must be done by the Chief Clerksand if not by the Chief Clerks by the Assistant Clerks. I suppose that what the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment really referred to is the idea that it is the duty of the Crown, before it exercises the Prerogative of making peace or war, to consult Parliament. Great efforts have been made to persuade the country that we have done something essentially un-Constitutional in what we have done in this respect. The assertion has been repeated again and again without proof, till-as such assertions get to be accepted by sheer repetition-there are some people who believe it. I think there are some people who believe that in concluding the AngloTurkish Convention without the knowledge of Parliament we did something without precedent. But some ingenious person in the House of Commons, to try I the matter, moved for a Return of all the | Speech on the 5th of February, 1839. Treaties which were laid on the Table of Then there is the war in Syria-a very the House before they were ratified, and considerable and important operation. not one could be produced. The truth On the 15th of July, 1840, while Parliais, that some of the most important and ment was still sitting, the Government most recent engagements in our history concluded a Treaty with the other three have been concluded by the Ministers of Powers, to the exclusion of France, the Crown without any reference to, or without either consulting Parliament knowledge of, Parliament. I will only beforehand or informing them of it state two, and they will be sufficient. afterwards. The result of that Treaty Few more important things have been was the military operations in the done in our generation than the sacrifice Levant which took place in the winter, of that right of search for which our and Parliament was not called together forefathers fought. I do not say whe- until January, 1841, when the whole ther it was right or wrong; I only say thing was over. Take, again, the case that few more important things have of the Persian War-a case as nearly been done. Yet that was done -the on all fours with the present one as Declaration of Paris was accepted and can be. Persia, like Afghanistan, is an signed-without any intimation to Par- Oriental country, and about equal to it in liament of what was going to be done; power, and the interests that were conand so complete was the absence of any cerned were in the same manner partly official form about it, that I believe that European and partly Asiatic. But the now no records can be discovered of the Persian War was determined on by the instructions given for signing it or of Government at home during the Recess the object with which it was concluded. of 1856-7; the assembling of ParliaAgain, take the Tripartite Treaty of ment was not hastened in the least 1856, which bound us to fight for every degree, and Parliament was informed of inch of Turkish soil if we were chal- the war for the first time in 1857. lenged to do so either by France or Aus- think the noble Earl on the cross tria. It was a Treaty most large in its benches (Earl Grey) protested against engagements, and most precise in its it then as he does now, and there were language. That is in the same condi- protests of the same kind made in the tion. No intimation was given to Par- other House; and what was Lord Palliament before it was signed, and you merston's reply? He said that in the find no record of the motives which in-case of an expedition against Persia-a duced the Ministers to conclude it. In fact, you will hardly find any Treaty of an important political character which was not concluded under similar conditions as far as the ignorance of Parliament was concerned. Well, the case is the same with regard to declarations of war. I have in my hand a long list of successive declarations of war since 1815, and I am unable to discover that any considerable number of them-I doubt whether any of them except the Crimean War-was communicated to Parliament before it was undertaken. Allow me to give three or four recent precedents to the House-I mean precedents within the lifetime of Lord Palmerston, who was not a Tory, and who was a very considerable authority on Constitutional practice. The Afghan War was declared by Lord Auckland in October, 1838, with the consent and the full authority of the Home Government; and the first time it was communicated to Parliament was in the Queen's remote country, and one not likely to entail on us any considerable efforts― considering that in the ordinary course Parliament would speedily assemble, to call it specially together under those circumstanees would only be a burlesque on our Constitutional forms. EARL GREY was understood to say, that Lord Palmerston admitted the principle that Parliament ought to be informed as soon as possible when war was to be made; but contended that the Persian War had been one of so little importance that to summon Parliament specially at an inconvenient season on account of its occurrence would have been a burlesque. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is perfectly true that he said that whenever this country becomes involved with one of the great Powers of Europe or with the United States of America-not before, but when we become so involved-it is the duty of the Government to call Parliament together and ask it for the means of carrying the struggle on. But | and, if necessary, condemn the action of in the case of a collision with such a the servants of the Crown. On the Power as Afghanistan-a remote coun- other hand, every generous mind will try, and one which is not likely to entail feel that men in situations of extreme upon us any considerable efforts-it responsibility, and who have the greatest would be, according to Lord Palmer- difficulties to contend with, ought not at ston's words, only a burlesque of Consti- the same time to have the painful feeltutional forms to call Parliament to- ing that they are being treated ungenergether when it was commenced. There- ously. If the noble