been no cause of war; and that Lord | him, that his conduct towards England Lytton, in order to make one, trumped changed. At all events, the work pubup a false tale about a threat to shoot lished by Sir Henry Rawlinson in 1874, down Major Cavagnari and his suite known as England and Russia in the East, -a tale utterly repugnant to Major advocated the occupation not only of Cavagnari's own account of the affair. Quetta, but of Candahar and Herat, Yet war is either the highest and most and it was very likely a translation of solemn judicial act, to procure repara- this part might have been made for the tion or to defend a right; or else it is Ameer by the Russians. He would rethe greatest and most heinous of crimes. mind the House that the policy of nonOne murder is bad enough; yet an un- interference with Afghanistan had been just war is murder-murder multiplied initiated by a Tory Government at the by thousands. If the Cabinet has made time of our disasters. When our Army an unjust war, then on them rests the was withdrawn in 1842, Lord Ellenguilt. But if a majority of the House borough, with the advice of the Duke of endorses and adopts that action, then the Wellington, by public Proclamation fault is with them; and unless the nation abandoned Afghanistan for ever. That protests, the nation is involved in the was the resolution arrived at by the Tory crime. For my part, I enter my humble Government, aided by the advice of a most and feeble protest against that which I experienced commander, who said that, sincerely believe to be a crime. though we might invade Afghanistan, the difficulty lay in coming back again from that country. He hoped that they would have an estimate given as to the probable cost of the war, and trusted that it would be a more accurate one than that given at the commencement of the Abyssinian War. To hold Afghanistan, he maintained they would require to keep at least 15,000 European and 35,000 Native troops, in all 50,000 European and Asiatic troops, in the country. The cost of these, with the many military charges, could not be less than £4,000,000. It would be a fatal policy to cast this enormous charge on the present embarrassed finances of India.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR believed the war to be an error financially, politically, and in a military point of view; and his main reason for this belief was that it was based on a violation of Treaty obligations in reference to the new claim for the admission of British officers as Envoys, in violation of the condition for non-interference with the affairs of Afghanistan, as entered into between Her Majesty's Government and Dost Mahomed in 1855. He also questioned very much if they had any right to occupy Quetta without the consent of the Ameer. No doubt, the Treaty with the Khan of Khelat of 1854 did give that right of occupation; but the MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING said, two prior Treaties of 1839 and 1841 that the Queen's Speech was one of the made the Khelat and Shawl territories most meagre ever delivered in that subordinate to the Ruler of Afghan- House. It did not contain one matter istan; and he hoped they would hear connected with the affairs of England, something from the Secretary of State Scotland, or Ireland. The Chancellor which would set their minds at rest of the Exchequer had spoken as if it on those points. As to the Khyber were a usual thing to omit such matters Pass and the Afridis, the rights of Dost from the Queen's Speech to a ParliaMahomed in that direction were acknow- ment specially summoned; but in 1867, ledged by Sir John Lawrence, and he when Parliament was called together in did not see how they could be disputed November on a question of at least as now. The hon. and gallant Gentleman much magnitude, he found that in the referred to the 1868 Memorandum of Sir Speech from the Throne there were many Henry Rawlinson which, he said, was important questions affecting the three reported to have been circulated in countries of the United Kingdom. FeIndia, and was known to several Eng-nianism in Ireland was referred to, and lish officers there; and he drew attention to what was common rumour

namely, that a copy of it had fallen into the hands of the Ameer, and said that it was, in all likelihood, after he pursued its contents, so hostile to

it was stated that it was intended that there should be repressive laws with regard to it. It was also stated that Reform Bills for Scotland and Ireland would be introduced; that a Commission would be issued to settle the boundaries of

155

existing boroughs in England; that | ment was moved and seconded in conseBills with regard to bribery and corrup-quence of there being no measure for tion at elections, to public schools and the amelioration of the condition of Iregeneral education, and to consolidate land, upon which an assurance was given the Acts relating to the Mercantile Ma- by the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to Parliament Bills which the Government intended rine would be brought in. was called together in 1857 in conse- to introduce after the adjournment. quence of a monetary crisis of great Well, was the Chief Secretary for Ireseverity, and because India was then in land in his place to-night to tell them if rebellion-a more important reason for the Government meant to do anything calling Parliament together than the for Ireland. There had been three bad Was there seasons-that of this year having been question of Afghanistan. on that occasion no reference in the the worst that had occurred since 1847 Queen's Speech to local matters of im--and was no measure to be introduced portance? On the contrary, the Speech for the amelioration of the condition of said that the attention of Parliament that country? Had they been promised would be called to the law to regulate a University Bill? Had they been told the representation of the people in Par- their Grand Jury Laws were to be liament, and that there would be intro- amended? Had they been told there duced Bills to amend the law relating was to be a Land Bill? They had been to real property and to amend several told nothing of the kind. Why, there The might be a Dissolution of Parliament branches of the Criminal Law. Government on that occasion indicated before the right hon. Gentleman would to the House of Commons what mea- have an opportunity in February of sures would be brought in, after, of stating what measures he intended to course, the period of adjournment, but introduce. The House might not meet The late after the adjournment until there had no such thing was done now. Lord Derby in February, 1858, when been a General Election; and it was very Parliament met, and when, in the House convenient for the Government not to of Lords, the adjournment of the House make any declaration of their intentions was moved at an early period of the either with regard to England, Scotevening, said he conceived that was a land, or Ireland. He should not be at course of proceeding most unusual, and all surprised to hear of a Dissolution of that he was quite surprised the Govern- Parliament before February; and, therement had made no statement of their fore, the Government were acting very They had come to a wise congeneral policy, and of the measures wisely. which they intended to introduce into clusion in saying-"Oh, we will just go the House after the adjournment. The before Parliament on this Afghan Quespresent Government had made no such tion, with which we will amuse them statement either; and very likely when before we meet again. We will dissolve the House met in February they would Parliament, and in the meantime we still make no announcement of their will not tell them what we will do." policy. In 1847, on the 18th of Novem- The Government could not be charged ber, when Parliament was called to- with having promised to do this or that, gether in consequence of the state of and with not having done it, and with trade, and a commercial crisis owing having thereby incurred opposition. to the failure of several banks, and Whether that was the object of the the condition of trade in America, omission or not, the omission might be and also because of the famine in Ire- very convenient. Irish Members had land, the Government indicated the come 600 miles at an unusual period of measures which they intended to intro- the year to hear what Her Majesty duce. That was an occasion when they would say with respect to the affairs of may have avoided giving to the coun- Ireland and the people of Ireland, and try a statement of what their policy then not hearing one word on the subwas. But they said in the Queen's ject was a proceeding which, at all Speech that they should introduce a Bill events, merited the condemnation of to regulate navigation, and that a Com- Irish Members. mission would be appointed to report on the best means of improving the health of the Metropolis. An Amend

