§ MR. WYLDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention, has been called to an article in The Morning Post of Saturday, November 30, in which the Assistant Under Secretary of State is charged with malversation of office, and also with levying toll from every officer in the Foreign Service of Great Britain; and, whether there is any foundation for these statements?
LORD STANLEYSir, I have seen the article to which the hon. Member refers, and I am very glad that by putting his Question he has enabled me to notice it in 607 this place. The statement that the Assistant Under Secretary of State levies tolls from officers in the Foreign Service—meaning, I suppose, the Diplomatic and Consular Service—is simply and absolutely without foundation. If it has reference, as I suppose it has, to the system of agency which still continues in the Foreign Office, the answer is that Mr. Murray ceased to hold any agency when he became Assistant Under Secretary. He derives at present no emoluments whatever from his official position except his salary; and I must say I am surprised that charges gravely affecting the character of a public servant, who has no opportunity of defending himself personally in this House, should have been made in a respectable journal without some previous care being taken to ascertain their truth. As to the other charge which is called in the Question, and also in the article, "malversation of office," I suppose by this is meant the alleged keeping back of papers from the head of the Department. That allegation is founded, I suppose, upon a statement made in a recent debate by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard), formerly Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs; and on that point he would perhaps himself wish to give an explanation. All I can say is that, on referring to the paper in question, I find that the despatch enclosing that paper bears upon it a minute in the handwriting of Lord Russell. Lord Russell therefore must have seen the covering despatch; he must have been cognizant of the existence of the enclosure, and, of course, it would be optional with him either to read it or not. As far as my experience goes, no such practice exists as that of keeping back papers from the head of the Department. Every paper of any importance, every paper that is not of a merely routine character, every paper upon which any decision is to be founded, or any action to be taken, comes under the personal notice of the Secretary of State.
§ MR. LAYARDI wish to say a word or two by way of explanation.
§ MR. OSBORNEIf there is to be any discussion upon this point, I hope the hon. Gentleman will conclude with a Motion.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for Southwark desires to make a personal explanation, and under these circumstances a statement is generally allowed.
§ MR. OSBORNEThen I shall wish to say something upon the explanation.
§ MR. LAYARDI am not going to refer 608 to the general question of Abyssinia. I was going to say that Mr. Murray's character stands much too high to be affected by any such charges as those referred to in the Question. There seems, however, to have been some misunderstanding as to what fell from me the other evening. I stated in the debate that I could not recall to my recollection that I had ever seen the letter of King Theodore to the Queen, and that when I asked Lord Russell he could not distinctly remember whether he had seen it or not. In mentioning that, I did not intend to make any reflection upon the Under Secretary of State, or any officer in the Foreign Office, but merely to show how little importance was attached to the matter. I have been to the Foreign Office today, and have refreshed my memory on the subject. What the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) states is perfectly true. On the covering despatch which was sent to Lord Russell there is a minute in his Lordship's handwriting directing the correspondence to be sent to the India Office, which was the usual and ordinary course taken in all matters relating to Abyssinia. I do not appear to have seen that despatch. The first minute, to which I have alluded, is dated on the 11th of March. On the 9th of March a despatch was received from Mr. Consul Cameron, giving an account of his detention as a kind of prisoner at Axum. That despatch was sent to Mr. Hammond, Mr. Murray, Lord Russell, and myself. We all four wrote a separate minute, stating our conviction that unless Mr. Consul Cameron was at once directed to cease from meddling with Abyssinian affairs and was recalled to Massowah grave consequences would ensue. I did not see the first despatch, and I do not know why. But the explanation is probably this:—The permanent and the political Under Secretaries have two distinct offices. That is the custom I found existing, and I presume it is so still. There is a division of the countries of the world. Half are taken by the permanent, and the other half by the political Under Secretary. It happened that all Eastern matters were in the department of Mr. Hammond, and not in my own. This despatch was therefore sent to Mr. Hammond, and by him to Earl Russell. It came back, and was probably sent to the India Office; and that is the reason why I did not see it. If I had seen it, taking as I do a certain interest in Eastern matters, the fact of seeing a letter in Amharic would certainly not have escaped my recollection. 609 Earl Russell appears to have seen the covering despatch, but he considered that the letter did not require an answer, as an answer had to all intents and purposes been sent already, and the despatch was consequently forwarded to the India Office for any observations that Department might have to make upon it. The India Office seem to have been of the same opinion, and there the matter rested.
