The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-12-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

In the HOUSE OE tom:4, Dec. 9, Lord Beauchamp brought
down Her Majesty's smswer to the Address agreed to by the
House ef Lords on Thursday.

Lord Cranbrook then moved a Resolution declaring "that,
the Queen having directed a military expedition of the
forces charged on the Indian revenues to be despatched
against the Ameer of Afghanistan, tne House of Lords con-
Sents that the revenues oi India shall he applied to defray the
expenses of the military operations which may be carried on
beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian
Possessions," and in support of his motion he began by
stating that the moment war became inevitable the Govern-
ment called Parliament together in obedienee to the law,
adding that he saw no necessity for imposing any charge on
the revenues of India during the present financial year for
the purpose of the war. He dwelt on the importance of
having Afghanistan as a friendly Power on our frontier,
and taking a review of our past policy in reference to that
country, he mentioned that a change occurred in our rela-
tions with the Ameer after the death of Lord Mayo,
though he believed that in 1873 the time had then
come to declare a readiness to assist the ruler of Afghan-
htan. The course pursued, however, had the effect of dis-
sociating him from England, and inducing hire to look else-
where for help. In 1877 Lord Salisbury thought it desirable,
in order to obtain reliable information, to have a British
Resident in Afghanistan, but nothing could be more repug-
eant to the feelings of the British Government than to coerce
the Ameer. Nevertheless, the Ameer, who refused our
Mission, received with ostentatious pomp a Russian
Bnvoy at a time when he might have imagined
that England would be engaged In war with Russia.
Such conduct might of itself be regarded as a declaration of
hostilities, and an ultimatum having been addressed to the
akmeer, an answer arrived after a long delay, but it was an
evasive reply. The time had therefore gone by for masterly
inaction; and he regretted that an amendment was intended
to be moved, for he regarded it as a misfortune if a question
6f this kind should be met in a party sense. He called on the
Rouse of Lords to support the original motion, for the sake
of the honour and safety of the Queen's Indian possessions.
Viscount Halifax moved an amendment expressing regret
that the conduct of the Government had unnecessarily
engaged this country in the war.

Lore Lawrence could not conceive how it could be asserted
that the Imeer of Afghanistan, who was really and truly
an independent chief, had violated his engagements
towards this country by receiving a friendly Mission
from Russia. He vindicated the policy he pur-
sued in reference to the competitors for power in
Afghanistan; but when there was a prospect of Shere Ali
becoming the permanent ruler of that country, he declared
that then was the time to assist him. As long as the Vice-
royalty of Lord Mayo and of Lord N-orthbrook existed, and
also while he was himself responsible for the conduct of
affairs, the relations with the Ameer were satisfactory. The
whole cause of disagreement was the attempt to force
British officers upon that ruler.

Lord Derby thought that there was something unreal and
Unsatisfactory in the state of things they were discussing,
because the question at issue was one on which the opinion
of the House could have no real effect, as the war was
already begun. As far as he could judge, the cause of the
misunderstanding between the Ameer and this country was
that kind of support which it was impossible for us to
promise—namely, he wanted to have his dynasty supported
against all enemies. He held that in the circumstances
existing in 1876, it was desirable to establish British Agents in
Afghanistan by friendly means, but he did not advocate
the forcing them on the Ameer. If we had told the Ameer
that as he had received a Mission from the Russians he could
not do less than receive a Mission from us, then it was not
likely that the Russians 'mild have encouraged him to
resist receiving an English Mission, and he theught that with
prude:lee the war migiA have been avoided. He also alluded
to the probability of great expense being incurred on account
of the war, and said that he looked with alarm on the pre-
sent and future condition of the finances of India. He be-
lieved that the war, which he did not think necessary, might
have been avoided with a little forbearance.

The Duke of Somerset dissented from the observations
of Lord Derby, and if the war would cost a great deal of
money he asked whether India was not worth the expendi-
ture. He declared that he could not support the amend-
ment.
Lord Carnarvon said that he could not connect the Af-
ghan war with any notions oi justice, and he regarded the
policy which had been pursued as unsound. Therefore he
would though with great reluctance, give his vote against
the original motion.
Lord Napier and Httrick protested against the expenses
of the war being borne entirely by India, but he declared
that he would vote for the resolution.
After a few words from Lord Aberdeen,

Lord Airlie condemned the conduct pursued by the
Government in reference to Afghanistan.

