marks he would have to make he should | MR. CHILDERS said, that it would avoid any consideration of the purposes probably now be admitted on all sides of the war, beyond what was necessary that his noble Friend had been right in to show that the charge should not be not proposing any Amendment to the borne by the people of India. The Address on account of the short time Home Secretary had suggested a course they had had for perusing 500 pages of which he must be well aware would Blue Book; but when it had been replace him (Mr. Fawcett) in a position of marked that a different course had been such absurdity as to his opportunity taken by him on another occasion, he that he could not agree to it. There would remind the House that that was would be a debate of four nights, one of after the General Election of 1859, when the greatest debates which had taken the Reform question had been discussed place for a quarter of a century, and the for months. At the present moment suggestion of the Home Secretary would they were at great disadvantage, belead to his rising at 3 o'clock in the cause the usual methods for discussing morning when the division on the Vote the policy of a war had been deliberately of Censure took place to propose his taken out of their hands. Take the Amendment. He would not further dis- nearest analogous case that of the cuss that impracticable suggestion; but summoning of Parliament on account of would only add that, in common with the Abyssinian War. On that occasion many hon. Members on that side of the not one, but several distinct opportuHouse, he would have preferred the more nities were afforded for discussing the direct and simple course of bringing for- whole question. After the Address had ward the Motion of the hon. Member been adopted the entire case of the for Bedford on the Address. As, how- Government was stated, on the Motion ever, that had not been done, it seemed for Supply, by the Leader of the House. to him that the best remaining plan would That was followed by a Ways and be to bring it forward on the Report. Means debate, and then by a Motion MR. A. MILLS confessed that he had as to the charge on the Revenues of been so much struck by the remarks of India. Some objected, in the debate the hon. Member for Hackney, as to the in Supply, both to the action of the then necessity for keeping the discussion on Government and to that of their Prethe merits of the war distinct from con- decessors; but that debate had been siderations of finance, that he could not concluded before the specific question but agree with him in hoping that the of the charge on India for the expenses Motion of the hon. Member for Bedford of the war had been discussed. In the would be brought forward as an Amend-present case, however, the question was ment to the Report. He regretted that the traditional usage had not been followed; but it was necessary, at any rate, to preserve the distinction between the Motions of the hon. Members for Hackney and Bedford. MR. RATHBONE remarked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought it convenient that the plan he suggested should be adopted. He wished, however, to know to whom it was convenient, and for what reason? All the Opposition wanted was to have the question clearly and definitively debated, in the belief that the Government had a bad case; and, that being so, he could understand that it would be very convenient for them so to cloud and trouble the waters of the discussion that the country would not be able to judge between the two parties. That was a convenience they had no intention of affording. simply the lesser and more specific one raised by the difference of opinion as to what share of the military burden should be borne by India. It would seem that the Government were disposed to take advantage of the fact that no Amendment had been moved to the Address, in order to preclude the Opposition from a general debate before the comparatively less important-though still very important-subject raised by the Under Secretary of State came before the House on Monday. The Home Secretary had suggested that when his Colleague came to move a Resolution relating to the payment of the expenses of the war by India, an Amendment might be moved by the hon. Member for Bedford; and that after this matter was disposed of the hon. Member for Hackney might satisfy himself by merely voting a negative to the original Motion. But why should the hon Member for H Hackney so satisfy himself? He might | he must take notice of the observation wish to qualify that opposition by lan- of the right hon. Member for the City guage and a Resolution very different of London (Mr. Goschen), that the Gofrom a bare negative. He (Mr. Childers) vernment had intentionally kept back the did not think there was any precedent Papers. That was a remark that ought for such a proposal. It had been sug- not to have been made. The Governgested that this question should be now ment had endeavoured until the last raised on the Report. But this could moment to bring about an amicable setnot be done