As re

it very briefly. The Government of the of the Porte had been asked to the makPrincipalities on the one hand, and the ing of these Conventions, it would have three Governments of Austria, Russia, been conceded without difficulty; but I and Germany on the other, desire to believe that to be the case. The comconclude Commercial Conventions with mercial arrangements of Roumania have one another. The Government of the no interest for Turkey. The Roumanian Porte objects on the ground that such Exchequer is separate from that of Conventions are not within the right of Turkey; a surplus there is of no assistthe Government of the Principalities to ance to the Sultan, and a deficit there is contract without sanction from Constan- of no importance, so long as the very tinople. We and the French Govern- small tribute to which Roumania is liable ment agree with the Porte in the con- continues to be punctually paid. In struction which we place upon our Treaty fact, one argument against these Convenobligations. The three Governments of tions is that they are utterly unnecessary. Eastern Europe, on the other hand, re- If the Roumanian authorities like to regard such Conventions as within the duce their Customs duties to the lowest right of autonomy which the Principali- point, they can do it. Nobody will obties confessedly enjoy. They accordingly ject and nobody will interfere. If they proceed to make their Convention, and like to raise them within certain limits, the noble Lord is of opinion that we to which they are bound by European ought in some way, which he does not Treaties, they can equally do so. They explain, to prevent that transaction from can make, and they have made, informal taking place. Let me remind the House understandings with other States as to within what very narrow limits this rates of duty to be levied, and they question really lies. It is admitted on might have continued to do so. all hands that the Roumanian Govern- gards material and practical results, it ment has not the right to make treaties makes absolutely no difference which properly so-called-treaties of a political way this matter is settled. Well, then, character dealing with general interests. is the conclusion of these Conventions a It is equally admitted that there is a step to ultimate independence? I will certain class of Conventions with neigh-be entirely frank. The Principalities, bouring States which the Roumanian Government is entitled to make by the Firman of 1866. And that, let me say in passing, disposes of his argument as to the impossibility, according to International Law, of any Convention being entered into by a dependent State. The whole difference between the two parties in this dispute consists in this -whether Commercial Conventions such as are now proposed come within one category or the other. We think they are excluded, for reasons which I will not dwell upon because the noble Lord accepts them as valid. The Austrians think they are included, grounding themselves mainly on the right of the Principalities to make their own internal financial arrangements, and on the words of the Firman of 1866. Now, is this a question which can be treated as one of European magnitude and importance? It can only be important in one of two ways-either as regards its immediate practical results, or as a step to the ultimate separation of the Principalities from Turkey. As to the practical results, they are, none. I am not authorized to say that if the consent

no doubt, have drifted in the course of the last 20 years into a position different from that which was made for them by the Crimean War. That is only saying that the Crimean War was waged 20 years ago. The Roumanians, as a people, are stronger and more united now than they were then. They may indulge in dreams of a possible future; but I shall be surprised if they take any steps to realize those ideas, and for this reason. Why I say that the Roumanian people. will not take steps to separate themselves from the Turkish Empire is, that the only security they have for selfgovernment, or even for existence, lies in the European guarantee which, as a part of the Ottoman Empire, they enjoy. So long as they remain in name a dependency of Turkey they are secure, as far as treaties can make them so, against the risk of being absorbed in any other State. They are not strong enough to stand alone, and they know it. I do not think, therefore, they will risk the forfeiture of the guarantee which now protects them. And I cannot doubt that they clearly understand the situation. That guarantee was not granted to the

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY agreed with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) in deprecating the use of violent language, or the adoption of what would be called a rash or ill-judged