The debate was then adjourned, on the motion of Earl
Grey, with the understanding that it should be resumed the
next day.
- - - - - -

Their lordships adjourned at a quarter to twelve o'clock.
In the 110 USS OF COMMONS, several questions were asked,
and notice was given of many others, relating to the state
of affairs in Afghanistan. In answer to Sir H. Havelock, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Itusian Am-
bassador here had informed the Government that the Russian
Mission had left Afghanistan; and, in answer to Mr. Faw-
cett, Mr. Stanhope stated that the expenditure hitherto in-
curred in the Afghan expedition had been incurred by order
of the Secretary of State in this country, and that this was
unquestionably within his power Mr. Stanhope established
by a quotation from a speech of the Duke of Argyll in 1867.
Mr. Fawcett gave notice of his intention to move a resolution
declaring that the Secretary of State has infringed the letter
and spirit of the Act of 1857.
In answer to Mr. Gourley, the Chancellor of the Ex
chequer said that the amount paid over by the United States
under the Washington Award was being disposed of between
Newfoundland and the Dominion, and the Govemment_had
no intention of re-opening the Award.
-

- -
In reply to questions from Lord Elcho and Mr. Serjeant
Simon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the fact that
no joint report had been presented by the Rhodope Com-
mission made it impossible for any diplomatic action to be
taken without serious consideration, but the Government
was considering whether anything could be done to relieve
the suffering disclosed in that report. As to the trust-
worthiness of the report the Chancellor of the Exchequer
said that was a difficult question to answer, whereupon
Lord Echo gave notice that he would repeat the question,
and Mr. Serjeant Simon said that he would ask whether
the Government would take any steps to verify the report.

_
On the report of the Address being brought up, the debate
on the Afghan war was opened by Mr. Whitbread, who moved
as an amendment a resolution declaring that the House
"disapproves of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government,
which had resulted in the war with Afghanistan." He
commenced by remarking that he had desired to keep
his motion separate from any question of prosecuting
the war, because, though he thought it unjust and
unnecessary, and that it ought to be brought to a close as
soon as we had attained a sufficient success, he desired to
confine himself entirely to the peat policy which had led to
it. He then proceeded to show, with many extracts from the
Papers, that the Afghan policy of former Viceroys had always
been "non-intervention and peace," and that they had always
refrained from pressing on the Ameer the reeeption of British
Residents in Afghanistan. It was to this demand that Mr. Whit-
bread attributed the hostility of the Ameer, contending that it
was conscientiously objected to by the Afghans as danger-
ous to their independence, and that it would really have
been of no value. In 1875, he showed next, there had
been a departure from this policy when Lord Salisbury
directed the Indian Government to obtain the ameer's
assent to the placing of British officers at Herat and Can-
dahar. Lord Northbrook always resisted, but Lord Lytton
when he arrived in India lost no time in endeavouring
to carry the new policy into effect. Tracing the com-
munications between Lord Lytton and the Ameer up to
the end of Sir L. Pelly's negotiations at Peshawur, he main-
tained that it was owing to the altered tone and the threats
with which the Viceroy enforced his demand for the recep-
tion of British Residents that the Ameer became distrustful
and suspicions, and that uitimately he began to turn a
friendly ear to General Kaufmann's advances. Turning to
the Central Asian papers he traced next the Russian com-
munications with the Ameer, contending that it was not
until Lord Lytton had threatened the Ameer that he gave
any encouragement to General Kaufmann of which we
could complain. The representations made to Russia
by our Government against her dealings with the
Ameer were much too weak, and he complained
that, while it was on account of Russia's action
that we had gone to war, it was not with Russia, but with
the Ameer that we bad picked a quarrel. The conclusion
he drew from the papers was that ever since Lord Lytton
went to India the Government had determined on a rectifi-
cation of frontier, and they took advantage of the Ameer's
Imprudent reception of the Russian Envoy to make the
necessary advance into his territories. He complained too
that the Government had concealed their new policy from
Parliament and the country, and called attention to the
speech of Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords last year dis-
claiming all intention of sending an Envoy to Cabul, by
which, he said. Parliament had been entirely misled.
Mr. E. Stanhope, who replied on the part of the Govern-
ment, disputed altogether Mr. Whitbread's main argument
that the Ameer became hostile to us solely because we in-
sisted on forcing British resident Agents on him. On the
contrary, as he showed from the Papers, the Ameer had him-
self at one time asked for a British Agent, and at the Urn.
balls conferences had expressed himself willing at some
future time to consent to such a measure. Reviewing at
length the dealings of the Indian Government with
Afghanistan, he contended that even in Lord Northbrook's
time the Ameer had become unfriendly to us, and that
before Lord Lytton bad held any communication with him
he had become distrustful of us, and had entered into
friendly relations with General Kaufmann. He showed
too, that Lord Northbrook himself had admitted that in view
of the constant advance of Russia, it would be necessary at
some time to give further assurances to the Ameer, and toe
sole difference between him and Lord Salisbury was as to the
'opportuneness. Lord Northbrook thought that any further
action might be delayed until the Russians came much
nearer, and Lord Salisbury insisted that it must be taken at
cow. Events, he contended, had shown that Lord Salisbury
was right. When the Russian Mission was received at
Cabul, and when the Ameer was found to be stirring
up the border tribes against us, the Government would
have been failing in its duty to the people of India
if it had delayed longer to meet the evident danger.
They were not afraid of an invasion of India,
but they knew that the establishment of Russian
influence at Cahill would have a disturbing effect in India,
and would lead to troubles on our borders. It was deter-
mined then to send a friendly mission. to the Ameer, which
the Viceroy hoped and believed would receive a friendly
welcome. But when, after many delays, it was turned back
with violence, the Indian Government had no option, unless
It wished to be disgraced in the eyes of its subjects, but to
take the measures which had led to the war. He challenged
the Opposition to indicate at what point in these trans-
actions the Viceroy was wrong, and what policy they would
have adopted in place of his.
The debate was continued by Mr. Trevelyan, Mr, Martin,
Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Ridley.
Mx. Forster :ensured the Government for having entirely
changed the traditional policy, unknown to Parliament,
without any emergency to justify it. When Lord Lytton
went to India he found the Ameer suspicious and dissatis-
fied, but there was no hostility until the Viceroy, in
obedience to his instructions from home, pressed him
to receive British Residents. The conduct of the Govern-
ment left the Ameer no opportunity of complying
with the demands made upon him and showed a determina-
tion to force him into a war. Even if the war were success-
ful, it would land us in great difficulties; and answering the
question what would the Opposition do, he recommended
that we should make peace with the Ameer by convincing
him that we sincerely intended to revert to the old policy
of Lawrence and Mayo.
On the motion of Lord J. Manners, the -debate was
adjourned.
Sir John Lubbock, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill
to provide for the better preservation of ancient monuments,
said that the Bill was now introduced as passed by the
Select Committee, bat that he had accepted some verbal
amendments which the Chairman of Committees had been
so good as to suggest. The object of these amendments was
to give even greater security to the owners of property, and
they had been most willingly accepted by those interested in
the Bill, whose great object was to preserve these interesting
monuments, but who had every wish to respect existing
rights. He hoped the amendments might satisfy some at
any rate of those who had hitherto felt it their duty oppose
the Bill.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.
Mr. E. Jenkins also obtained leave to bring in a BM to
Codify and amend the law of copyright.
The Bills for which leave had been given were subsequently
Introduced, and read the first time: and
The House adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.

