203

DEFENCE OF MINISTERIAL POLICY IN GENERAL AGAINST THE DUKE OF ARGYLL. May 16, 1879.

[In the middle of the month of May 1879, news reached this country that the evacuation of Turkish territory by Russian troops was all but completed, and that there were other main stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin now on the point of fulfilment. The Duke of Argyll took this opportunity of delivering a general attack upon the whole position of the Government on both the Turkish and the Afghan questions, deriding the Treaty of Berlin as only the treaty of San Stefano in disguise, and accusing the Government of duplicity in their dealings with the Ameer.]

THE

HE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My lords, you are aware, as the noble duke has just reminded you, that at this moment the Ameer of Afghanistan is a self-invited but honoured guest in the English camp, with the avowed object of negotiating a treaty of peace and friendship with the Queen of England, and I may say that under those circumstances, when I heard of the intended motion of the noble duke, and that he was going to call the attention of the House to the results of our foreign policy in Europe and Asia, I think I had some reason yesterday to remind him of that state of affairs to which I have referred, and to leave it with confidence to his discretion, as I left it then, to observe a statesmanlike silence in the circumstances now existing. My lords, I have been deeply disappointed in these expectations. At this very moment, when the questions to which he has referred, such as the appointment of a European resident in the cities of that Sovereign, when those questions are still under consideration, and which at this very moment are the subject of negotiations, the noble duke has thought it proper, referring, as he said, only to the past, to

treat these subjects in a manner-and in a manner which in the present conditions of communication may in twenty-four hours be known in those parts-which certainly may greatly affect the carriage of those negotiations. When I consider these circumstances, when I remember the position of the noble duke, a man of eminence for his ability and so exalted in his position, a man who has more than once been the trusted counsellor of his Sovereign, when I see that such a man as he comes forward, and with a criticism which I will not call malevolent, but which certainly was envenomed, attacks the policy of the Government which at this moment must be being weighed and scanned with the most intense interest abroad, I must say that I am greatly astonished. My Parliamentary experience has not been little, but certainly in the course of that experience I remember no similar instance of a person placed in so high a position adopting the course which the noble duke has thought it right to take.

For the reasons which I gave yesterday I shall certainly not follow the noble duke into the subject to which he has referred. My noble friend, when he addresses your lordships, will find that, although for the moment he may have to sacrifice the gratification of vindicating his personal honour, there are still various matters with respect to Afghanistan to which the noble duke has referred, to which it is necessary for him to allude. I, however, shall not touch upon them. Unfortunately for us, and perhaps still more unfortunately for the noble duke himself, he was not present when the debates in reference to Afghanistan were held. Those of your lordships who were present at those debates can scarcely accept as accurate the picture which the noble duke drew of those discussions. Your lordships have been told by the noble duke that you were obliged to consent to a hurried vote, moved by Her Majesty's Government, who had already committed the country to a certain policy with regard to Afghanistan. Your lordships will recollect that, on the contrary, the subject of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in reference to Afghanistan was discussed for three nights in this House. Your lordships will also remember that with your indulgence I felt it to be my duty to wind up the

debate upon that occasion, and that, after our policy had been criticised and assailed for three nights, I proved by the production of a despatch written by the late Viceroy of India that if the distinguished leaders of the Opposition had been in office, they would have pursued exactly the same policy which we conceived and which we had the courage to pursue. The result of that debate was that when the matter came to a division one of the largest majorities which we have ever had in this House sealed with its confidence and its approbation the conduct of Her Majesty's Government.

