HC Deb 09 July 1877 vol 235 cc1010-23
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,

in rising to call attention to the recent Report of Vice Consul Freeman as to the insurgent Christians of Bosnia, and to the discrepancies between this Report and the previous Reports of Consul Holmes; and to ask, Whether the Government will be prepared to direct Her Majesty's Representatives in Bosnia and Herzegovina not in future to use their influence with the Turkish authorities for the purpose of driving the insurgents from the country, but to confine themselves to their duty as agents of a Neutral Power? said, he trusted he might be permitted to detain the House for a few minutes while he referred to a matter of some importance—namely, the action of our Consular authorities towards the insurgent Christians in that most unfortunate of Turkish Provinces, Bosnia, which for nearly three years had been the scene of so much misery, and which was the origin of the present troubles in the East. The House would recollect that some few weeks ago the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in answer to a Question as to some alleged massacre in that Province, read at length a despatch from Consul Holmes, which not only denied the specific case alleged, but made general statements as to the condition of the Province, and the nature of the insurrection, and the cause of the exodus of the population, which greatly surprised them. According to this version Europe had been under an entire misconception and delusion as to the nature and causes of the Bosnian difficulty. The insur- rection was a sham; it was entirely of foreign creation. It was the Turks rather than the Christians who had reason to complain. He would not trouble the House by quoting this letter at length, but would summarize it, in the words of Mr. Holmes, under three heads—1. That the insurrection in Bosnia was nothing more than a brigandage on a large scale, promoted by filibusters from beyond the frontier, which it had pleased Slav sympathizers to call "insurrection." 2. That the refugees had been induced to fly the country, not by acts of cruelty of the Turks, but to avoid the conflict between their enraged Mussulman neighbours and their filibustering friends from without. 3. That the murders and atrocities committed by the Turks were a dignified form of avenge for similar acts committed by the Christians according to their opportunity, and just as hideous. Mr. Holmes added that, as soon as he was able, he should take an opportunity of urging the Turkish Governor to take steps at once to sweep these bands of brigands out of Bosnia. There was in the last Blue Book another despatch from Consul Holmes, dated March 29, in which he stated that he had acted upon this intention; he had an interview with the Governor General, and urged upon him the necessity of making an effort to drive out Despotovich and his bands. The Governor assured him that preparations were in progress for driving out these insurgents. In the debate which occurred on the general Eastern policy, he had pointed out that the Government had been entirely misled by Mr. Holmes's statements; no answer was, however, made by the Government, possibly because at the time further inquiries were being instituted by Vice Consul Freeman, who had been directed to proceed to the disturbed districts of Bosnia and to report upon them. A few days ago, a long and interesting despatch from Mr. Freeman was laid upon the Table of the House, containing his Report upon the state of Northern Bosnia and upon the condition of the unfortunate refugees. With respect to some of the alleged outrages, Mr. Freeman stated that he had reason to think that there had been some exaggeration. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) did not care for his part to go into the pros and cons of particular cases. He could quote from Consular authority alone enough cases if he wished to make the most damning record against the authorities of Bosnia, sufficient of themselves to account for the insurrection and the flight of the people. What he wanted, however, on the present occasion to point out was, the entirely different version of the state of things in Bosnia as described by Consul Freeman from that of Consul Holmes. Mr. Freeman visited the district in the hands of the insurgents, and he entirely confirmed the account of Mr. Evans. Mr. Holmes had stated that the insurgents were nothing but bands of brigands, who had come across the frontier from Austrian territory. Mr. Freeman stated that the number of insurgents under command of Despotovitch might be estimated at about 5,000, almost without exception natives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who were spread about the country in bands of 200 to 1,000 men each, but who could be assembled at one spot in time of need. Mr. Freeman said that Despotovitch maintained the strictest discipline among his men, and no one dared to disobey his orders. Although he would not disdain to carry off a Turkish convoy of provisions, or a caravan of merchants' goods, he prohibited all petty brigandage and punished severely, on