to-day, for it was not pos- tlement. It was not until the Ameer sible to propose an Amendment without declined to send an answer to the UltiNotice, and no Notice could have been matum that warlike measures were found given until to-day. The House would necessary; and then the Government agree that the first available day ought took immediate steps to prepare the to be taken; and he thought they had Papers and lay them on the Table of the better adjourn the Report of the Ad- House. He assumed that if the disdress that night, and take it on Mon- cussion on the Report and the Motion of day. They could then thresh out the the hon. Member for Bedford were rewhole question of the war on the im- sumed on Monday the House would be portant Motion of the hon. Member for prepared to continue it de die in diem. Bedford. It would be time to consider MR. WHITBREAD assented. the Motion of the hon. Member for Motion agreed to. Hackney after this subject had been discussed. House, at rising, to adjourn till Monnext. QUESTIONS. 10 AFGHANISTAN - RUSSIA AND THE QUESTION. MR. A. MILLS asked the Under Se Whether any official information has been received by the Government concerning the alleged presentation of an address by General Kauffmann on behalf of the Emperor of Russia, to the Ameer of Afghanistan? MR. BOURKE: No information has been received on the subject. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-day QUER said that, having already spoken, he had no right to say anything further except by the indulgence of the House. He thought that the convenience of the House would be consulted by accepting the proposal that had just been made. The Government had, of course, no desire in any way to preclude discussion; but he thought the proposal made by the Secretary of State for the Home De-cretary of State for Foreign Affairs, partment would have given the hon. Member for Hackney every advantage that he could have obtained by any other course. Whatever course was taken, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) understood there would be a general discussion of the whole merits of the war in the first instance, and then a subsequent discussion would be raised by the hon. Member for Hackney as to how it was to be charged. According to the proposal made by his right hon. Friend, they would take the Motion of the hon. Member for Bedford first, and then take another night for the other. Nobody would ever have supposed they could take up the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney at 3 o'clock in the morning. If it had come up at such an hour, it would have been allowed to stand over until the following day. The Government had no desire to force the matter forward upon the House. They would agree to the adjournment of the discussion on the Report of the Address till Monday. Before sitting down, however, AFGHANISTAN-REPULSE OF THE MISSION.-QUESTION. LORD ROBERT MONTAGU asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What is the authority for Lord Lytton's statement in the telegram of September 26th, 1878 (not contained among the facts which were given in his three previous messages), viz. :— but "Officer commanding fort said for personal friendship he would, in obedience to the Ameer's orders, have shot down Cavag nari and his suite;" why neither the account given by the Indian Government on the same day (p. 239), nor that of October 3rd (p. 247), mention such a grave occurrence; if he could explain why Major Cavagnari, in his report of the affair, says “Faiz Muhammed Khan, from first to last, has behaved in a most courteous manner, and very favourably impressed both Colonel Jenkins and myself;" and, why Sir Neville Chamberlain, in writing his demand on September 22nd, (p. 259) to the Commander of Ali Musjid, said "You declared that you had received no instructions to permit the British Mission to pass, and stated that you would certainly oppose it by force if it advanced?" THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, if my noble Friend will turn to the next page to that which he has quoted from the Blue Book I think he will find an answer to his Question. At page 249 he will find a Report from Major Cavagnari to Sir Neville Chamberlain, and the 11th paragraph contains a full account of what took place. It is there stated by Major Cavagnari that Faiz Muhammed Khan came down to meet them, and stated that he was not allowed to proceed, and then he makes this observation— "That if he had not been friendly disposed he would not have consented to the present interview or have restrained his levies from firing on my party." disagreeable duty with courtesy, and like a gentleman, as no doubt he is. It is stated that he favourably impressed both Major Cavagnari and Colonel Jenkins. His restraining his levies. from firing would favourably impress them. LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he does not think such an interpretation of the words quoted is inconsistent with those other words quoted by Sir Neville Chamberlain; and whether the real meaning of them is not this—“You see