Punch (74.1878)

53

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHAJEUVAKI. [February 9, 1678.

reality, musters of unmitigated blackguards, low legs, drunken
roughs, and all their kindred spawn of Metropolitan vice, profligacy,
and evil living and doing.

The Bill was resisted by Mr. It. Power—less power to his elbow!
—Mr. J . Lowiher, and Mr. Chaplin, in the much-abused name of
" sport." They claimed, for the Jockey Club, the exclusive right of
dealing with the nuisance by their rules—under which, N.B., the
evil has grown-up unchecked.

Sir H. Selwyn Ibbetson, for the Government, admitted that
these meetings tended immensely to degrade racing, while they do an
almost incalculable amount of injury in the neighbourhood of the
Metropolis. He was rejoiced to And that the racing " authorities "
had at last woke up {query) to the fact that they could and should
put a stop to these disreputable and demoralising gatherings, and
was willing, of course, as became a Conservative Under-Secretary,
to wait and see if they took action. If they didn't, a Bill would be
necessary.

Sir H. James thought a Bill Was necessary now, as he doubted if
the Jockey Club had either the power or the will to do anything.
Those who took a legitimate interest in horse-racing did not support
such meetings, which degraded, instead of amusing, the populace,
and were mere sinks for the foulest dregs of the London slums.

Second Beading was carried, rather to the surprise of the sporting
Members, by 84 to 82. Would the majority had been ten times as
many!

The House was Counted Out on the Bill introduced by Mr.
Hutchinson (but, in fact the Bill of six hundred provincial newspaper
proprietors of all shades of opinion), lor amending the Law of Libel,
by protecting bond fide reports of public meetings from action or
criminal prosecution. Mr. Newdegate opposed the Bill. It would
make speakers liable on reports of their speeches. And how had
he been reported !

Here the Count was moved, and the forty not being found, cecidit
qucestio. How could the House be expected to attend to such a
tiiding matter, after the exciting discussion on the Dunkeld Tolla
and the Kingsbury " Gate Meetings " 'f

Wednesday.—Second Beading of Mr. Ashley's Bill for allowing
prisoners to be examined in their own defence. The present rule
stops innocent mouths, and helps guilt to a cover, but it has always
been the rule. Beason good, with most lawyers, for not altering it.
Legal opinion, we are glad to find, was divided; the weight
of wigs—Mr. Russell Gurnet, Sir Henry James, Mr. Forsyth,
Sir G. Bowyer, and Mr. Mitchell Henry, with Dr. Kenealy—
without his wig—for ; Mr. Serjeant Simon, and Messrs. Bodwell,
Herschell, Paget, and Wheelhouse, against.

The Attorney-General, after half an hour's elaborate see-sawing
between pro and con., suggested a Select Committee, to which Mr.
Ashley was willing to agree, but a division being forced, Second
Beading was carried, evidently against the mover's hope, by 185 to
76, so powerfully did the lay-sense sense of the House back its best
legal judgment. But the Bill is to be referred to a Select Commit-
tee ; let us hope for improvement, not emasculation. If the Session
gives us this one instalment of legal reform, it will have justified its
early convocation.

Thursday.—k night which may prove memorable in the history
of England, if not of Europe. Ushered in by a rather exciting
scene in the Lords', the Duke of Argyll protagonist, in which,
apropos of the Earl of Pembroke's cpiestion whether in the forth-
coming negotiations for peace the British Government would insist
on protection of the lives and property of Mussulmans in European
Turkey, the Duke reminded their Lordships, of what seems a good
deal in danger of being forgotten, the general character of Moslem
rule, and the treatment of Christians by their Moslem rulers for the
last twenty years. He found ample materials for his indictment in
the last-issued Blue Book of Consular Beports.

Lord Stanley of Alderley wondered we had not sent Schouva-
loef his passport. The Duke of Buccleuch thought, as between
Turkish and Bulgarian "atrocities," it was six of one and half-
a-dozen of the other. Earl Fortescue believed Turkish administra-
tion had been improved, Turkish misdeeds exaggerated. Lord
Bipon regretted that the Bear had been left to do work the Lion
should have joined him in; and Lord Derby, in replying on the
whole case, was delivered of a whole series of his most indisputable
copyheads, and administered one of his usual douches all round on
strong statements in praise and blame, and high-raised hopes either
way. "As between Turks and Russians a good deal might be
said on both sides." " When you try to set things right by war, you
risk causing greater evils than you cure." "Distress produces pres-
sure, and pressure discontent, and discontent rebellion, and rebellion
atrocity." " If we had a power of interference, it was limited, and
inconvenient to carry out." " The noble Duke asks us to secure good
government for Christians. We are bound to do our best to secure
good government for Christian and Moslem alike." All common-
places indisputable, most tolerable and not to be endured.