§ MR. OSBORNEIf this, Sir, were a mere common Question, I should not have interfered. But it is no common Question; and as I desire to say something upon it, I shall conclude with a Motion. This omission at the Foreign Office has probably plunged us into a war, and a war of the most expensive and uncertain character. The more I look into the question the more I doubt the policy of the expedition, and the more I am convinced of the great bungling—to use a light word—which has taken place at the Foreign Office while my hon. Friend was Under Secretary. The House of Commons has been called together at an extraordinary time of year for an extraordinary purpose; and as to the House of Commons, after reading the discussions that have taken place and the papers that have been produced, nobody can say that it has not exhibited the greatest docility, almost amounting to stolidity, in treating this question. What have we had? We have had meagre information and rough Estimates, and we are actually embarking in a foreign expedition without knowing the cause of the war, and on information which would hardly suffice to justify the passing of a Turnpike Trust Bill. I was much struck with an answer given by the Secretary of State for India the other night. He was asked a question about condensers. He knew nothing upon the subject, and referred to the Governor of Bombay. It comes to this—that we have for the occasion appointed the Governor of Bombay as Secretary for War. Everything is thrown upon his shoulders. He conducts the expedition, and any questions put here must be telegraphed to him before we can obtain any satisfactory explanation. I want to know whether the House feels satisfied with the policy of this expedition? For myself, after looking further into these papers, I firmly believe that we ought to have sent no expedition at all, but that we ought to have adopted the suggestion of Sir Samuel Baker and sent an Envoy, with a very large staff, exhausting every diplomatic 610 means before rushing into the expenditure of millions. We have done nothing of the sort; we have sent out this expedition; and, with all due deference to the character of Sir Robert Napier, I take upon myself, backed up by a great many military men, to doubt the policy of sending such an enormous army to those regions. Well, what are we about to do? We talk of sending 12,000 men. But what do 12,000 men represent? I am told they represent between 35,000 and 40,000 people—to be sent to a country where food is notoriously scarce and water almost unattainable. Why, the supply of water to these 40,000 men will depend on three condensers:—and I believe there is only one there now. Now, I ask, is the House going to separate with an expression of satisfaction at this state of things? Sir, I feel very sure that if you are to send an expedition out at all, you ought to send it on a smaller scale. What was the army that conquered Scinde under another Napier? Why, it was under 2,800 men: and we are sending out 40,000 people to Abyssinia! a country that we know little or nothing of, when, as I believe, if the advice of Sir Samuel Baker had been taken, you could have rescued the captives at a cheap rate. So much for the policy and size of the expedition. I think the House has too much slurred over the question of the policy and cost of the war. Can it be believed that the Foreign Secretary could come down to the House and make such a speech as to the letter from King Theodore, whom, mark you, we had recognised—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member's experience of the House must tell him that it is not competent for him to enter into a past debate, or to discuss a speech in that debate on moving the adjournment of the House.
§ MR. OSBORNEI am not discussing a speech, but papers which appear in a blue book, and what, I wish to know, has become of the letter King Theodore sent to the Foreign Office? That letter is important, because the postage of it will come to millions, which we shall have to pay. I want to know what has become of the letter? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Layard) says he never saw it; the Secretary for Foreign Affairs never saw it; and an answer was not sent until fifteen months after—[An hon. MEMBER: Two years]—but nobody knows by whom, and we are now plunging into this expedition. But 611 there is another question. When this House was formerly cautioned not to get up any debates on Abyssinia because they would be reported to King Theodore, and would put the fate of the captives in peril, I want to know why that despatch of the 5th of October, 1865, was published in The London Gazette? That London Gazette was sent out; the despatch asking Mr. Rassam to get rid of the Abyssinian alliance became known to King Theodore; and of course the King thought himself deceived, laid hold of Mr. Rassam, and from that day that gentleman has been in durance vile. If we had a Committee to inquire into this subject, the blunders connected with the expedition would appear to be so great that I am sure some hon. Gentleman would get up and move the abolition of the Foreign Office. If we had no Foreign Office we should have had no war, because we should have had no letters from Theodore, no publication of despatches in The London Gazette, and those unfortunate captives never would have been detained. Now, I do hope—though this is but the skeleton of a House, and we seem inclined to vote anything for the expedition—that the attention of the country will be called to this question. I have taken this opportunity of saying a few words upon it because I may not have another. I think the whole matter has been passed over almost sub silentio. I make no attack upon Her Majesty's Government, though I doubt the policy of going to war; but I say that the explanations given by a former Under Secretary of State have been most unsatisfactory to the House, and I believe they will be unsatisfactory to the country. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
COLONEL SYKES, in seconding the Motion, said, that in justice to a gentleman who, he believed, was charged with being the culprit as regarded the detention of this celebrated letter, he begged to state the circumstances under which that letter was received in the Political Department of the India Office. It was sent over to the India Office simply to look at, for their information, and seemingly as an Amharic curiosity, and when it came into the hands of Mr. Kaye, the head of the Political Department, he placed it on his table, supposing he had nothing whatever to do with it. He thought that the letter had been already treated by the Foreign Office, and that the India Office 612 had no responsibility whatever with regard to it, as it was not accompanied by any memorandum. It was said that Mr. Kaye had not got a pigeon-hole, and that the letter thus became mixed up with other papers. But he (Colonel Sykes) had it this evening from Mr. Kaye that the letter remained on his desk unnoticed, until some person from the Foreign Office came to him to ask about it, and he replied, "There it is on the table; I have had nothing to do with it. You can take it away. I took it for granted that it had been answered before it was sent to me." Now, the fact of that letter not having been so answered had been the chief cause of the war. When King Theodore sent that letter by Mr. Cameron he did it in amity and from an anxious desire to obtain the goodwill of Great Britain. But what did Mr. Cameron do? Instead of going to Massowah or bringing home the letter, as he was desired, he went into the province of Bogos, and thence to Kassala, a province that had been wrested from the Abyssinians by the Egyptians, and from which yearly raids had been made by the latter into the province of Bogos for the purpose of carrying off women and children. He had put into the hands of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary an account of a raid in which 300 women and children were captured there and sent to Medina and Mecca, where they were sold as slaves. It was said that our Consuls in Arabia were cognizant of those raids, and these acts caused the hatred and resentment of Theodore against the Egyptians. What could the King think when he found that the Consul who had charge of the letter to the Queen had gone into this province, whence these outrages