Principalities for their own sakes-it | a course of conduct such as this? They was granted to them as forming a part would have said—“ Your morality is of the general system of the Ottoman excellent; but while we have just as Empire. So long as they remain within much respect for treaties as you have, we that Empire, they have a right to it, and have our own method of interpreting no longer. I do not think they will be them, which unfortunately differs from in haste to break off a connection which yours." If we had endeavoured to create is not galling or humiliating, and which out of this a great European question, we leaves them complete internal freedom, might certainly have succeeded in makeither for the sake of being absorbed in ing ourselves ridiculous; but we should any more powerful State, or for the bare have done no good to the Porte, and I do chance of being able to maintain a pre- not think we should have been thanked carious independence, exposed to danger for our trouble. Whatever is still posfrom every quarter, and without having sible to smooth over the difficulty and to a claim on the protection or friendship of save the dignity of the Porte shall be any Power. That state of things I con- attempted ; but I believe at this moment sider affords the best security we can the Turkish Government, which certainly have for the maintenance of the status is mainly concerned, is not only satisfied, quo. As for this small matter of the but grateful for the line we have taken. Conventions, it leaves things in sub- I do not think, therefore, that your Lordstance where they were. The Rouma- ships will be more Turkish than the nian people, at any rate, do not consider Turks themselves, and censure us for that they have gained a diplomatic results which we did not bring about, victory, for we hear of the supplanting and which, as far as I can see, no lanof the Government and of discontent and guage or action on our part could have agitation at Bucharest-which does not averted. look as if the Government were considered to have accomplished a national success. It may be that by better management on both sides this dispute might have been averted. I think that was possible, and in despatches I have in-course in reference to this matter. It dicated more than one way in which it was never desirable to adopt strong might have been done. But the time language, and in this matter it would for that is past—not by the fault of Eng- have been more than usually rash to land. And now it only remains to con- have done so. He agreed in thinking sider in what way the actual result could that it would be the greatest possible have been averted. On that point the mistake to erect the subject which had noble Lord (Lord Stratheden) has given been brought forward by the noble Lord us no information. He does not suppose (Lord Stratheden) into a great European that we ought to have broken off rela- question. He would not for a moment tions with the three Powers, because of presume to set up his opinion on a questhis difference. Ought we to have with- tion of the interpretation of treaties drawn from the guarantee of Roumania? against the view which might be held But that would be only injuring our- by the Foreign Office. On the other selves, unless other Powers took the hand, he thought great weight ought to same course. My noble Friend has sug-attach to the views which had been exgested several remedies for the state of things which he desires to see put to rights. He has said that we might have laid the Papers relating to the matter before Parliament, and that we might further have appealed to the good faith of the other Powers interested in the question, in the belief that publicity and discussion would have changed the course of the question. We might have made more noise and written excited despatches about the observance of treaties; but what would have been the result of

pressed by the noble Lord (Lord Hammond), who was for so many years Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Looking at the question by the light of the Firman which was issued by the Porte, he was in considerable doubt whether the commercial arrangements which had been entered into by the Principalities were such as they were excluded from making by their general relations with the Porte. It would, in his opinion, be idle to address strong language to the other Powers, because

their views on these points differed from | to the noble Earl the Secretary of State those entertained by Her Majesty's Go- himself, the importance of his office vernment. The general position of the renders it incumbent on me to encounter Principalities was of a very artificial cha- some of the remarks of which I was the racter. For many years past they had object. The noble Earl ascribed to me endeavoured to set themselves up as the view that a Parliamentary discussion, something greater than they really were, some time back, would have been the and, in all probability, they would con- proper method for giving a more favourtinue in the same course. This being able turn to the transaction now before so, he thought it fair to regard the us. Undoubtedly I do maintain that, question as one concerning which the if a Parliamentary discussion were to principle of self-interest would weigh happen, its chance of retarding the Auswith the Principalities-and as the noble trian negotiation would have been greater Earl had said, self-interest was more before, than after the negotiation was binding than treaties and prevent concluded. But Parliamentary discusthem from going as far as some persons sion was not, as it occurred to me, the thought them likely to go. The Prin- most important weapon to rely on in the cipalities were not likely rashly to sacri- business. The noble Earl has said much fice a position in which they would lose to extenuate the gravity of what he was the advantages of the European guaran- not able to avert, and denied that in tee-within which they were now in- Moldavia and Wallachia there is the cluded-and become a mere shuttlecock separative tendency which I imputed to between two great Powers. On the them, and which forms an important whole, he thought the noble Earl oppo- link in the case I urged upon your Lordsite (the Earl of Derby) had taken a ships. How comes it, therefore, that the very prudent course in advising the Porte noble Earl, in language I will read, not to attach exaggerated importance to officially rebuked the aspirations of the question in its present position, but Prince Charles and of his councillors for to suffer it to be looked upon as a ques- an independence they would not be able tion of arrangement between neighbour- to perpetuate? [Lord CAMPBELL here ing States, and not as one involving great read the passage.] The noble Earl has questions of treaty obligation, and likely charged me with general exaggeration to imperil the arrangement made in 1856 in the importance I attached to the forwith regard to the whole question. mation of these Treaties. What have I done except adopt the language of the Ottoman authorities, "that they are the earliest stage in the road of demands still more important, still more inadmissible ?" The variance is between the noble Earl and men whom patriotism, interest, experience enlighten, who have a local knowledge of the countries in dispute, whose minds are constantly employed upon the subject. I venture to prefer the judgment which they form at Constantinople to that which he may form at Downing Street-were he without a bias-upon some parts of the question. Is there no such thing as ability, sagacity, or insight on the Bosphorus ? Is statesmanship unknown, or is diplomacy uncultivated on those waters? The noble Earl has asked me, in a manner the most pointed, "what ought we to have done?" My Lords, there never was a question easier to satisfy. If either before the Identic Note of October 20th, or during the long interval which followed, one despatch had been submitted to the Austrian Government, pointing out