occasion even by death, any wanton murders. Mr. Holmes had stated that the refugees were driven away by a few of these insurgents. Mr. Freeman said— Men are not wanting, for every fugitive would be ready to carry arms if it would insure him food; but the insurgents have no means of procuring arms, and would also find it impossible to provision a large force. He then went across the frontier to the district where the refugees had found safety. He said— From Knin I made an excursion along the neighbouring frontier expressly to verify the state of the Bosnian refugees. They almost, without exception, lack the first necessaries of life—shelter, food, and clothing. They either live in huts through which every blast of wind blows and into which the rain penetrates in torrents (he writes at the end of April), or else in holes and caves in the hill sides, crowded together like animals and breathing the most pestilential air. Their clothing barely covers their attenuated limbs, and it was a piteous sight to behold the young children, wan and haggard, shivering in the cold north wind which was blowing the day I was there." —[Turkey, No. 20 (1877), p. 4.] He then said that although the leaders of the insurgents entertained certain po- litical notions, the generality of the insurgents and fugitives professed themselves faithful subjects of the Sultan, and regretted what had happened, but said they had suffered too much at the hands of their Beys and the Zaptiehs for them to think of returning to their homes; and an old man, said to have been one of the wealthiest villagers in the neighbourhood of Petrovatz, emphatically exclaimed— Ah, Sir, you little know what we have had to put up with, and if my position is not to he bettered I will never return myself, and would sooner kill my children with my own hand than permit them to return. He had shown that there was an absolute divergence between Mr. Holmes and Mr. Freeman upon every point. Which was the true account could not be for a moment doubted. Mr. Holmes had never been in the insurgent country or among the refugees, and he took his information solely from the Turks, as, whether rightly or wrongly, he was considered so hostile to the Christians, and had the reputation, as he himself stated, of being such a passionate Turcophile, that no Christian ever went near him. Mr. Freeman described the character of the Mussulman troops and inhabitants as being characterized by unbridled licentiousness, whilst Mr. Holmes declared it was praiseworthy. He found, on looking back at these officers' Reports during the past two years, that there was the same divergence or absolute contradiction between them from the very first. It would much amuse the House if he could be permitted to read extracts from these despatches giving these opposite versions. Mr. Holmes, during that period, had often been absent from Bosnia, to Constantinople and different places, on other work; his pen was then taken up by Mr. Freeman. Mr. Holmes, on the one hand, had constantly and uniformly denied during the last two years that there had been any serious insurrection at all in Bosnia; according to him the insurgents were nothing but foreign bands. To quote one or two passages, on the 10th of March of last year, when most people were under the belief that the disturbances in Bosnia had lasted more than 18 months, Mr. Holmes, in a memorandum addressed to Sir Henry Elliot, wrote— The so-called insurrection in Bosnia might be better termed an invasion of hands openly formed in Austrian Croatia and Servia. It has never extended beyond the range of their operations, and cannot be called a popular movement."— [Turkey, No. 3 (1876), p. 40.] He believed this was written while Mr. Holmes was at Constantinople on special duty; yet a few days before, on the 2nd of March, he found a letter from Vice Consul Freeman, dated Bosna-Serai, in which he spoke of the withdrawal of the Austrian assistance to the refugees, and said— But yet I fear it will not influence the return of the refugees to their homes. In every direction the insurgents seem to be animated by the same sentiment—a determination to fight to the last rather than again submit to the Turkish authority."'—[Ibid., p. 18.] In a few days Mr. Holmes returned to Bosnia, and on the 30th of March he wrote— During the few days I have been here I have seen the authorities, and most of the chief men of the place, and I have obtained a conviction that, in spite of all predictions to the contrary, the Christians of this country will not rise in arms unless they are forced to do so by invasion from without. Up to the present moment there has been no insurrection in Bosnia, except on the frontiers, where it has been produced in this manner."—[Ibid., p. 68.] Yet Consul Freeman, writing only seven days later from the same place, said— The Turks maintain that these armed bands are composed of Austrians, Servians, and even Montenegrins, but I think it more probable that they consist chiefly of the Bosnian refugees, who, finding the moans of subsistence failing them, and being pressed by Austria to return to their country, have preferred doing so with arms in their hands."