were periodically committed? When Mr. Cameron returned to Abyssinia, instead of avoiding the King, he went into his camp; and when the King asked him where he had been, he said, "In the province of Bogos." "Ah," said the King, "but you went also into the province of Kassala, to my enemies. What did you want there?" "I went," said Mr. Cameron, "to inquire about cotton for the Foreign Office." "So then," said King Theodore, "you have had communications with the Foreign Office, though you told me you could not get an answer to my letter. Well, then, you shall stay with me until you do." That was another instance in which the King had occasion for distrust, and believed that he 613 had been ill-treated, and that his friendship was repudiated by us. Again, the Abyssinian Convent in Jerusalem, which had been under the quasi-protection of our Consuls, was taken away from the Abyssinian monks by the Turkish Governor under the eye of our Consul, and the King's inference was that we had allowed it to be done. With regard to the King's letter, it was, he believed, three years nearly to a day before he got an answer; another mistake was the detention of the Queen's presents conveyed by Mr. Flad at Massowah, instead of taking them to the King. Well, we have the result of a series of bungling, and, as his hon. Friend had said, the postage of that letter would probably cost us £5,000,000. He was glad that the country was beginning to look at the matter with a different eye from what it had done when the question was first brought before the House. The prospect of an additional 2d. in the pound at the next payment of the income tax would not be very pleasant, and we should probably hear more about it. Theodore was a bloody tyrant, no doubt, but he knew very well what he was about; indeed, he had the credit of being an able man. It was an absurdity to talk of our prestige suffering! He had said before, and he repeated it now, that there was not one man in 10,000 or even 100,000 in India who ever heard of the existence of Abyssinia. How, then, was our prestige to suffer? Moreover, when it was said we had an important trade below the Abyssinian Ghauts, it should be remembered that the whole of that tract of sea-coast was not in the hands of the Abyssinians, but of the Mahomedans, whom the Abyssinians hated. The little trade that there was came from Bombay to Mocha and Jiddah, and the Arabs carried it over to Massowah, and there was not any direct trade from India to Abyssinia. There had been an unjustifiable mystification on this subject. Again, as to Mr. Rassam, he did not hesitate to say that that gentleman was not a proper person to send to represent the Queen of England. He had been the servant of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark. [Mr. LAYARD: Oh!] The fact was mentioned in the first volume, page 54, of his hon. Friend's book on Nineveh, where Mr. Rassam was spoken of as being employed to superintend the hon. Gentleman's domestic arrangements. Could he have been a proper person to send? Moreover, his hon. Friend must have known 614 that Mr. Rassam was not even a British subject, but was a subject of Turkey—to which power the Abyssinians were extremely hostile. If sent at all, however, it ought to have been either as a mere agent to negotiate the release of the prisoners, or an Envoy, with an escort of a squadron of cavalry. It was to these blunders we should owe this unhappy war—for such it was likely to be; unless, indeed, the King of Shoa, by taking Magdala, enabled us to avoid it. Shoa was the southern province of Abyssinia, and the present King Menelek was the grandson of the King, to whom Major Harris had been sent as Ambassador from Bombay in 1841–2. Theodore had conquered his father, and imprisoned him and himself in Magdala; but he had made his escape, and rallied his people, and was holding his own against Theodore, and had sent a letter and presents to the Queen. When speaking of imprisonment, we naturally associated it with an idea of Newgate—long, dark passages, gloomy cells, and all that kind of thing; but the fact was that this prison at Magdala was a large mountain with a flat top. Mr. Rassam, as he himself told us, had a garden attached to his house and had a bower in front of his door of Tomates. There was no need, therefore, for us to be shocked with the horror of dungeons. No doubt it was very disagreeable not to be allowed to go where one liked, and to the indignity of fetters on the ankles; but this was partly owing to Mr. Rassam himself. The moment the King received the Queen's letter he was all hilarity and thankfulness, and released all the prisoners; but Mr. Rassam endeavoured to get some of them out of the country without their having an interview with the King, and then ensued the extraordinary scene he had described on a former occasion. He could not help believing that our proceedings were to be lamented, both as a political question and as they affected the national finances.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Osborne.)
MR. OTWAYsaid, he did not intend to discuss our Abyssinian policy on this occasion, though he had formed a strong opinion upon it; but wished to ask for information on two points. Great stress had been laid on a letter from King Theodore to Her Majesty not having been re- 615 plied to. Now, he wished to inquire whether on any former occasion—especially during 1858—Theodore addressed any other letter to the Queen, and whether, if so, it received any reply? A second Question, which was one of some importance, he would address to the Secretary of State for India. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that with regard to the numbers of the expedition we had entirely depended on the high authority of Sir Robert Napier, and this seemed on the face of it very satisfactory. It appeared, however, that the expedition was being carried on under the auspices, not of Sir Robert Napier, but of the Governor of Bombay, the Governors of Bombay and Madras having supreme authority over their Commanders-in-Chief. Sir Robert Napier, as he understood, was in military matters a mere cipher, and could take no step without the consent of the Governor in Council. There was therefore this anomaly—an expedition was being carried on at a distance from this country by a gentleman of undoubted talent, whom he was proud to call his friend, but of whose military genius nothing was known, since he had had no opportunity of displaying it. Thus the large Staff and the troops and camp followers had been decided by the Governor of Bombay, with whom a large portion of the expenditure rested. No doubt he would study economy, for the sake both of English and Indian taxpayers; but a man in Sir Seymour Fitzgerald's position would naturally be anxious to insure success by the despatch of a large force. Now, in the belief of high military authorities, the large numbers of the expedition would entail its failure. How were 55,000 men to be supplied with food and water? [An hon. MEMBER: 40,000!] He had seen the numbers computed as low as 40,000 and as high as 55,000; but, taking them at 45,000—and the troops had increased from 10,000 to 12,000, and would probably further increase—neither the three condensers nor any other expedient that could be devised would suffice to supply water to such a force. The Government, indeed, had published a letter from a Belgian diplomatist, which was curiously referred to the other night by the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), and which stated that the greatest danger attending an English expedition was its being composed of any large numbers. It also stated that King Theodore could not 616 put 500 or 1,000 men in line, and that it was not possible for him to oppose 500 British soldiers. Moreover, successful Eastern expeditions had invariably been carried on by small numbers. The expeditions against Burmah, China, and Scinde were instances in point. A totally different policy was now, however, being pursued, and this under the auspices of a civilian, and in opposition to the opinion of men like Sir Samuel Baker and others personally acquainted with Abyssinia. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state whether the Governor of Bombay was not Commander-in-Chief in that Presidency, and whether Sir Robert Napier was not entirely subordinate to him in military matters?