how perfectly friendly I am to you. You see I still maintain my ancient friendship." ["Order!"] MR. SPEAKER remarked that the noble Lord was not entitled to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an expression of opinion on this point. LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Then I will ask whether this is not the meaning of the words-"As a proof of my great friendship for you, I have restrained my levies from firing on you." THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That was not the impression that was made on the minds of our two emissaries. Colonel Jenkins, in his Report to Sir Neville Chamberlain, says that had it not been for the great courtesy and care exercised by Major At page 251, in the Report from Colonel Cavagnari a collision would probably Jenkins, who was present on the same have taken place. No doubt there occasion, there is the following pas-Cavagnari had not, with considerable was considerable danger; and if Major sage: Major Cavagnari then asked whether, under these circumstances, the Sirdar would oppose the passage of the Mission; and the Sirdar said that he would certainly do so. He further said 'You may take it as a kindness, and because I remember friendship, that I do not fire upon you for what you have done already.” These are the grounds upon which the Indian Government spoke of the armed opposition by which they were encountered, and I think that is an answer to the Question. The noble Lord asks me, whether I can explain how it was that Major Cavagnari, in his report of the affair, said that— "From first to last Faiz Muhammed Khan behaved in the most courteous manner, and very favourably impressed Colonel Jenkins and myself." No doubt Faiz Muhammed Khan had a very disagreeable duty imposed upon him in resisting the English Mission, and I presume that he discharged that dexterity and tact, changed the subject, it is extremely likely that serious consequences would have ensued. THE EASTERN QUESTION-THE TREATY OF BERLIN - ARTICLE 24. QUESTION. MR. W. CARTWRIGHT asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any Communications have been addressed to, or any Correspondence exchanged between Her Majesty's Government and France or any other signatory Power of the Berlin Treaty in respect of some proposed action in the sense of Article 24 of that Treaty, with the view of facilitating the rectification of the frontier between Greece and Turkey, as suggested in Protocol 13 of the Berlin Congress'; and, if there has been any such Communication or Correspondence, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to lay it before Parliament. MR. BOURKE: The subject mentioned in the Question is still under negotiation, and when these negotiations are finished the Papers will be submitted to Parliament. AFGHANISTAN-RUSSIAN POLICY. QUESTION. LORD ROBERT MONTAGU asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the following statement made by Lord Lytton and Sir Lewis Pelly on 10th October, 1876 (p. 183): "Our only interest in maintaining the independence of Afghanistan is to provide for the security of our frontier. But the moment we cease to regard Afghanistan as a friendly and firmly allied State, what is there to prevent us from providing for the security of our frontier by an understanding with Russia, which might have the effect of wiping Afghanistan out of the map altogether? If the Ameer does not desire to come to a speedy understanding with us, Russia does; and she desires it at his expense; to what negotiation or proposal did the Viceroy allude; and, whether, as Afghanistan is now not a friendly State, any understanding has been come to between England and Russia on the subject? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that as he read the passage referred to by the noble Lord, and as it was understood by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, it simply conveyed the general impression which the Viceroy had derived from the conversation with the Russian Minister as to the action of Russia. There was no ground for interpreting it as referring to any formal proposals by Russia on the subject. MAJOR NOLAN: I cannot say that I am satisfied with the answer which is given me by the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I give Notice that I shall repeat the Question to the Secretary to the Treasury, and shall also ask him if the Government intend to make any announcement on the subject before the adjournment of the House for the Christmas Recess. PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND)— OCCUPYING TENANTS. QUESTION. MR. SHAW LEFEVRE asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure for the purpose of giving greater facilities for occupying tenants of land in Ireland to become owners of their holdings by purchase in pursuance of the evidence and Report of the Committee of last Session on this subject? MR. J. LOWTHER: The Report of Evidence are now engaging the attenthe Select Committee referred to and the tion of the Government, and it would be premature for me to state now what the decision of the Government may be. In due time it will be communicated to the House. MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I shall call attention to the subject again, and move a Resolution, when the House meets after the Recess, in case the course proposed by the Government should prove unsatisfactory. INDIAN DESPATCHES-OPINIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF INDIA.