—[Ibid., p. 78.] And writing a few days later, he spoke of a force of insurgents 10,000 or 12,000 strong, and on the 12th of March he said of the refugees— They unanimously declare that if the Austrian Government withhold all further assistance they will drown themselves in the Unna rather than again subject themselves to Turkish oppression. After mentioning several cases of violence and oppression, he said— As long as such acts of violence as the above are perpetrated With impunity by the soldiery and native Mussulmans, and such arbitrary conduct permitted by the authorities, it is hopeless to expect a pacification of these Provinces, and I much fear that the new Governor will find himself utterly powerless to strive almost single-handed against such a state of corrupt administration and unbridled licentiousness and crime. Now, which of these two authorities were we to believe? He had no doubt himself. Mr. Freeman's accounts tallied with those of every other person who had visited Bosnia during the last two years—Mr. Evans, Mr. Stillman, Miss Irby, and some others — while Mr. Holmes's tallied only with Turkish accounts. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) did not say that Mr. Holmes had wilfully misled the House; but he believed that Mr. Holmes was completely under misapprehension as to the state of things in Bosnia, that he saw only with Turkish eyes, and heard only with Turkish ears, and was therefore prevented from taking a clear and candid view of what was taking place in the unfortunate Province. In a letter dated June 6, which he received a few days ago, dated from Knin, in Dalmatia, the headquarters of the refugees in that part, and written by Miss Irby to a lady who had devoted herself most heroically to the relief of these suffering thousands, she said— Mr. Holmes's urging the Pasha to send troops to North Bosnia has driven thousands of fresh refugees across the frontier. This very-day a crowd of miserable wretches, old women and children, who have been hiding in the woods for days, appeared in Knin, telling the tale of their villages having been burnt by the Turkish troops three weeks ago at Gla-mosh. All along this frontier fresh refugees are arriving, who have fled before the Turkish troops or have been burnt out of their houses. Is it," she asks, "in accordance with the instructions of the Foreign Office that Mr. Holmes thus urges the Pasha? And that was the question which he had now to ask the Under Secretary, and to which he thought he was entitled to a distinct and clear answer. Was it by the direction of Lord Derby that Mr. Holmes took this course? Had his conduct been approved? He hoped most sincerely that the Under Secretary would be able to tell them that the conduct of Mr. Holmes had been disapproved, and that he had been directed no longer to use his energies in this direction. It was by acts of this kind that the English Government was making the name of England to be hated by the Native Christian population. At least, if we could do nothing for these unfortunate people, if the diplomacy of Europe was utterly powerless to rescue them or to obtain any guarantees for them for better government, or for protection against their oppressors, let us do nothing to aid their oppressors by our advice and encouragement. It was not the duty of this country to throw all the weight of its influence and authority on the side of the Turkish Government against these unfortunate insurgents. The very opposite course would be the one which would be dictated both by humanity and by sound policy. We ought rather to have told the Turks not to trouble themselves about stamping out the insurrection in Bosnia, but to send every available man to the Danube, where the real issue was to be fought out. He thought it probable that the Under Secretary would think it sufficient to say that Mr. Holmes had left his post on sick leave. He regretted the cause of his departure, but he could not regret the fact, and he sincerely hoped that some other sphere might be in future found for his activity, when the state of his health permitted. Throughout the East he was recognized as having so thoroughly identified himself with the Turkish Government, that he had practically lost all influence amongst the Christian population, though he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was bound to say that he had often fully admitted the misgovernment of the Turks. But it would not be sufficient for the Government to say that Mr. Holmes had come back on sick leave. It was necessary that they should say whether it was by their order or their approval that he had acted. Though he did not know the details, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was informed that Mr. Freeman was now carrying out the same policy in Bosnia as his predecessor—advising the Turkish authorities as to the military operations which they should undertake there; and if there were any truth in that, it showed the necessity for the Government taking some action in the matter. The hon. Gentleman concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.