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that as a Motion of Adjournment had been made for the purpose of securing greater freedom of discussion, he hoped the House would allow him to refer to what occurred a few nights ago with reference to the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard), whom he was glad to see in his place. It would be in the recollection of the House that he then called attention to certain expressions reported as having been used by the hon. Gentleman in a former debate respecting Dr. Beke, having previously written to him in order that he might be prepared to substantiate the reflections he had cast on that gentleman, calculated, as they were, seriously to injure him in his position and prospects. The hon. Gentleman had since thought fit to send a letter to The Times, addressed to himself, commenting upon the remarks he had made, and also commenting on the conduct of the House, as having assented to what he (Mr. Newdegate) had said as to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southwark, which appeared to him to have exceeded the proper limits of debate. Now, he wished to thank the hon. Gentleman for the obliging expressions he had used towards himself; but the House having consented, at his instance, to consider the nature of the imputations cast on a gentleman who was not a Member of that House, it was their function to decide on the propriety of the language the hon. Gentleman had used and the imputations he had cast, mostly unsupported by any evidence whatever, and to consider whether there was not a danger of the House being rendered, if such language was permitted, the vehicle of baseless and unproved slanders. He (Mr. Newdegate) was putting the case strongly, 617 but many hon. Members felt as strongly as himself, and one had already asked whether, in case of the use of such language, it would not be consistent with the practice of the House to have it taken down by the clerk at the table? To that inquiry no answer had been given. Although he (Mr. Newdegate) had no intimation that the hon. Gentleman intended to return to his place until he entered the House, yet, as a proof that he (Mr. Newdegate) was acting in the spirit of the letter he had addressed to the hon. Gentleman, he would now ask whether he was prepared to justify the language reported to be used by him, and which had been heard by many Members of that House, or whether he was prepared to prove the allegations of falsehood and dishonour which he had made against Dr. Beke? In the answer which the hon. Gentleman sent him he referred to many facts of which the proofs were not before the House in the printed documents furnished by the Foreign Office, and if the hon. Gentleman now attempted to justify the gross imputations—for he must so term them—which he had cast upon Dr. Beke by referring to documents which were in the Foreign Office, he was bound to move for the production of those documents, and if the hon. Gentleman did not move for them, he (Mr. Newdegate) would do so himself.
§ MR. LAYARDAfter what has fallen from my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Osborne) I trust the House will allow me to say a few words. I have no intention or wish to raise another Abyssinian debate—we have had quite enough of them; but really it is important that the House and the county should know the truth about this letter, of which so much has been said. I repeat that the fact that no answer was returned from this country to the King's letter has had nothing whatever to do with the war. Whose evidence will my hon. Friend accept? Will he accept the King's own statement—the statement of Mr. Consul Cameron, or the statement of Mr. Flad? They are the three persons who are the most interested in the matter. A thousand reasons have been assigned for the King's anger. We have been told to-night that it is on account of the proceedings of Her Majesty's Consul at Jerusalem with regard to the protection of the Abyssinian Church there. Has the King himself assigned this reason? Another person states, on the authority of Dr. Beke, that it was because of the pub- 618 lication of Lord Russell's despatch in The London Gazette. Dr. Beke, however, states in his own book that that had nothing whatever to do with it. His own statement is that it was on account of our change of policy towards Abyssinia, and that if we had gone on supporting the King in his policy of going to war with the Turks we should have had no quarrel with him. But these causes have never been assigned by the King himself, nor by anybody connected with him. I think it is only just and fair towards the Foreign Office that this should be known. Here is the King's own statement of the cause of his anger, which will be found in the third blue book in Mr. Rassam's despatch of January 10. Mr. Rassam sends a translation of the charges made by the King in writing against Consul Cameron. He said—
I told the Consul that the Turks had taken my country and were my enemies; nor had I a ship to do my work, by the power of God, and I said that I wished that the mission and presents which I intended to send to the Queen should be conveyed safely. I gave him a friendly letter to the Queen, and sent him away. The letter which he brought to me (from the Queen) and the consultation which we had together he abandoned, and went to the Turks, who do not love me, and before whom he insulted and lowered me. I asked him, 'Where is the answer to the friendly letter I intrusted you with? What have you come for?' He said to me, 'I do not know.' So I said to him, 'You are not the servant of my friend the Queen, as you had represented yourself to be,' and by the power of God I imprisoned him. Ask him if he can deny this.Now, let us see what Consul Cameron himself states. In the same blue book there is a letter from Mr. Cameron to Mr. Hammond, dated March 16, 1866, in which he says—This morning the King sent a letter containing the charges against us. Those against myself are as follows:—1, Instead of going to Massowah, after my first visit to His Majesty, I went among the Turks, who were his enemies—(namely, to Kassala), I suppose as being in the Egyptian territory, as he considers that his quarrel with the Turks is limited to Egypt, and has nothing to do with Turkey; 2, I abused him while there; how is not known; 3, after returning to his dominions I could give no account as to whether there was an answer or not to his letter to Her Majesty.Now, what was Mr. Flad's account? Writing to Lord Clarendon, he says the King thus stated his grievances—Captain Cameron I had imprisoned because he went to Kassala to my enemies, the Turks, and I had given him a letter for the Queen, and he came back without bringing me an answer.619 ["Hear!"] Yes; but the distinction is a very material one. The King does not complain that he did not get an answer to his letter, for he did not know whether there was an answer or not; but that Mr. Consul Cameron, instead of going to Massowah, and there waiting to bring up the answer, had gone to the Turks and come back without bringing any news of an answer. Now, I have been asked, whether in April, 1858, when Lord Malmesbury was at the Foreign Office, a similar letter was not received from the King, and to which no answer was returned? The fact is, as I stated the other evening, that