In the HorsE or LORDS, Dec. 10, after two or three ques-
tions had been put and answered, the adjourned debate on
the Afghan Resolutions was resumed.
Lord Grey, in opening the debate, said he was disappointed
In net having as yet heard from the Government one word
to show that the war against Afghanistan was justifiable.
To the best of his judgment, the Government had failed
to make out any legitimate ground for war, and with-
out such ground he maintained that the commence-
mint of hostilities was a great national crime.
He wished the Government to explain what object
they expected to obtain by their course of proceeding. Did
thay num* to annex territory, or support some ruler whose
power Inlaid depend on British bayonets? and, if an, he
t'lked wile.: they had Xeekoned the cost of snch a policy?
,',""( (11D
!us ilvatione to the policy of th&Govern.
int2t,•Oifittid by aiding that he whaldituppbrt LoM

Halifax's amendment. with the object of bringing the war to
an immediate conclusion.

The Lord Chancellor dissented from the policy advocated

by Lord Grey—which he styled the polici of the ostrich
—of taking no notice of the doings of Russia; and none
of the best Indian authorities, he added, doubted the
existence of danger on the side of Russia. After
arguing that the policy of "masterly inactivity" broke
down the moment it came to be applied, he pro-
ceeded to refer to the despatches which passed on the
Afghan Question, which, he said, must have been unsatis-
factory to the Ameer, as a great and unfavourable change
occurred in his mind at the end of 1873. He regretted the
proposal of Lord Halifax's motion, for it was a motion to
stop the supplies for the support of the Indian troops in
Afghanistan, and he implored the House of Lords to do
nothing which would impair or endanger the stability of our
Indian Empire.
Lord Selborne did not think that the adoption of the
amendment would be an obstacle to any future vote of their
Lordships for the application of Indian revenues to this par-
ticular purpose.