MR. BOURKE

said, he was somewhat at a loss to know what had been the real object of the hon. Gentleman's speech, because he had very carefully guarded himself by saying that he did not mean to bring forward any charge against Consul Holmes, yet, at the same time, he accused him of misinforming the Government and taking part with the Turks against the Christians. Those statements were wholly inconsistent, and if Consul Holmes had misinformed the Government or taken part with the Turks against the Christians, he had done what was very wrong; but the hon. Gentleman had not brought forward a single fact to show that he had done either the one or the other. He had certainly put forward a statement of Mr. Holmes which in some particulars was not precisely similar to that of Consul Freeman; but he had not shown that the two Consuls were reporting upon the same transaction or at the same date. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: I mentioned the date of every despatch.] Yes, but the dates were all different. The question was, whether the two Consuls were writing at the same time and about the same thing? The great question was, whether there was any intentional design on the part of Consul Holmes to misinform the Government? There was not one tittle of evidence to support such an idea; and if they took the despatches on the Table and compared them very narrowly, they would find that the two Consuls substantially agreed. He would illustrate this by reference to a despatch written in March. The charge with regard to this transaction was that he had misrepresented it to the authorities in this country, whereas Consul Freeman's despatch, when it was perused, substantially agreed with that of Consul Holmes. The first statement was that there had been the massacre of a private wedding party. That was one of the things reported and believed throughout the country, which had been the cause of his being sent to make further reports. He immediately found that "No massacre of any bridal procession, or any similar outrage, had occurred at Gla-motch; but about three months ago four Christians, said to be on their way to a wedding, had been killed somewhere in the district of Yaitza, which adjoins that of Glamotch; but he could obtain no precise information on the subject." That was another statement for which Consul Holmes was blamed, whereas Consul Freeman had discovered that the whole thing was a myth. It appeared, then, that the story believed all over England merely came to this—that some time ago four persons were killed on the road. Again, the story about the outraging of women turned out to be entirely untrue. Consul Freeman wrote— On the 28th. of April I quitted Livno for Otchievo to investigate the outrage on the inhahitants of that village reported by Mr. Evans…I would, however, previously remark how difficult it is to obtain from these ignorant peasants a succinct and consecutive account of what occurred. Their statements were exceedingly contradictory, and it was only after a lengthened interrogatory and careful cross-examination that I could at all make their several stories coincide." — [Turkey, No. 20 (1877), p. 2.] The men examined said that the outrages had not occurred, women were examined who said that girls had not been touched, and Consul Freeman said he had examined girls, of whom only one said that she and three others had been outraged. Altogether," as the Consul said, "the evidence was of a very vague and unsatisfactory character, and did not bear the stamp of undeniable truth. That despatch coincided with the Report of Consul Holmes. He might go through the whole of it, for really every single paragraph showed that the charges brought by the correspondent of The Manchester Guardian had turned out to be totally untrue, or, at least, not provable by the evidence that could be collected on the spot. However, he could not blame those correspondents, who heard the stories from the natives and allowed their sympathies to be roused; but he thought that the hon. Member for Beading was going too far when he censured a Consul who had done as much as he possibly could. The hon. Gentleman had access to trustworthy information, yet his credulity was such that he believed what he read in the newspapers. Again, one of the charges most clamorously made against Consul Holmes, was that he had stigmatized the insurgents as "brigands." That assertion had been made not only by Mr. Holmes, but by The Times' Correspondent, who took precisely the same view. He said— Colonel Despotovich claims a sort of command over a number of small bands established in the mountains; but of the many crimes that have been committed there is none greater than this so-called insurrectionary movement, which is only brigandage on a larger scale. Those were the words, not of Consul Holmes, but of The Times newspaper; he did not know whether they were true; but the House would do a gross injustice to Consul Holmes in supposing that he had come to his conclusion on too little evidence. Besides, there was nothing in Consul Freeman's despatches at all inconsistent with that view. As for the alleged impalements, he would read some parts of Consul Freeman's despatch— In conclusion, I would remark that the result of my late journeys has teen to make me more disinclined than ever to put faith in the stories of Turkish outrage and violence. Such stories