in April, 1858, a similar letter was received by Lord Malmesbury and no answer was ever returned to that letter. [Mr. OSBORNE made a remark.] It was in consequence of these interruptions that I was made the other evening to say things which I now regret. The hon. Member does not like to be interrupted himself, but he is in the habit of constantly interrupting others. I was going to say that we had already answered the King's letter most distinctly. Lord Clarendon, in Mr. Plowden's time, had written to him to tell the King that only on one condition would we receive his Embassy, and that was that he should give up the intention of making war on the Turks. Consul Cameron, as he himself states, positively told the King the same thing. Yet, in the letter from the King which he forwarded to England, the King stated that he was going to attack the Turks, and insinuated that he expected us to assist him, as he had no ship on the sea-coast. The King having been told over and over again that we could not receive an Embassy from him unless he gave up his intention of attacking the Turks, it was quite evident that the letter which distinctly stated his own intention of infringing this condition, required no answer. Mr. Cameron had been ordered to return to Massowah. His exequatur was for Massowah; that was the headquarters of his Consulate, and it was in the Egyptian and not Abyssinian territory. To that place we fully believed he had gone, and whether that letter was answered sooner or later did not signify. We did not want him to go up again to Gondar; we wanted him to remain at Massowah, and to have as little as possible to do with Abyssinian affairs. As soon as we heard of his proceedings in Abyssinia, every member of the Foreign Office—Lord Russell, in the first instance; Mr. Hammond, who 620 is, perhaps, more intimately acquainted with Foreign affairs than any man in this country; Mr. Assistant Under Secretary Murray, a gentleman of great distinction and ability; and myself—all wrote minutes almost in the same words, stating our conviction that if Captain Cameron went into the interior and mixed himself up with the affairs of Abyssinia this country would be brought into trouble. We sent him three times the most stringent instructions to return at once to Massowah. What more could the Foreign Office do? [An hon. MEMBER: Why did you not dismiss Captain Cameron?] Suppose we had. At that time he was in the hands of the King, and his dismissal would not have reached him. Besides, it is not easy to dismiss a man summarily and without asking him for some explanation. I do trust that this House and the country, who are fair and impartial in these matters, will take these things into consideration. What has been said about Mr. Murray suppressing a letter is entirely beside the question. Mr. Murray has not the power of suppressing a letter—the course of proceeding in the Foreign Office renders it impossible for any one to suppress a letter—and Mr. Murray, not only in this matter but in every other way, acted up to his duty. If hon. Members will refer to Consul Cameron's own despatch, they will find that the letter to which no answer was returned appears almost to have been extracted from the King by the Consul, as will appear from a subsequent paragraph in his despatch. Consul Cameron says—I wrote to the King to remind him of his promise to write to Consul General Colquhoun, and of all the advantages which such a letter would be to him.After the distinct instructions Consul Cameron received, I ask, are we to blame if he entirely violated those instructions? We were powerless. If he had been within reach of the telegraph we could have stopped all these proceedings. But we knew nothing about him or where he was. Now, with regard to Mr. Rassam, who is at present a captive in the hands of King Theodore and whose life may be sacrificed any day. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Sykes) says that he had been my servant. Nothing can be more unfounded. Mr. Rassam is a gentleman by birth and education. He is a brother of Her Majesty's Vice Consul at Mossul. I have had great experience of Easterns, and I never knew an Eastern so thoroughly unselfish, 621 honest, upright, and able as Mr. Rassam. He was my friend for some years. I never could have paid him for his services to me. He served me with zeal and ability which no words of mine can describe, and to say that he was my paid servant—why, the thing is absurd. As to his not being a proper person to send, I will challenge any person to prove that he was not. The choice was very limited. There were only two or three persons whom it was possible to send. Mr. Rassam was Lieutenant Governor of Aden; he had been employed in a most delicate diplomatic mission to the Imaum of Muscat, and settled the disputes between the heirs of that Principality and received the highest commendations from the Indian Government; he had been employed on many other missions, and was thoroughly well-known on the borders of the Red Sea where his personal influence over the natives and Arabs was so great that he was enabled to bring into order all those turbulent tribes round Aden, who had before kept that place in a state of siege. Before his arrival no Englishman was able to go beyond the gates of Aden with safety; but Mr. Rassam used his influence with the natives so powerfully, that he took Sir William Coghlan through a great part of the most difficult portion of Arabia. Mr. Rassam was of all others the man whom I should have chosen for a mission of this kind. He was not chosen from any relations he had had with me—those relations expired many years ago. He had since distinguished himself in the East. It is said that because Mr. Rassam was a Turkish subject he was therefore unfit for the mission; but the Patriarch of Abyssinia is always chosen from among the subjects of Turkey in Alexandria, and therefore, as regards Mr. Rassam's nationality, there was no reason why the King should make any objection to him on that ground. I regret that the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen has passed some jokes as to the captivity of Mr. Rassam. These unhappy captives have suffered a great deal; but Mr. Rassam, although he is chained, retains the King's personal friendship, and the King has always shown him the greatest kindness and consideration. The King tells him he regrets to treat him so harshly, but that he is obliged to do so in order to retain him as a hostage. I have the utmost confidence that if Mr. Rassam lives to return to this country, he will be able to give the utmost satisfactory expla- 622 nations of all the circumstances connected with his mission in Abyssinia. I now come to the personal question brought before the House by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Newdegate). I do not object to his having done so. On the contrary, I think that he was quite justified in the course he has pursued, and I regret that, not having received his letter, I was absent from my place on Friday evening. After I had described in my speech of last Tuesday evening the impression which Dr. Beke's communications to the Foreign Office had made upon me, I had done with that gentleman, and had no intention of alluding to him any further, but I was driven to do so by the constant interruptions of my hon. Friend behind me.