MR. E. STANHOPE hoped the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) would excuse him

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU explained that he referred to a report of a Conference between Lord Lytton, with his Council, and the Russian Ambassador.

if he did not refer to the subject which | Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord the hon. Member had mentioned, but Robert Montagu) suggested that they addressed himself at once to the sub- should publish some opinions which the ject with which he was connected, Viceroy had expressed in his Council. and to which most of the remarks that evening had been directed. The Government had been asked to give some additional Papers. He had laid on the Table that night some additional MR. E. STANHOPE replied, that Papers with reference to the relations there was no report of such a Conference. between this country and Afghanistan. The right hon. Gentleman the Member First, there were some Papers relating for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had to Mr. M'Nabb, which had been left out asked whether the Government would by inadvertence as referring in great lay on the Table any opinion which had part to other subjects, and to the omis- been expressed by a Member of Council sion of which he was glad that atten- adverse to the course which had been tion had been called. Secondly, there adopted? He would have to look into was the Proclamation, in justification that matter. He doubted whether any of which, against a statement that had such opinion had been expressed in the been made by several hon. Members, he form of a Minute. With regard to wished to say that it certainly was the the Papers actually presented to Parcase that at the very time the ne- liament, he must say that any atgotiations were going on between Sir tempt to withhold Papers which could Lewis Pelly and the Envoy of the with propriety be produced would subAmeer, the Ameer was preaching a reli-ject them to suspicions which they were gious war against us. Thirdly, there were four letters, or rather one letter, written to an official of the Ameer, three copies being sent to other officials. There was a fifth letter, which was addressed to our Agent at Cabul, and that letter was opened by the Ameer. The following was the text of the Commissioner of Peshawur's letter, dated September 7, to Mustaufi :

"After compliments, I write this friendly letter to inform you that the 16th or 17th of September has been fixed for the departure of a Mission of high rank from the British Government to Cabul, and that the Mission will start whether Nawab Gholam Hussein shall or shall not by that time have had the honour of waiting on His Highness the Ameer. The object for which Mission is deputed is friendly, and the refusal of free passage to it, or interruption or injury to its friendly progress, will be regarded as act of hostility. I am to explain that the Mission will not in any case enter capital of Cabul before expiry of the month RamaIn conclusion, may you keep well."[Afghanistan, No. 2, p. 21.]

zan.

With regard to the Papers asked for by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine and others, he was quite sure the House would understand that until he (Mr. E. Stanhope) consulted his noble Friend he could not say whether those Papers could be given. Some of them, he believed, were not in the possession of the India Office; whilst some that were asked for were obviously impossible to be produced. For instance, the noble

most anxious to avoid; and he supposed that in no Papers had the secrets of diplomatic intercourse been so fully given to the world. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had accused the Government of having struck out a passage containing an allegation by the Ameer in which the name of Sir Henry Rawlinson was mentioned; but the despatch to which he alluded contained no reference whatever to Sir Henry Rawlinson, or any statement of his. Then there was another charge made by the hon. Baronet with reference to a conversation, of which, he believed, there was no report at all, but of which, at any rate, no report was sent home. He came next to one or two of the speeches which had been addressed to the House in the course of the discussion that evening. He was sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (General Sir George Balfour) would not expect him to follow him at any length into the observations which he had made; but he was bound to say that if anyone had broken a Treaty it was Shere Ali, because he had bound himself to be the friend of our friends and the enemy of our enemies. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to say that we had no right to occupy Quetta. Now, this was a question which would, he supposed, have to be gone into hereafter; but he would say at

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. The 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 "To words "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for inexpress 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.

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 to which remark had been made, and as was based were not made public, so 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 just sat down. He thought it was impossible if the Papers had been issued absolutely due to the House that some in the usual way. When the whole 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 made on another occasion. It was into the matter. Notwithstanding the 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 steps were taken in connection with that subject had immediately fixed on that change of policy. Lord Salisbury had 9th paragraph. He was willing to 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. 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 therefore, an opposite policy was wise. not accurate, they were perfectly en-It was noteworthy that there were only titled 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 censure, 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.]

The

two statements in the whole despatch for which the authority was given, and both of these were in the 9th paragraph. It should, therefore, have been preeminently accurate, as when published no one could verify the quotations. Yet what happened? The quoted telegram consisted actually of an opinion and an instruction. The opinion was quoted in the paragraph; but the course which the Viceroy was instructed to pursue was not stated. And what the Viceroy said he had done was omitted, the only part quoted being his account of what neither he nor anyone else could have done. This was the real basis of the charge of unfairness which had been brought against the Government,

G