period. But my mode of treating it will | by referring to the Protocols of Berlin. It is there distinctly seen that Count Schouvaloff demanded nine months, in order in that time to evacuate Roumelia and Bulgaria; three months, in order in that time to evacuate the territory which lies beyond the Danube. The definitive Treaty between Russia and the Porte is based on the same principle. But it is unnecessary to refer to it, because there is a quicker mode of reaching a conclusion. No one will deny that the Article may be interpreted against the Russian claim, although he thinks it may be construed also to support it. It was interpreted against the Russian claim by the noble Duke who addressed the House on Friday; by the noble Earl the Lord Warden, who, this day fortnight, first elicited the present doctrine from the Government; by all the journalists of Europe until the noble Marquess spoke on that occasion; by all the most habitual reasoners on Eastern topics, against the noble Marquess since his doctrine was promulgated, which they have certainly repelled, whether or not they have disposed of it. The utmost which the new interpreters can urge is, that the stipulation is ambiguous. Let me then grant its ambiguity. Here public law steps in at once to rescue us from difficulty. It is the maxim of public law, as well known to Sir Robert Phillimore as Vattel, that where a passage in the Treaty is ambiguous, it is to be construed against the Power which had the most decisive voice in the formation of the Articles; on this ground—that the strongest Power has brought about the ambiguity it ought to have prevented. The mode in which Vattel reasons, in a special chapter on Treaties of Peace, is almost prophetic of the circumstances which surround us. Such Treaties are nearly certain, he considers, to be fraught with ambiguity. But the Power by which a given stipulation is imposed, and not the Power on which it is imposed, must suffer loss from the obscurity. The principle is backed by a tenet of Roman law that damage falls upon the party "Cujus in postestate fuit rem apertius conscribere." Now it is seen clearly, by the Protocols, that the occupation was nothing but a sacrifice to a victorious invader. Neither the Sublime Porte, nor any other Power, aimed at it. It was open to Russia to intimate, in language not to be mis be a short, even if it is not a convincing, one. Unless analogy is cast aside, the occupation of a territory can only cease when the territory has been quitted, as the occupation of a house can only cease when the occupier leaves it. The occupation of the house would not have ceased, because after the term the occupier began, in one week to pack his library, in a second to move his horses, in a third to get his family in order for departure. Neither the occupation of a house, nor the occupation of a territory, has ceased until the house or territory has thoroughly reverted to the owner. But it is said that anything may be established by analogy. Let me proceed, therefore, to the despatch of the noble Marquess to Consul Palgrave on the 30th of September. According to the despatch, the new règime in Bulgaria must begin as soon as the nine months are over, because "the provisional Administration is to cease exactly at that moment. It is clear, therefore, that on the 30th of September, the noble Marquess did not mean a Russian Force after the nine months to linger in that country. The provisional Administration could not cease until the Russian troops had vanished. The same remark applies to East Roumelia; but I do not dwell upon it. It is better to go on with the expressions of the Article. After the nine months in East Roumelia and Bulgaria, the closing paragraph allows three months for traversing Roumania. How could the Congress have laid down that three months might be employed in traversing Roumania, unless it held that at the beginning of the three months the other countries would be liberated? If the Russian Armies may be marching within the Ottoman and the Bulgarian Dominions after the nine months, they cannot be during the three months in Moldavia and Wallachia. According to the new interpretation, the Russian Force, as an united whole, should be at once on both sides of the Danube, a feat without a precedent in history. No doubt, in vague terms, the Forces of the Czar have been sometimes referred to as colossal. But to execute the task the new interpretation would assign to them, each individual soldier must stride-over a large and rapid flood-as a colossus. My Lords, the same view may be supported the slender means which exist for the attainment of their purpose, nor the urgent motives which may lead the authorities of Russia to defeat it. As to the means, what are they? The German Empire has repeatedly declared its inability, which may be its reluctance, to exert military power at so great a distance. Austria, as it was easy to learn during the autumn at Vienna, has been exhausted by her unexpected struggles in Herzegovina and Bosnia to a degree which greatly lessens her capacity for effort on the Danube. France and Italy, however good their dispositions, however eminent their Leaders, are no more available as restraints upon aggression in the East than San Marino and Monaco. Great Britain-in spite of the announcement we have heard to-night taken, that until the end of nine months | some extent, it may be prudent to insist her Armies would not begin a movement again that the object of the Notice is not of withdrawal. If the new interpreta- to dress up a case