§ MR. OSBORNEI never said a word about Dr. Beke.
§ MR. LAYARDWhy, the hon. Gentleman was constantly saying to me, "Why did you not send Dr. Beke?"
§ MR. OSBORNEI never said a word on the subject.
§ MR. LAYARDWell, then, it was somebody else. At any rate, I felt it was my bounden duty to tell the House the truth, and though I may occasionally have said things which had better have been left unsaid, yet I think this House will not accuse me of any want of frankness. I may, indeed, have used too strong an expression, and if the House thinks it ought to be retracted, I will retract it willingly, though I shall still adhere to the opinion I have formed of Dr. Beke, because I think he has systematically made statements without any foundation whatever. I repeat that that is my opinion. And here I may remark that I should not have taken notice of Dr. Beke but for the unusual circumstance that letters abusive of myself and others sent by him to The Times and Morning Herald were republished in the blue book, together with a letter, dated the 11th of June, 1866, containing allusions which ought not to have been placed before the House in this solemn manner without opportunity of further explanation being given. I accede to the request of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Newdegate), and shall move for the production of the Correspondence which led to that letter being written. Dr. Beke, I beg leave to remind the House, charged me with having wished to leave Mr. Stern in captivity, because I had had a personal quarrel with that gentleman some years before. Moreover, he 623 stated that he had been informed by Mr. Palgrave that instructions had been sent out to the effect that the liberation of Consul Cameron alone, and not of the others, was to be asked for. Both these statements were totally untrue. I never had any quarrel with Mr. Stern. I believe I once met him at Bagdad years and years ago, but I certainly never had a word of difference with him. But what would any hon. Gentleman say if he were deliberately accused of having abandoned this unhappy man because he had had a personal quarrel with him many years ago? Then, there were two accusations brought against Mr. Rassam, Her Majesty's Envoy, a man who is at present in captivity, and who has few friends in this country to defend him. In the first place, he is accused of misapplication of public funds. I know it is said that the terms of Dr. Beke's accusation do not mean that; but I would ask any impartial man whether it be not evident, from the expressions made use of, that what Dr. Beke meant was, that Mr. Rassam had misapplied this money? ["No, no!"] Well, if that be the general opinion of the House, I will retract what I have said; but I must remark that there is not a friend of Mr. Rassam's in this country, nor any impartial man to whom I have shown the words used, who does not put the same construction upon them as I do. Mr. Rassam is also accused of cowardice in not going up to Gondar at once, and for not remaining in Abyssinia as a hostage for the liberation of the other prisoners. Now, the first accusation is groundless, for Mr. Rassam acted upon the instructions and upon the urgent advice given to him by Consul Cameron, who said, "Do not move from Massowah, and do not come up with the Queen's letter till you have received the King's invitation. If you come up without an invitation, and without the King's sanction, your own life and the lives of all the others will be imperilled." Such was the advice given by Consul Cameron to Mr. Rassam—and, in point of fact, there is nothing whatever to prove the charge brought against the latter. As to the other charge, I believe that there is not the slightest foundation for it. I have here a list of statements meant to be detrimental to my own character, to Earl Russell, and to Mr. Rassam, but I will not trouble the House with them. If I have made use of any term which is un-Parliamentary, I shall be most happy to withdraw it; but I must say that such an attempt to destroy the cha- 624 racter of an honourable man like Mr. Rassam I never before saw in the course of my life. But I leave the House to pass its judgment on what I have said respecting Dr. Beke's book, and what the statements contained in it are worth. Another charge against Mr. Rassam is that he ought not to have received money from the King, and that he therein acted contrary to the rules followed by all previous Envoys. But Consul Cameron himself states in one of his despatches that he could not get his own interpreter to interpret a refusal of money which had been offered to him, and that Mr. Plowden had been always placed in the same difficulty. Mr. Rassam's object was to stand well with the King, and he found that a refusal of the money would have been regarded by Theodore as an insult. That money, I believe, has probably been retaken from him, as it appears that the King has more than once taken all his property. It might not be out of place to mention that most of the missionaries were not even British subjects, but Germans, and yet all these men were supported by Mr. Rassam, who did all he possibly could to get them released. I think I need not trouble the House further, as I trust that the explanation which I have already made will be to a certain extent satisfactory. I repeat that if on a former evening I used any expression which is un-Parliamentary, I shall be willing to retract it; but I must beg that the House will make some allowance for my own feelings on that occasion. I was labouring under considerable irritation, for I felt that I had been most unfairly dealt with, and my anger was very much raised, not for my own sake, but by the unjustifiable and unfounded attacks made upon a man who was not in this country to defend himself, and who had no friend but myself in this House to speak up for him.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERcongratulated both the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion for the adjournment on their able speeches; but regretted that those speeches had not been made earlier, when this question was brought under the notice of the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A good many hon. Members, including himself, entertained considerable doubts about this war; but what could they do when they found that the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters on the front Opposition Bench endorsed everything which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exche- 625 quer? If blame attached anywhere, it could not be imputed to the present Government, who had received a damnosa hæreditas from their predecessors, and were consequently obliged to do the best they could under the circumstances. At the same time, he regretted that the original cause of the dispute with King Theodore had not been gone into. The late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Layard) stated that the unanswered letter of the King had had nothing whatever to do with the war, and the hon. Gentleman read several papers in support of that opinion; but, for his own part, he must confess he thought those papers conveyed to his mind a perfectly different conclusion. What he wanted to know was when the letter of which so