Earl had been confore, the criticism of Lord Palmerston- tent merely to condemn the measures if he were here-would be, not that we which have been taken by Lord Lytton, have exaggerated the Prerogative of the of course the answer was ready-those Crown or disparaged the privileges of measures were either before or afterParliament, but that in our excessive wards approved by his official supetenderness for Parliament, and to avoid riors, and on them the whole Parliathe slightest appearance of treating it mentary responsibility must fall. But with disrespect, we are actually bur- when the noble Earl goes so far as to lesquing Constitutional forms. There is ridicule him because, as the noble Earl another case that of the Abyssinian puts it, he made a speech in the presence War. On July 25, 1867, the then of his own Envoy, and employed a shortForeign Secretary declared to Parlia- hand writer to take it down-or, as I ment that the Government had not de- should rather put it, he followed the cided on sending an expeditionary force. usual course after such an interview and In the following August an expeditionary corrected the Memorandum of what had force against King Theodore was de- been said during its progress-I think cided on; but the fact was not com- the noble Earl trespasses beyond the line municated to Parliament until the Pro- which ought to be observed in criticising rogation, when there was no opportu- absent public servants. I can only say nity of debate; and the intention of that on our part we cannot accept, in the going to war was never communicated slightest degree, the shadow of the cento Parliament until the war was entirely sure which has proceeded from the noble over. The Expedition left Bombay in Earl. We have the greatest cause to be September, and the fact was not officially indebted to Lord Lytton for the devocommunicated to Parliament until the tion with which he has given himself to Queen's Speech of the 19th November. the great task that he has undertaken, I am not here to deny that you will find and for the high qualities that he has on these occasions men of the type of the displayed. I do not know what Lord noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Lytton's precise nationality is; but he Grey) who then raised objections. It is has combined the imagination of a poet very probable that that was so; but what with the shrewdness of a Scotchman. I say is, that in all those instances, what- He has a singular combination of qualiever the objections were, be they small ties. The remarkable eloquence which or large, they did not represent the he shows in all his speeches and dominant feeling of Parliament; that despatches might give you the impres Parliament is in the last resort the sion that he was a man whose gifts were supreme determiner of its own privi- purely those of imagination, if you had leges; and that Parliament has always not followed him through the details of admitted precisely that use of the Pre- his official career and been enabled to rogative or rather a much more exten- satisfy yourself that in industry, causive use than that which we have had tion, and sound, hard discretion he has recourse to on the present occasion. not been exceeded by any Viceroy who There is only one other remark that I has preceded him. will venture to make. It is on a matter of a personal character, in reply to some observations which have been made on the personal characteristics of Lord Lytton. I heard with regret the observations made by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville). I admit that it is the Prerogative and the duty of Parliament to scrutinize THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships on this occasion because it appears to me that I am called upon to give evidence on two points, on both of which I am obliged to give it against Her Majesty's Government. The noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook), in an swering the speech of my noble Friend which Her Majesty's late Government behind me, gave, as far as I could fol- in 1873 had refused to give him. As low him, a very able account of my regards the first part of the question, actions and of the motives that actuated I am, as I said before, the only person me in dealing with the Ameer when I who can give evidence with respect to it. was Viceroy of India. It appears to The fact is, that having asked to be me, however, with all due deference to allowed to give to the Ameer ertain the noble Viscount, that I am the only assurances, and having received a reply person who can state to your Lordships by telegraph from the Home Govenand to the country exactly what I did ment in answer to my inquiry, I felt when I was Governor General of India. that their telegram justified me in giving The question at issue between us is a the Ameer the precise assurances I desire! very simple one. I have never made to give him, and which I actually did give any charge against the noble Viscount him through his Prime Minister, an auof having endeavoured wilfully to mis-thenticated copy of those assurances being represent my conduct in this matter; but I am bound to say that the words used by the noble Viscount in his despatch of the 18th of November last, give the people of this country an entirely inaccurate impression of what really happened at the time. That inaccurate impression has not only been expressed in the daily organs of the Press, but it has also been expressed tonight by the noble Lord the Seconder of the Address. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the noble Viscount's despatch, he says that forwarded to him personally. So fa, therefore, from the despatch of the nobla Viscount giving an accurate impress of what occurred, it gives an impressio totally at variance with the facts of th case. As the noble Viscount has gone into this question at such length, an as the Duke of Argyll is unable to be in his place to-night to explain his own conduct, I asked him to allow me to make use of any private letters relating to this subject which might have passed between us; and, with his permission, I will read to the House a paragraph from a private letter I wrote to him two days after I received his telegram_pormitting me to give the assurance Idesired to give to the Ameer, and before I had the interview with his Prime Minister. The words I used in the letter I Finding that the object of the Ameer was wrote to the Duke of Argyll were to ascertain definitely how far he might rely on the help of the British Government if his these-"Your telegram of the 26th will sufficiently territories were threatened by Russia, Lord enable me to give him Northbrook's Government was prepared to distinct assurances.' This letter, thereassure him that, under certain conditions, the fore, entirely bears out my impresGovernment of India would assist him to repel sion of what occurred at that time. unprovoked aggression. But Her Majesty's Government at home did not share his High-While I entirely acquit the noble Visness's apprehension, and the Viceroy ultimately informed the Ameer that the discussion of the question would be best postponed to a more Convenient season." [Afghanistan, No. 1, p. 262.] "Shere Ali, actuated by his fears on this score, sent a special Envoy to Simla in the summer of that year (1873), charged with the duty of expressing them to the Government of India." And in paragraph 9, he says count of any deliberate intention to misrepresent the matter, I cannot help thinking that it is extremely unfortunate that he did not take more pains to master the facts of the case. If he had No person who reads those paragraphs taken common pains to do so, he would could come to any other conclusion never have allowed the paragraphs in than that I wished to give certain his despatch to which I have referred assurances to the Ameer which I was to stand. The noble Viscount would prevented from giving by the Home have found my view of the case supGovernment, and that I was therefore ported by the despatch of the noble compelled to tell the Ameer that the dis- Marquess opposite (the Marquess of cussion of the matter had better be post-Salisbury), of the 28th of February, poned to a future time; and from another 1876, who, in page 158 of the Papers, paragraph of the noble Viscount's de-in referring to this question, says spatch it has been naturally inferred that Her Majesty's present Government in "In the year 1873, Lord Northbrook gave to 1876 gave assurances to the Ameer the Envoy of the Ameer the personal assurance VOL. CCXLIII. [THIRD SERIES.] D THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I will do so if the noble Viscount wishes me to do so. The despatch goes on— Sir statesmen who were Members of my "The terms of this declaration, however, although sufficient to justify reproaches on the part of Shere Ali if, in the contingency to which it referred, he should be left unsupported by the British Government, were unfortunately too ambiguous to secure confidence or inspire gratitude on the part of His Highness. The Ameer, in fact, appears to have remained under a resentful impression that his Envoy had been trifled with, and his attitude towards the Government of India has ever since been character-planation of the noble Viscount as to ized by ambiguity and reserve." the accuracy of that paragragh as satisfactory. In the 18th paragraph, moreover, the noble Viscount describes the That is an argument to which I will advert immediately. At present I am deal-position of the Government after the ing merely with the facts of the case; and I think that if the noble Viscount had consulted these Papers carefully he never would have introduced these paragraphs into his despatch. If anyone will read the 12th paragraph of Lord Lytton's despatch of the 10th of May, 1877, in page 162, it will be seen that the account of the noble Viscount does not accurately state the case. There is also the statement in the Conferences between the Prime Minister of the Ameer and Sir Lewis Pelly, which gives a completely accurate account of the transactions of 1873. The Prime Minister says that the assurances at his first interview were not sufficient, but that afterwards further assurances were given; and if the noble Viscount desires any further evidence, there is the language of Lord Lytton in his letter of the 15th of March, 1877, to the Prime Minister, in which the assurances I had given in 1873 were withdrawn; all notice of which has been omitted by the noble Viscount. Therefore, I say that even from the Papers themselves the noble Viscount ought to have formed a more accurate judgment of the transaction, and have avoided writing a paragraph which has led to such misapprehension on the part of the public. But that is not all. The noble Viscount has now upon his Council three distinguished close of the negotiations as one of "vigilant reserve.' The real position was that on the 15th of March, 1877, the Viceroy had informed the Ameer that all the assurances of protection he had received from Lord Lawrence, Lord Mayo, and myself, were repudiated, and that the only engagement by which the British Government were bound was the Treaty of 1855, under which no assurance of protection was given him. I do not think anyone would draw any such inference as this from the account given in the despatch of these transactions. Giving the noble Viscount every credit for a desire not to misrepresent the facts of the case in his despatch, I must say that anyone who reads his conclusions and then carefully examines the Papers will be very much surprised. There is another point in the noble Viscount's speech to which I must allude, although it is one on which I have no personal knowledge. The noble Viscount in his despatch leaves it to be inferred that Her Majesty's present Government have given to the Ameer, or rather offered to the Ameer, the assurances which His Highness required from me and which I was not able to give him. The noble Viscount spoke in a condemnatory sense of the safeguards and cautions attached to the assurances offered to Shere Ali in 1873, |