I will endeavour to follow the noble duke through the other subjects which he dealt with in the order in which he introduced them. The noble duke, as some compensation for the attack which he made upon our Indian policy, commenced his address by congratulating us. The noble duke congratulated us upon the great fact that in part fulfilment of the Treaty of Berlin the evacuation of Bosnia and Roumania had been commenced. The noble duke in congratulating us on that circumstance said that it was true at the same time that the version which we now gave of the obligatory provision in the Treaty of Berlin respecting the evacuation of those provinces was not that which we had originally given of it, still that the fact that the evacuation had commenced was so satisfactory that he must congratulate us upon our success in bringing about an agreement under which Russia was to be allowed three more months in which to complete the evacuation. I cannot accept the compliments of the noble duke. I have always placed upon the 22nd clause of the Treaty of Berlin exactly the same interpretation which I understand the Government of Russia now does. My noble friend and myself, who have worked together in these transactions, have, I believe, never differed upon any single point in reference to the treaty except this: I certainly understood that when nine months were appointed for the occupation of these provinces by the military forces of Russia, that period should not include the time allowed for the evacuation of them, which was to commence at the termination of that period of nine months. Occupation and evacuation are different things, and if the evacuation were to be commenced within the nine

months the period of the occupation would be proportionately shortened.

But, holding as I do that view of the subject, that is no reason why we should agree to an unreasonable length of time being taken in conducting the evacuation of those provinces. The noble duke treated as a matter of course, and as a subject upon which there could be no possible difference of opinion, that Her Majesty's Government had agreed to extend the time for the evacuation in those provinces to August 3. There is not the slightest authority for any statement of the kind. What we are bound by is the view now taken by the majority of the signatories of the Berlin treaty, to the effect that the evacuation was to commence on May 3; and it is to be completed within a reasonable time, which may be computed in weeks rather than in months, but at all events in a moderate time, as compared with the statement which the noble duke has made. Therefore the noble duke, who prides himself upon his memory, has actually complimented Her Majesty's Government upon the circumstances which, if correct, would have been a disgrace to them.

The noble duke then goes on to complain very much of the manner in which he and his colleagues and friends have been treated not in, but out of this House, and in so doing he exhibited that sensitiveness which I have already more than once observed is peculiar to the present Opposition. On this point I did not think that the evidence of the noble duke was adequate to the occasion. He quoted an extract from a speech of my noble friend, and he also quoted from the anonymous correspondence of an unknown society. When a subject of this character is brought before your lordships on a solemn occasion, and when charges of this nature are made against Her Majesty's Government, I do not myself much care what people say about me, and I have not much time to make remarks about others. Some distinguished members of Her Majesty's Opposition, however, who have appeared in different parts of the country, seem to have spared no time in the preparation of their attacks upon Her Majesty's Government. Upon that subject I will say nothing further than this: I make no charge against either of

the two noble lords the leaders of the Opposition in either House of Parliament. Their conduct has at all times, and especially at critical periods, been such as was to be expected from gentlemen and distinguished statesmen who felt the responsibilities of their position.

That, however, cannot be said of all the members of the party. Although I shall notice nothing of a merely personal nature, I must say that it is much to be regretted that after so solemn an act as the Treaty of Berlin was executed, and when united Europe had agreed to look upon the treaty as some assurance for the maintenance of peace and for the general welfare of the world, certain members of the Opposition should, not once, twice, nor thrice, but month after month, habitually declare to the world that the treaty was utterly impracticable, and have used such external influence as they might possess to throw every obstacle and impediment in the way of carrying that treaty into practical effect. Look at the probable result of such action. If statesmen have pledged their opinion over and over again that a treaty is impracticable, if they become responsible ministers, they will be called upon by those who do not wish the treaty to be fulfilled to carry their opinions into effect.

Then says the noble duke, 'I come now to business. You have negotiated a treaty, but what have you done for Turkey?' And the noble duke for a considerable time-for more than half an hour-made an impassioned appeal to the House, with a view of showing us what ought to have been done for Turkey. From a minister responsible, I believe, for the Crimean War, such a speech might have been expected, and, in fact, the strongest part of the oration of the noble duke was an impassioned argument in favour of going to war with Russia in order to preserve the settlement made at the end of the Crimean War. Well,' says the noble duke, 'what have you done? See the losses to Turkey which you have brought about. There is Batoum, a most valuable harbour, which will be fortified by the Russians whatever may be the engagement they have made by the Treaty of Berlin. Do you mean to say, had acted with sufficient vigour, that you if you