much had been said reached the Foreign Office—when did it get to England? Was it on the 12th of February last? [Mr. OSBORNE: No, three years ago.] Well, then, could there be anything more astonishing than that a letter sent to the Sovereign of this country by a person whom the country had recognised as a Sovereign Prince, after reaching the Foreign Office, should have been mislaid? Whether or not it was thrown into the waste-paper basket it was impossible to say; but at all events the late Under Secretary of State said he never saw it, while the late Secretary of State said he did not remember anything about it. The matter was so inexplicable that probably no explanation whatever could give a satisfactory solution of the matter. If the papers referred to by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) did not prove that the want of an answer to that letter was not the cause of the war, they did prove one thing—namely, that Consul Cameron had been guilty of gross misconduct. Consul Cameron had adopted the course which he must have known would be objectionable to the King, while at the same time he had no business whatever in that Sovereign's dominions, having entered them in disobedience to orders. Under these circumstances, he did not think this country had any fair cause of complaint in respect of that individual, who was admittedly a wrong-doer—the Foreign Office ought to have said, que diable ullait il faire dans cette galere. Having left the place to which he was accredited he was no longer a Consul, and there was a precedent to show that an Ambassador having gone to a place other than that to which he was accredited an indignity offered to him could not be made a cause of war. Consequently, 626 it appeared to him (Sir George Bowyer) that the Foreign Office had no business to send Mr. Rassam to Abyssinia. The hon. Member for Southwark had given the House a description of Mr. Rassam's extraordinary ability, and if his praise were deserved Mr. Rassam should, directly the vacancy occurred, be sent as our Ambassador to Paris. He wished, also, to point out that Mr. Rassam, being a Turkish subject, was not a fit person to be sent by this country as its Ambassador to Abyssinia. Respect for a foreign country required that a subject of Her Majesty should be sent on such a mission; and he did not doubt that the fact of a foreigner, even although he might be the servant or the factotum of the hon. Member for Southwark, being sent as our Ambassador had a good deal to do with the events we were now deploring. But he (Sir George Bowyer) went further, and said that, not only should Mr. Rassam not have been sent, but nobody should have been sent. Owing to the misconduct of Consul Cameron, we had sent to Abyssinia an Envoy whom we ought never to have sent at all, and we had become involved in a war which would cost us £5,000,000 at least, and in the event of our having to replace the troops we had taken from India would cost us far more. He looked upon the war as a most disastrous one. He regretted that Her Majesty's Government had not taken a more decided view of the matter, and had not taken into consideration the circumstances out of which this unfortunate war had arisen; and he still more regretted that the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) had not had the magnanimity and the manliness to set before the House the real facts of the case, and to accept, as he ought to have accepted, whatever blame legitimately belonged to the Foreign Office for its conduct while under the control of his Colleague, instead of approving; as he had done, the conduct of the Government and supporting them in the course they had adopted in this matter. The right hon. Member ought to have gone into the whole question, and ought to have acted in a patriotic instead of a party spirit. Landed in war, however, we were now, and he and the country could only bitterly lament that the bungling that took place in the Foreign Office under Earl Russell should have led to such an unfortunate and disastrous result.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, the hon. and learned Baronet who had just sat down (Sir George Bowyer) was in error in supposing that the right hon. Gentleman the 627 Member for South Lancashire had approved everything that the Government had done in this matter. He was present on the occasion of the right hon. Gentleman speaking on the question, and if his recollection were correct the right hon. Gentleman had not approved the conduct of the Government in this matter, but had merely expressed an opinion that the Government having committed the country to a war, it was advisable in the public interests not to withhold from them the support which they demanded from the Legislature. It must not, however, be assumed that in so doing the right hon. Gentleman, or the hon. Members generally of the Opposition, acquiesced in or expressed any approval of the course which had been pursued by the Government. On the contrary, he believed it would be found that those who sat on that side of the House looked forward to the time when there would be an expression of opinion which might be very unpleasant if made at the present moment. It must be clearly understood that the Government were proceeding on their own responsibility. No doubt a time would arrive when the whole matter would have to be fully discussed, and when Her Majesty's Government would have to answer for the course which they had thought fit to pursue; the House, however, had not yet before it the materials necessary for entering into an investigation of the subject, inasmuch as the papers which had been laid before it were prepared in a most imperfect, and indeed, he might say, an offensive form. Had any clerk in the House of Commons at a salary of £100 a year prepared papers in so slovenly a way he would be dismissed as unfit for his duties. The papers from every Department had been thrown together in a heap, and had then been arranged in order of date, without the slightest care being taken that they should follow in a consecutive manner in regard to the circumstances to which they related. It was hardly possible for any one to obtain from them the information he desired on any particular topic. He hoped that before the next meeting of Parliament the Government would take care to have the documents arranged in a more perspicuous form. At least the Secretary of State could lay on the table a classified index, so that Members might read with understanding and proper appreciation the extraordinary facts which the blue book disclosed. Its composition and the short 628 time allowed for the perusal rendered it quite impossible, if hon. Members had desired, to discuss the question with advantage to the public. It was therefore a grave error to suppose that the House acquiesced in and approved everything that was reported in the blue book to have been done. Some hon. Members had taken up particular points, being unable to abstain from expressing their views upon them; but that was a very different thing from entering into a discussion of the whole question. No such discussion had taken place, and it must not therefore be assumed that the House had acquiesced in the conduct and policy of the Government.