Lord Houghton could not give his vote for the amend-
ment, for it would have a most painful effect on the troops
engaged in the war to declare that the contest was unneces-
sary.

_
Lord Bath said it was ra matter of complaint that Parlia-
ment was not made aware of the policy which led to the war
and he felt bound to give his vote against the great Conser-
vative party, with which he had been so long connected.
-

_
Lord Jersey pronounced the Ministerial policy in accord
with the dictates of duty and justice.

Lord Ripon contended that the Government should have
been forewarned, and should have taken steps to prevent a
rupture.
Lord Midleton, reviewing the situation, came to the con-
clusion that the Government could have done no more and
ought not to have done less than they had done.
Lord Northbrook opened his remarks by expressing the
gratification he felt at the skill and bearing of the officers
and troops eagaged in the operations against Afghanistan,
and at the arrangements for the campaign, and also his
satisfaction at the support given by the native Princes to the
Viceroy of India. He thought, however, it would have been
wise and just of the Government not to have thrown on
India the cost of this war, which had in reality arisen out of
complications in Europe. The increased revenue of which
the Secretary for India had spoken on the previous
night was the product of unneoessary taxation, There
was nothing in the speech of the noble viscount to
raise any personal question between the noble viscount and
himself. When Vioeroy of India he served two years under
the Government of Mr Gladstone and two years under that
of the noble earl the present Prime Minister, and he had
not been able to discover any difference in the objects which
each of those Governments had in view. The Government
of India never had looked on the advance of Russia in the
same light as that in which it was regarded by the school of
which Sir H. Rawlinson and the noble and learned earl on the
woo'sack were two of the ablest exponents. The noble
marquis the Secretary for Foreign Affairs entertained a dif-
ferent opinion as to what ought to be done with regard to
Afghanistan from that of everybody of experience in India.
Despite the impre,,sions which had been formed by the
Prime Minister and the late and present Secretaries for
India, he asserted emphatically that when he left India
the Ameer was loyal to the Brit sh Government, and that
the real cause of his subsequent discontent was the
attempt to force English agents upon him. During the two
years he was Viceroy under the present Government he
never received the slightest hint that the policy of 1873 was
wrong, or that stronger assurances should be given to Shore
All and he himself in a despatch made the suggestion of an
additional guarantee which, though not to the full extent,
was subsequently carried out by Lord Salisbury as Minister
for India. The fact is, the only difference between the late
Government and the present up to the outbreak of the war was
as to the means and not as to the object. It was the action of
Her Majesty's Government which made it too late to secure the
faithful alliance of the Ameer when the danger arose of a
war between this country and Russia. The matter of the
reception of the Russian Embassy to Cabal ought to have
been settled between this country and Russia. With great
regret he felt obliged to say that the coarse the Govern-
ment had taken was unnecessary, and to join in the vote for
the amendment before their lordships.

Lord Salisbury again vindicated his much-assailed answer
to the Duke of Argyll in June, 1877. He thought at one
period of the debate they were getting out of that interest-
ing inquiry, what was the precise cause of the Ameer's
anger? The idea that the Ameer bad any real aver-
sion to English residents within his frontiers was an
entire imagination. If you wanted to know the cause
of a man's anger the best course was to ask himself.
The Ameer himself had told us the causes of his anger. The
first of these was the impartiality of Sir J. Lawrence, whom,
if he was acquainted with English literature, Shere Ali must
have looked upon as an Oriental Vicar of Bray. The next
was the interference of Lord Northbrook on behalf of the
Ameer's son. The late Viceroy of India had told their lord-
ships that there was no change of policy. If that was so, why
censure the Government? It was not a military invasion of
India we had to guard against, but it was a diplomatic inva-
sion of Afghanistan we had to guard against. We had to take
measures to prevent Russia working in the •East with Af-
ghanistan as her base as she had worked in Europe with
Bulgaria and Bosnia as her base To prevent such an evil,
remonstrances to St. Petersburg were useless. It could
only be done by English agents to watch on the spot
the unauthorised diplomacy of Russia. As to Mr. Glad-
stone's complaint that the Government ought to have
gone to war with Russia, what on earth could we
have gone to war with Russia about? Our dispute
with the Ameer was because he would not receive
an envoy from us while he was professing friendship for us,
but conspiring with subordinate chiefs against us. A Minis-
try in itself was a small thing; but in this case the Ministry
represented a eause, and if a hostile vote were recorded
against the Ministry the destinies of this country must be
handed over to men who looked on India as a burden and
predicted the future greatness of America in contrast with
that of the British Empire to the disadvantage of their own
country.