against Her Majesty's tion is correct, the other Powers would Government, but to contribute, by means have sanctioned it. If they would not of the House and those who may address have sanctioned it, the new interpreta- it, to the deliverance from Russian arms tion is erroneous. As this ground is by of the important region they are grasp far the most conclusive, it would not be ing. Some men entitled to respect, both judicious to add another to it. Am- in the House and out of it, are inclined biguity is not denied, and ambiguity to view that deliverance as easily attainsuffices to overthrow the Russian version. able, indeed, as virtually accomplished. My Lords, it does not follow that the It seems to me they utterly deceive themGovernment are an object of severe re-selves; and neither reflect with care upon proach for an untenable interpretation of the 22nd Article. They may have had to listen during many weeks to every kind of sophistry by which it can be palliated. The Members of an Opposition are not similarly circumstanced. I take no credit to myself for still adhering to the true interpretation. Let me refer a moment to the Papers which I move for. They go to ascertain whether or not the other Signatory Powers at once departed from the ground originally contemplated. Now it is affirmed, with as much gravity as anything we have to trace to unofficial correspondence, that Austria wholly differed from the last conclusion of the Government. It is affirmed by sources which we generally credit, that Count Andrassy has protested against the legal status of the Russian Force after the 3rd of May, except between the Danube and the Pruth, where they may march or rest until the 3rd of August. But we are utterly devoid of all official knowledge as to the line of Austria or any Signatory Power. Should the day ever come when the transactions of the Eastern Question are reviewed, not only to entertain the House, or dazzle its frequenters, or to affect opinion out-of-doors, but to invoke the judgment of your Lordships, it is requisite to know whether, in so grave a measure as that of allowing Russia to begin a movement at the time she ought to have completed it, Great Britain has led or followed other Powers, has been in unison with Austria, or opposed and overruled her. There is nothing, therefore, useless or irrelevant in the correspondence I suggest; nor except in the case that no despatches were exchanged, do I imagine that the Government, or Foreign Office, or the noble Marquess who presides in that Department, will be reluctant to produce them. My Lords, although I have done it already to Lord Campbell has still one anxious war to occupy her Forces. But let us turn to Russian motives. By remaining a considerable period between the Danube and the Pruth, or even where she is at present, Russia may impose upon Bulgaria the type most favourable to her objects; ensure the general supremacy of those who represent her at Constantinople; control the Principalities which have been flung into the air without a Suzerain to shelter them, without a Treaty rendering it penal to attack them, and gratify the military interest by which, as yet, her foreign policy is uniformly regulated. It is true that internal difficulties tend to the recall of Armies to the centre. The malevolent assailant of the Czar may, unintentionally, be the liberator of the Balkans. But we know too little to depend on such an agency as likely to outbalance the habitual and traditionary influences we are perfectly acquainted with. Three documents which have been recently presented-the despatch of the noble Marquess on the 26th of January, the lan He guage held by Prince Dondoukoff to Lord | from ambiguity. It is our experience Donoughmore, the Report of Surgeon in this, and the other House of ParliaBuckle on the condition of the territory ment, that when there are several clauses between Adrianople and Philippopolis- in a Bill over which a long battle is reveal objects so wholly inconsistent with fought in Committee, and when that the Treaty of Berlin, that nothing but Bill becomes an act of Parliament, it is a longer occupation of European Turkey often found by the Judges that a more can effect them. At least, prudent men technical accuracy in its enactments will look back and ask how far their would have been desirable. Perhaps, past anticipations have been realized in something of that kind has occurred in any given sphere, before depending on this instance, as the Article in question a new one. At every stage of this long was the subject of a great deal of discustransaction, the kind of confidence which sion in the Congress of Berlin, and, subnow prevails has been rebuked and dis- sequently, on the part of the Commisappointed. When the three Powers sion; but I think the simile the noble declared their intention to negotiate Lord used indicates a fallacy lurking in with Servia and Roumania, it was hoped his mind in respect of this matter. that there was very little in it; that it said that a man who was to occupy a was nothing but a technical arrange- house for a certain time was bound to be ment; that the Eastern Question was out of it by the end of the term of occunot going to be resuscitated. Who pation; and that, in like manner, as Russia would not blush, after the event, at was to occupy those Provinces only for a having shared in such fatuity? It was certain time, she was bound to have then hoped that the Herzegovinian In- evacuated them by that time. There is, surrection would burn out in its own however, this