have frequently, it must he acknowledged, a foundation of truth, but there is such an inclination on the one side to pervert and exaggerate, and on the other to extenuate and palliate, that it is almost impossible to ascertain the real facts. I think, however, that my tour in the north will have produced a very salutary effect in the country, as it has shown the Mussulmans that their actions are watched and that they cannot give vent to their fanaticism with impunity. Did not that corroborate Consul Holmes? There were many other despatches in which the Consul criticized very severely the folly and wickedness of the Turkish Government, and from which it would be most unfair to pick isolated sentences in order to make charges against him; and yet he had been charged with doing that which it would be most disgraceful for any public servant to do. It had always been possible to say of foreign Governments that their servants told them just what they wished to hear; but that had never been the case with English Consuls or diplomatists, and was not then. They reported only what was true, without caring whether they gave offence or not. All they wanted was that facts should be correctly reported, and nothing could be more injurious to them, or more degrading, than that the House should give an opinion as to the mode or tenor in which Reports were sent. Hon. Gentlemen who chose to do so could read about the alleged impalements in Consul Freeman's Reports, and he must be allowed to say that, to use a mild phrase, those allegations were a mistake. The whole affair would be found to be based upon the report of two Austrian officers, who said that they saw bodies, but at a distance of from two to three miles. That was one of the stories which Consul Holmes did not credit, and he was vilified accordingly; but it turned out afterwards that Consul Freeman came to just the same conclusion. For himself, he was very sorry that the hon. Member had used his high authority to make such charges, and he hoped it was not too late to defend what he believed to be very honest conduct. Consul Holmes had been in the service of the Govern- ment since 1841, and had performed his duties to the entire satisfaction of all the Governments which he had served, and, certainly, to the satisfaction of the present Government, and they could not do such an unreasonable thing as to complain or disapprove of his conduct because he advised the Commander-in-Chief that bands of brigands were coming across the frontier when his Austrian Colleague was doing the same thing. That matter, however, had passed over, and there was no reason for thinking that Consul Holmes did anything contrary to his duty in recommending the Turkish Government to take steps to drive those brigands across the frontier. The insurgents were as much to blame as the Turks for the untold hardships suffered by the refugees. He did not say they had not suffered immensely, and they had his sympathy; but to say that Consul Holmes did anything wrong in giving that advice to the Turkish Government was not an opinion which Her Majesty's Government felt inclined to adopt. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not disapprove of anything Consul Holmes had done in regard to the refugees. His good name would survive these debates, and the Government did not think he had done anything reprehensible.

MR. DILLWYN

said, that the newspaper reports that had been quoted by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had been used only in confirmation of the Blue Books, and as showing the discrepancies that all must admit existed in the statements of Consuls Holmes and Freeman. [Mr. BOURKE: As to what?] He understood the gravamen of the charge to be that Consul Holmes had given the Government to understand that the outrages and massacres had been committed by certain refugees over the border, and not in connection with any insurrection at which the Turkish troops were present; whilst Consul Freeman distinctly stated that they were committed by Turks in the presence of Turkish troops. Of the two, he thought the Reports of the latter were more reliable than those of Consul Holmes. The Government should interfere, and say who was right, and endeavour to make the Reports more reliable.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, that last year, when the Bulgarian atrocities were brought under the notice of the House, the front Opposition benches were anything but full; but that night the whole strength of the late Government was concentrated and epitomized in the hon. Member for Beading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). Before the Treaty of 1871, by which the late Government had boasted that they had strengthened Turkey, they had announced in that House that the state of the Christians had been much improved, when they were all the time in possession of despatches from Consul Holmes to the effect that their condition was not improved. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether any Report had been received from any Consular officer in Asia Minor or the Bulgarian Provinces relative to the extreme severities—he would not call them atrocities—practised by Russian troops in the course of their progress in the Danubian Provinces and in Asia Minor, and especially to certain acts of a most ghastly description committed by Russians on 1,500 families in Soukhoum Kale?