-QUESTION. MR. W. E. FORSTER asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any opinions were given by any Members of the Council of India with respect to the Despatches from the Secretary of State for India to the Governor General of India, dated 22nd January and 19th November, 1875; and, if so, whether the Government will give the House their opinions; whether he can give the House Captain Grey's Letter to Noor Mahemed Shah, referred to in Dr. Bellew's Memorandum, dated Peshawur, 28th January 1877; whether there is any record of Sir Lewis Pelly's demand from the Cabul Envoy for an explanation of the reported hostility of the Ameer's language and conduct while engaged in friendly and pacific negotiation with the British Government, referred to in paragraph 33 of Lord Lytton's Despatch of 10th May 1877, and of the Envoy's reply to this demand, referred to in paragraph 34 of the same Despatch; and, if there be such record, whether it can be produced; and, whether the Native Agent, Nawab Gholam Hussein Khan, made any report of his Mission to Cabul on his return to Simla in October 1878; and, whether, if so, such report can be produced? MR. W. E. FORSTER: Do I understand that we shall receive these Papers as early as possible on Monday? MR. E. STANHOPE; They will be ready early to-morrow. THE AFGHAN PAPERS.-QUESTIONS. GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If the Papers referred to at page before the House? 70 of the Afghan Papers will be laid MR. E. STANHOPE: The Papers referred to by the hon. and gallant relating mainly to the affairs of Quetta and Beloochistan, and should be produced together with the Papers relating to the subject. That is the reason why they have not been included among the Member consist of voluminous Minutes GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: Can I see them before the debate? MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir. GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I thought so. ["Order!"] MR. E. STANHOPE: It is not usual to show Papers to any individual Member which have been refused to the House generally. MR. E. STANHOPE: The letters of Captain Grey and also the letters which passed between Sir Lewis Pelly and the Envoy shall be included in the forthcoming Papers. The only official account which we have received at the India Office of the Report of our Native Agent is a very short telegraphic Re-present series. port; but my noble Friend is in communication with the Viceroy on the subject. With respect to Lord Salisbury's despatches to the Governor General of India, dated the 22nd January and 19th November, 1875, no opinions by any Members of the Council are recorded in the proceedings. They were approved by the Secret Committee of the Council. [Mr. FAWCETT: The Political Committee of the Council?] I prefer to call it by the name of the Political and Secret Committee. While under discussion notes were written by three of the Members for the consideration of their Colleagues and the Secretary of State. These notes were of a strictly confidential character, and it has never been the practice to communicate their contents, or, in fact, to make their existence known. If such notes were to be published, a Secret Committee would be useless, and I am afraid we cannot, therefore, undertake to produce them. The letter of the Native Agent will be produced with the rest of the Papers. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, that with reference to the Report of the Native Agent's Mission to Cabul there were three letters written by Nawab Gholam Hussein Khan, but only abstracts or extracts were given of the contents in the Blue Book. As the letters were written letters, he presumed they might be given as well as the telegraphic extracts. AFGHANISTAN (EXPENSES OF MILI- MR. FAWCETT asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the consent of the Council of the Secretary of State for India has been obtained to any of the expenditure hitherto incurred in connection with the Military Expedition against the Ameer of Afghanistan; and, if so, when this consent was obtained and whether it was unanimous; and, whether any opinions have been recorded by the Council as to the justice of throwing these charges upon the Revenue of India; and, if so, whether there will be any objection to lay the record of these opinions before Parliament? MR. E. STANHOPE: On Tuesday last a proposal came before the Council of the Secretary of State for increasing the Native Army in India. It was agreed to by a unanimous vote of the Council. Since that time certain opinions and reasons have, I understand, been prepared, but have not yet been recorded |