(Commons.)—After a preliminary canter over questions impatiently

heard and briefly disposed of, Mr. W.'E. Fo&sier, on motion for
going into Committee of Supply, rose to move—

" That this House, having beeu informed in Her Majesty's gracious Speech
that the conditions on which Her Majesty's neutrality is founded had not been
infringed by either belligerent engaged in the war in the East of Europe, and
having since received no information sufficient to justify a departure from the
policy of neutrality and peace, sees no reason for adding to the burdens of the
people by voting unnecessary supplies."

The Opposition was as ready as the Government to do their duty
to their constituents and their country. But he felt it his duty to
protest against voting this money till he knew how and why it is to be
spent. Where were the " unexpected occurrences" which were to jus-
tify "preparation of precautious P" Are the terms of peace unsatis-
factory ? Not to the Opposition. As to the demands for autonomy
and independence, they are such as ought to be granted, if the
horrors and sacrifices of war are to bear fruit. As to the Straits, the
Russians have just declared they are to be dealt with by the Powers
collectively, and may be left out of the bases of peace altogether.
If the Armistice is delayed may not that be the fault of the Turks
as much as the Russians r You say the vote is wanted to give Eng-
land weight in the negotiations. The one man to whom such an
idea could have occurred is he who believed that the encroachments
of Russia in Asia could be stopped by an empty title. As for con-
fidence in the Government, on what is it to be based—their recent
vacillations ? and in whom is it to be placed—Lord Derby or Lord
Beaconsfield ? True, Lord Derby had come back, but Lord
Carnarnon had not, and his presence in the Cabinet was our be*t
guarantee against coups de theatre, and acts of recklessness. To
order the Fleet into the Dardanelles, we contend, was a violation of
neutrality, and might well have led to war. You have ordered it
back again, yet you etill press for the Six Millions. Permanent
Russian occupation of Constantinople has been solemnly dis-
claimed, and is admitted to be a European interest. Temporary
occupation is a right of conquest, and not a casus belli.

" Then there is the interest of the good government and the better govern-
ment of the people of Turkey—the interest of the freedom of the Christian
subjects of the Porte from the cruel bond and the senseless tyranny whicti
until it ceases makes that European peace impossible which, as Lord Derby
rightly stated, is the chief interest of England. (Hear .') Let them declare
in favour of this interest, and they will need no sham vote of confidence, but
they will have the enthusiastic support of a united people, and there will be
an end of party differences."

Mr. Cross, in reply, was more cross.than usual. He denied that
there is " a war-party." He denied that this was a " sham-estimate."
He denied that this was a vote of confidence. The Government
have never swerved from the dispatch of the sixth of May. They
have given no encouragement to Turkey. If they had meant to
help Turkey, they must have been fools to wait till she is on her
back. (" Hear, hear ! " from the Opposition.) "We sent the Fleet
to protect English subjects in Constantinople, and we recalled it
because Mr. Layard told us the terms of peace were accepted."
(How do you reconcile that with Sir Stafford's explanation, Mr.
Cross?) "Nothing has been since heard of their acceptance; the
delegates are dumb ; and the Russians are advancing. The Treaty of
Paris gives us a locus standi in settling the terms of peace, not as
between Russia and the Turks, but as between the signataries of
the Treaty. In that settlement the voice of England must be heard
as a united nation. We do not want to go to war. Our object is
to secure as speedily as possible, a complete, a satisfactory, and a
lasting peace." (Mr. Cross's speech was a cross, divided between
peace and war, party per pale.)

Sir Wilfrid Lawson meant to oppose the Vote to the last. The
man who, in a quarrel, shook his fist in your face was a bully. The
man who shook his purse in your face was a snob. The Vote was a
war-vote, and nothing else, and should not be taken without a dis-
solution. The country was for peace by an overwhelming majority.

Mr. Hardcastle thought that loaded guns and shotted revolvers
were better things to go into a Conference with than broad-brimmed
hats and umbrellas.

Mr. Laing maintained that all the points covered by the dispatch
of the sixth of May were out of danger. The continuance of
Turkish rule at Constantinople had become impossible.

" The decay of Turkey rendered her powerless to suppress chronic revolt;
her institutions and religion rendered reform impossible; and the English
conscience was awakened to the sin and disgrace of supporting her. Stronger
than any consideration of policy or interest was the deep conviction of what
was right. That mainly compelled us to abolish the slave trade, and in this
case deterred us from upholding the degrading barbarism of a Power which
had devastated provinces that flourished under Koman and Byzantine
rule as much as if they had experienced a great geological change. They had
been withered by the burning blast or the icy breath of Turkish mis-rule,
until their condition justified the boast that the grass ceased to grow where
the Turkish horse trod. Yet for the Power and the rule which had produced
these results it was proposed to obtain ' the most favourable terms,' which
meant the least favourable for the oppressed subjects. As a strong and inde-
pendent Government, it had collapsed beyond revival by the blind rejection