MR. LAING

said, that as the Government had arrived at the conclusion that it was desirable to be absolutely neutral in this war, it was a matter of considerable importance that our Consular Agents and Representatives should be enjoined to observe the attitude of strict neutrality, and not place themselves in such a position as to lead to the supposition that they were partizans or enemies as the case might be. They had, however, been trained in the East, since the Crimean War, in the old traditional policy of supporting Turkey at all hazards, and believing in the intrigues of Russia, so that they were not in a position to furnish impartial accounts to a neutral Government, and therefore no blame was to be attached to them. It was, however, now very important that Turkey should not be deluded into the idea that the British Government was working for her support, and besides it was necessary that in this war there should not be a bad feeling created between this country and the belligerents. There was nothing worse against Consul Holmes than that he was under the influence of the Foreign Office and had become a partizan of Turkey, while he ought to see things with his own eyes and give an impartial judgment. No one could read the Reports without seeing that as between Consul Freeman and Consul Holmes those of the former were substantially accurate. The atrocities committed last year in Bulgaria were denied or palliated by our Consular Agents, until Mr. Baring was sent to the spot, when he discovered that atrocities the most revolting had occurred, and to a considerable extent.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that when hon. Members spoke of our Consular Agents being partial or impartial, their idea seemed to be that when they reported against Turkey, they must be considered to be impartial; but that when they reported in her favour, they were considered to be very distinctly partial. The Under Secretary for State for Foreign Affairs had clearly shown that Consul Holmes had on more than one occasion reported against Turkey; and it was necessary in the exercise of his impartiality to report in favour of Turkey when circumstances required that he should do so. The hon. Member for Reading had said— "Why do you not advise Turkey to employ her troops where they would be of more service—to meet the Russians on the Danube—rather than employ them against the insurgents?" but suppose Consul Holmes had really given the Porte advice of this nature, what an outcry would have been raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite! To allege that the Consuls had been partial, was altogether to ignore the facts which had been stated by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the evidence contained in the Blue Book. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) could not have been in the House when the Under Secretary of State took the despatches paragraph by paragraph, and showed that in their main results there was no discrepancy whatever between the two Consuls.

MR. JAMES

thought the remarks of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs were most unsatisfactory. He was sorry the hon. Gentleman had not held out a hope that some representations would be made with the view of preventing the expulsion of Christians from Bosnia. With regard to the Reports of Consul Holmes and Mr. Freeman, they showed the greatest possible difference in spirit and feeling. Everything seemed to receive a different colour in passing through the minds of these officials. In order to illustrate the discrepancies between their Reports, he would refer to two despatches, which he held to be extremely conflicting. One was dated the 5th October, 1876, in which Mr. Holmes, writing to Sir Henry Elliot with respect to an alleged case of impalement, said— With regard to the astounding statement made to your Excellency by Canon Liddon and his friend, I have to report that neither the Turkish authorities, the Consuls, nor the people here, have ever heard of anything resembling the cruelties mentioned. No statement of the kind has ever appeared in any of the Slav newspapers most hostile to Turkey, and it is quite impossible they could have occurred without immediately becoming publicly known."—[Turkey, No. 1 (1877), p. 494.] On the 17th of the previous March Mr. Freeman had written to him to the effect that a man had been impaled at Novi, in full view of an Austrian village; that four other persons had been killed, and their heads exposed on stakes; that the master of the Orthodox school at Priedor had been killed, and his head paraded about the streets with drums and bands of music, together with other outrages. He also said that the Austrian papers in "Vienna gave the names of officers who witnessed all this. Of the contents of that letter Sir Henry Elliot wrote to the effect, that when authentic accounts of these abominations were received in Europe they must excite the indignation of the civilized world. After all, it would have been more satisfactory if the Under Secretary of State had given the House some assurance that, by means of our Consuls, some effort was being made by our Government to restore some of the 150,000 persons who had been expelled from Bosnia to their homes.