LORD CAMPBELL: If no other noble Lord is going to address the House I shall feel bound to make some comments on what has passed, and to announce the course I propose about the Resolutions. As regards my noble Friend upon the right (the Earl of Rosebery) he has shown an aptitude in foreign, not unequal to that which he was well-known before to have upon domestic topics, and has taken the first step in what I trust may be a long continued effort to uphold the validity of Treaties and the honour of his country. The noble Lord, who may be justly regarded as the Nestor of the Foreign Office (Lord Hammond), and the noble Earl on the front bench (the Earl of Kimberley) who has gone with him, have adopted the position of the Identic Note; they have supported the legality of the demand which it embodied; they are at utter variance with the Secretary of State, they are exposed to the reply which his despatches have brought forward, and I am not compelled in any way to answer them. But when I come

however guardedly and cautiously-that | leave to them the responsibility of rethe course they meditated would not har-jecting it. monize with the engagements which THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, bound them to Great Britain and to that this was one of those cases of France upon the Eastern question; that pressing a Resolution which no one the advantages they sought might be particularly desired to oppose; but, at more legitimately compassed; it would the same time, if it were accepted, it have seemed to me the conduct of the might give rise to some misapprehenGovernment ought not to be impugned. sion in other quarters. The second ReWill it be said that such a task was solution being withdrawn, there would beyond the faculties of the noble Earl, be no necessity for the first; and it apand those who sit around him here, or peared to him that the better course those who aid him at the Foreign Office? would be to agree to a Motion that the My Lords, the noble Earl regards the Resolution should not be put. He theresecond Resolution as a censure. In that fore moved the Previous Question. event, however just its terms, I shall withdraw it. Dissatisfied with the

pro

ceedings of the noble Earl in this affair, I do not fail to recognize his international utility in the function of maintaining peace between two contending Powers, or Powers not unlikely to contend. It would not, therefore, be consistent with my views as to the interest of Europe by any vote to weaken his authority at present. As to the former Resolution, nothing will induce me to withdraw it, and nothing will, I hope, prevent the noble Earl from acquiescing in it. It is a tribute to the Government as against the Identic Note, and it must tend to counterbalance the effect of the Austrian example on those States which at this very moment are doubting whether to be swayed by it.

THE EARL OF DERBY acknowledged the friendly tone of the noble Lord's speech towards the Government and himself, and hoped that the noble Lord would rest satisfied with the discussion which he had evoked, and withdraw both Resolutions. He (the Earl of Derby) could not object to the first Resolution in the abstract, but it would afford no security that it would be unanimously accepted by the House; and looking at the state of the House and the number of Peers who were absent, and had taken no part in the discussion, any Resolution agreed to in such a manner would not have any weight with or influence over European nations.

LORD CAMPBELL adhered to his opinion, that the proper course would be to withdraw the second Resolution; and, as to the first Resolution, its acceptance or non-acceptance, entirely depended upon the Government. As to the first Resolution, if the Government would not adopt it, he must

A question being stated thereupon, the previous question was put, "Whether the said question shall be now put?" Resolved in the Negative.

Then it was moved to resolve, That this House regrets that no effectual measures seem to have been taken to prevent or to retard the definitive conclusion of a treaty between Austro-Hungary and the Danubian Principalities. (The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)

Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

CONSPIRACY AND PROTECTION OF
PROPERTY BILL.-(No. 220.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)

SECOND READING.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he would briefly explain the purpose of this Bill, and also that of the Employers and Workmen Bill, which stood next on the Paper. The latter Bill was confined to civil remedies for breaches of contract between employers and workmen, while the other, while it provided that no combination should be deemed criminal if the act proposed to be done would not be criminal if done by one person declared certain breaches of contract, though done by one person to be criminally punishable, and others involving injury to persons and property to be also punishable. The Employers and Workmen Bill, he might add, was intended to replace the Master and Servants Act of 1867, sometimes called Lord Elcho's Act, while the other measure was intended to replace the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871. As far back as 1350 there was an Act-the 23rd of Edward III.—called the Statute