difference between the two erater. It was next hoped that the Con- cases. A man, with all his furniture, can ference of 1876 would lead to the ad- get out of a house in one day; but an justment of the new commotions which Army cannot get out of two Provinces alarmed us. As soon as it collapsed, quite so easily, and that is the gist of the the impression was that by some other controversy. We think that evacuation agencies an European war might be and occupation are two totally different prevented. War having begun, the things. An Army which is evacuating hope was that Constantinople would not cannot be occupying. Occupation is a be endangered by it. After the Treaty technical military term. When an ocof Berlin, it was hoped that by the 3rd cupation is over, undoubtedly the Army of May there would not be a Russian is bound to evacuate with as much exsoldier in Bulgaria. And now, at the pedition as possible. But this matter end of these disheartening illusions, it is has been already before this House, and the fashion to proclaim belief in the I think before the other House of Parcomplete evacuation by the 3rd of liament, and, without wishing to deroAugust, as if every previous vision had gate from its importance, I am not sure been systematically realized by the that I attach to the difference of time as course of history-which disperses and between the two interpretations, the conexposes it. But I will not pursue that sequence which appears to be attributed topic beyond the point which seemed to it by the noble Lord. With respect desirable to vindicate the Notice, and to the production of Correspondence, I move for the Correspondence between am afraid there is considerable difficulty, Her Majesty's Government and other and that for the reason that there is Powers, on the 22nd Article of the none. Speaking from memory, I have Treaty of Berlin. never had any written communication on this subject with the Russian Ambassador here, or Her Majesty's Ambassador at St Petersburg. The only Correspondence that I remember on the subject was this-some time in the spring, between the end of February and the beginning of March, Sir Henry Elliot asked me by telegraph what my view on this point was, and I then stated to him what I have stated in your Lord Moved, "That the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and other Powers on Article 22 of the Treaty of Berlin be laid upon the Table."-(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.) THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not disposed to contend that the Article of the Treaty which formed the subject of the noble Lord (Lord Campbell's) speech is wholly free ships' House. I shall look for the telegrams, and I shall lay them on the Table if I think they can be produced. I suppose the noble Lord will not think it necessary to press his Motion for Papers, when I state that there are only those telegraphic messages. LORD CAMPBELL understood, with the greatest satisfaction, the noble Marquess to recognize the ambiguity from which everything followed. He could not accede to the opinion of the noble Marquess, that to evacuate the territory between the Balkans and the Danube by the 3rd of May was practically difficult in the manner he contended. Although it was a military point, and he (Lord Campbell) spoke before some military critics, he would hazard the remark that had the 50,000 men been aligned in the vicinity of the Danube at the beginning of the month, they would have effected the passage of that river by their pontoon bridges, not having any enemy in front of them, with con LORD HOUGHTON said, it was curious that there had been no Correspondence on the solution of a doubt on so important a subject, and it was unfortunate that so important an Article had been drawn in a manner which left a doubt as to its proper interpretation. When the doubt arose, was the solution of it left to Russia? The prolongation of occupation would be of no great importance were it not for the nature of the occupation itself. It was of some-siderable ease in four-and-twenty hours. thing more than a military character. The view of the noble Marquess on this It had a political character also, and point appeared to him unjust to their every hour that it was continued it car- commanders. Of course, as the noble ried with it a source of provocation and Marquess had no despatches to produce, danger. No sooner was Prince Batten- he would not press the Motion. Before berg elected Prince of Bulgaria, than he sitting down, he must acknowledge the repaired to Livadia, and virtually ac- powerful support which his noble Friend cepted the Emperor of Russia as his who sat upon his right (Lord Houghton) Suzerain. From that, it might be con--without which he could not have subcluded that the policy of Bulgaria would be that of Russia. The delay in the evacuation was to be regretted; but it was to be hoped that if there had been ambiguity in the past, there would be none in the future. mitted it with so much advantage to the House-had given to his interpretation of the Treaty. Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn. MOTION FOR RETURNS. EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I agree with my noble Friends who hold LANDED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND). that the evacuation of these Provinces is a matter of the last importance. Neither am I surprised at the construction which my noble Friend (Lord Campbell) put on Article 22, because I put the same construction on it my self; but I am not one of those who think that Her Majesty's Government ought to have been more strict. If they thought there was a danger of disorder and bloodshed if the evacuation were carried out suddenly-and I think, from published Papers which we have seen, there was such a danger then it seems to me that they are not to blame. On the contrary, I think they ought to be commended for having adopted a more liberal construction of the terms relating to the evacuation by the Russians, as well as of the clause respecting an occupation of the Balkan fortresses by the Turks. I cannot, therefore, agree in the views of the two noble Lords as to the action of the Government in this matter. The Marquess of Salisbury THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, in moving for certain Returns, said, that some few years ago he moved for a Return of the number of sales which took place under what are popularly called the Bright Clauses of the Irish Land Act, and he now wished to have the Return carried down to the present day, if their Lordships had no objection to make the proposal. In moving for the Return, he would only say that he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would give the subject the most serious attention. remembered very well when the Cabinet of Mr. Gladstone brought forward the Irish Land Act, they were in some trepidation as to the way in which the Bright Clauses would be received in their Lordship's House, because those clauses proposed that the State should lend money to persons to buy land with, and he was pleased to hear the noble Mar He quess opposite (the Marquess of Salis- | sold in one or more lots in the Landed Estates Court for each of the years ending respectively following particulars in each of the foregoing 31st December 1876, 1877, and 1878, giving the periods: bury on that occasion, state very strongly that it was a matter of public policy to make as many landowners in Ireland as possible. He quite agreed with his noble Friend; but he was afraid that those clauses had not worked so well in increasing the number of landowners as had been anticipated. It was said that this was owing to the expense of making purchases under those clauses. At all events, the Irish Church Commissioners had done more in the same direction. No fewer than 5,000 tenants had become landowners by means of the facilities afforded by those Commissioners. He thought it of great importance that the Government should devise a system by which, on a large scale, the Irish tenants might become owners of land by purchase, because he observed that all the Land Bills being introduced from other quarters were for enabling tenants to acquire land without going through the formality of paying for it. (3) The name of the estate; The tenure of each lot; The acreage (statute measure) of each (8) The profit rent; The Poor Law valuation of each lot as (10) The amount of purchase money; II. Return, in Provinces and Counties, of SOUTH AFRICA - THE ZULU WAR TION OF THE REGIMENTS. OBSERVATIONS. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY : As reference has been made to Mr. Bright's Clauses having become inoperative on account of the expense, I may be excused if I remind the House that LORD TRURO, in rising to call attenwhen the Act was being passed, I tion to a Return showing the condition pointed out that if precautions were not as regarded efficiency and strength of the taken, those clauses would be inopera- regiments of Infantry sent from this tive, because the practice of one public country to South Africa in February last, Department would probably be like that said, the subject which he had to bring of another; and the office of Woods and before their Lordships was one of ImForests, in a case I knew of, had charged perial interest. It was no less than this 76. worth of land, with £2 odd shillings-had the country, under the newlycosts of conveyance, and such costs would prevent any tenants from purchasing under these clauses. I then moved an Amendment, with a view to reducing the expenses; but my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) opposed it, and said that "Rules would be framed by the Privy Council in Ireland, and they would, no doubt, take care to provide for this."-[3 Hansard, ccii. 1454.] As a matter of curiosity, I should like to know whether my noble Friend ever took any steps in this sense, or whether, as was probable, he never thought any more about it, after giving this answer? Motion agreed to. I. Return (in continuation of No. 238, 1876,) showing (1) in Provinces, and (2) in Counties, the Landed Estates held either in fee, fee farm, for lives renewable for ever, or for terms of years of which sixty shall have been unexpired, adopted military system, an Army adequate to its wants and available for all emergencies? If the system had failed they were bound to consider the determined purpose of the nation to be provided with a military Force adequate in all respects to its requirements. The Return to which he desired to call atten tion, pointed out in a decisive and glaring manner the defects of our present military organization, and it showed with directness and clearness the source from which those defects arose. In the month of February last, Lord Chelmsford applied to Her Majesty's Government for re-inforcements. Lord Chelmsford was a distinguished officer, and had held military appointments to enable him to know what the strength of regiments was, and how strongly each regiment should be constituted. When his Lordship, therefore, applied to be re-inforced |