§ MR. WYLDsaid, he did not agree with the observation made by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets in regard to the preparation of these papers—on the contrary, he thought that the Government were entitled to the thanks of the House for having presented to them, in however hurried a manner, all the information they could collect in reference to this matter. Their conduct in this respect contrasted very favourably with the conduct of the Government in which the hon. Member for Southwark was the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Either purposely or through negligence, the predecessors of the present Government kept back the information they possessed with regard to Abyssinia, and therefore hon. Members were compelled to move for papers that were not published, as they ought to have been, in the first and second blue books on the Abyssinian question. He thanked the noble Lord for the answer given, which was necessary to the vindication of the gentleman referred to; and if the Motion of adjournment had unexpectedly occasioned a debate, that would not have been a matter of regret, had it led the hon. Member for Southwark to offer some reparation to Dr. Beke for what he had said on a former occasion. In an august assembly like that such expressions as "mendacious," "adventurer," "busybody," "meddler" and the like, were hardly admissible as applied to an absent gentleman, who had neither the power nor the opportunity to defend himself. The hon. Member for Southwark was unfortunate in those whom he selected for attack. One night he blamed Dr. Beke, and another night Consul Cameron; and it could only be trusted that the hon. Member would feel that, as regarded the former, he had done gross injustice to an 629 individual who could not in that House defend himself. The House might remember that not many years ago there was an "adventurer," if he might use the expression, who, for the sake of obtaining archæological and historical information, conducted explorations on the plains of Mesopotamia, removed the accumulated dust of centuries, and in the monumental tombs of dead kings made discoveries which added to his fame, and, perhaps, contributed to place him in his present position and to give him the opportunity of making the speech he made the other night, for which, as an attack on the character of another gentleman and distinguished traveller, he was bound to make some reparation.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEEven if it be true, as has been observed by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, that the question of the Abyssinian war has not really been discussed, and that there have not been opportunities for a full discussion of it, I think the House will feel it is not convenient to take advantage of a Motion for Adjournment to enter upon a full discussion of any of the topics which have been glanced at. There will be other opportunities of entering into full discussions; and therefore I do not think it desirable that we should attempt at this moment to anticipate inquiries in which we may more conveniently engage hereafter. There are, however, one or two points it is necessary I should refer to. I have already expressed my regret that the blue book was found so inconvenient to hon. Members; but I am rather surprised to hear it described as "offensive," for undoubtedly there was no intention to give offence. The fact is that we hardly knew on what particular points the House would wish to criticize our proceedings; and therefore we thought it best that hon. Members should know all that had been going on, and with what rapidity, and under what peculiar circumstances, the expedition had been organized. The papers being in print for the use of the Departments, we laid them on the table as they were; but we appended a very full precis of the contents of the book, so that hon. Members, with a very small amount of trouble, might turn to the correspondence on any particular point. The hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) seems to think that Sir Robert Napier is under the orders of Sir Seymour Fitzgerald, and that the Governor of Bombay 630 is responsible for the arrangements made for the expedition, even in so important a matter as the determination of the number of men to be employed. Such a view is entirely erroneous. In point of fact, the Governor of Bombay is not the Commander-in-Chief of the Bombay army; but Sir Robert Napier, as Commander-in Chief, is an ex-officio member of the Government of Bombay. Many questions of a military character have to be decided by the whole Government, of which Sir Robert Napier is a member, and on matters of military detail the greatest deference is paid to his opinion. As regards the matters which have been discussed and settled by the Government, the aim of the Governor has been as far as possible to restrain expenditure. Sir Seymour Fitzgerald, as the blue book shows, is one of the few persons who have advocated the sending of a force smaller than that which has been sent, and therefore it is a misrepresentation to speak of him as responsible for its magnitude. Sir Robert Napier proposed a large force; the Governor argued for a small one; but, in deference to Sir Robert Napier, waived his objections to a large one. However, the responsibility for the size of the force rests neither with Sir Robert Napier nor with Sir Seymour Fitzgerald; it rests upon Her Majesty's Government; and it has not "grown" to 12,000, for that was the number of troops mentioned in the telegram which the Government had before them on the 14th of August, and which they then accepted. The arrangements as to the transport and the accessories of the force have, to a great extent, been settled by the Government of Bombay, upon the requisitions and suggestions of Sir Robert Napier, the Government, and especially the Governor, exercising their influence to prevent any unnecessary expenditure. So far as Sir Seymour Fitzgerald has exercised any influence, it has been in the direction of preventing any expenditure that was not absolutely necessary. The question whether the force is too large or not may be deserving of full discussion; but I do not think it would be advantageous, or would meet the views of the House, to discuss it now. The Government are prepared at any time, with or without notice, to give explanations; but it would be convenient to reserve a general debate for a more formal occasion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.