HC Deb 04 July 1878 vol 241 cc813-20
MR. MONK

, who had a Motion on the Paper, to the effect that the state of the Christian population of Crete demanded the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to the welfare and protection of the inhabitants being secured at the Eastern Congress, said, that as he was precluded by the Forms of the House from submitting his Motion, he would call attention to the affairs of Crete. He was by no means sure that this was not the most favourable—perhaps it would be the only—opportunity the House would have before the close of the Session of considering the question whether it was desirable or not that Crete should be freed from the incubus of the Turkish yoke—a yoke which, in the opinion of many leading statesmen of this country, both past and present, ought never to have been imposed upon her. The history of Crete for the last half century presented a sad and humiliating retrospect; and now, after 40 years of Turkish oppression and misrule, and after insurrections without number, the National Assembly of that country had presented a Memorial to the Great Powers, asking them to aid her in throwing off the Turkish yoke, and to assist her in her desire of being annexed to Greece. Every telegram received from Crete told us that the island was in a most critical state. In spite of every endeavour on the part of Her Majesty's Government—and he gave the Government great credit for endeavouring, through our Ambassador at Constantinople, and our Consul, Mr. Sandwith, to effect a reconciliation between the Cretans and the Porte—nothing whatever had been done which was effectual. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) and himself had frequently asked for the production of the Papers with regard to Crete, and he was at a loss to comprehend the reason for the delay in producing them. But he was still more astonished when they were produced, because he did not see a single line which should have prevented the Government from producing them at an earlier period. The only reason for the delay was to be found in an Answer given by the Under Secretary before Easter—namely, that it was undesirable to produce the Papers, because they might add to the excitement of the island. But for months past the island had been in such a state of excitement that it was impossible to add to it by producing Consular or Ambassadorial Reports. He was quite sure the Under Secretary would not now contend that there was any hope of putting an end to the insurrection without some serious steps being taken to satisfy the wants and wishes of the people, and he could see no method of doing so, except by urging on the Great Powers the annexation of Crete to Greece. As he was loth to say a word which might seem calculated to stir up strife, he would refrain from quoting from the Papers which had been furnished. The enormities which had been committed by the Bashi-Bazouks upon the Christian in-habitants hon. Gentlemen could read for themselves in the Reports of our Consul, and in the despatch of M. Delyanni communicated to Lord Salisbury on the 10th April. What then had Government done in respect of Crete? On the 22nd of May, Consul Sandwith announced to the Provisional Government that he was authorized by Sir Austen Layard to mediate between the Porte and the insurgents; and he was reported to have said that the Porte had given the most solemn assurances that it would make arrangements with England for a new form of government, in conformity with the legitimate demands and requirements of the island, and that it was prepared to grant an amnesty. The Provisional Government accepted those terms, provided an armistice were agreed to, until such time as a definite solution should be arrived at. Incredible as it might seem, that proviso was rejected by the Porte, and the negotiations fell through. Fighting had been going on ever since, and the Under Secretary had informed the House a short time ago that the insurgents were in possession of almost the whole island. He would ask the House to bear with him, while he briefly pointed out what was the course adopted by the Provisional Government prior to that unsuccessful attempt at mediation. Early in the year, Commissioners were sent from Constantinople. And on February 20, Mr. Sandwith wrote that the Assembly had addressed Memorials to the Consuls embodying their proposals, which were four in number—first, that the government should be autonomous; secondly, that the Chief should be elected by the people; thirdly, that the island should pay an annual tribute to the Porte; and, fourthly, that the Constitution should be guaranteed by the Great Powers. These, it would be admitted, were moderate demands. The fourth condition—that the Constitution should be guaranteed by the Great Powers—was absolutely necessary, when it was remembered how vain had been the promise of the Porte to effect reforms in 1868, and mainly because they were not guaranteed by the Great Powers. But the Turkish Commissioners declined to entertain the proposals, negotiations were broken off, and the Mussulman and Christian populations were once more in arms. In these circumstances the General Assembly had entreated the Great Powers to take this matter into their own hands at the Congress now sitting, and to support their views of annexation, in the earnest desire that peace, happiness, and contentment might be restored to the island. Consul Sandwith, in February last, stated that the Porte had admitted the legality of the Assembly making these demands, and, therefore, he expressed his surprise that the Porte should summarily have rejected them. The General Assembly had done their utmost to avoid an insurrection; although the people had been three months in arms, the Assembly had prevented an outbreak of hostilities. Consul Sandwith went on to state that the Assembly had been obliged to break off all negotiations with the Commissioners and appeal to the Great Powers, having regard to the programme of 1821, 1841, and 1856, in which the island was declared to be annexed to Greece. No other solution of this question was likely to be satisfactory or final. He humbly, but earnestly, entreated the Government to take the unfortunate condition of Crete into their consideration; and, bearing in mind the responsibilities incurred by Great Britain, France, and Russia, at the close of the Greco-Turkish War, when they left Crete with 200,000 Christians, and only 40,000 Mussulmans under the dominion of the Sultan, that they would instruct our Plenipotentiaries at Berlin to take steps to repair the injustice which had been done to Crete 50 years ago, by rescuing that fair territory from the depressing influence and grinding thraldom under which it had suffered at the hands of the Ottoman Porte. It appeared by to-day's accounts from Berlin that the consideration of the Greek question had been postponed for a few days; and, therefore, it was not too late to remind the Government of the promises made to Greece, and, he presumed, also to the Cretans, that if they abstained from hostilities, their case should not be neglected by the Congress. This was a part of the great Eastern Question, and it was most desirable that it should be brought to a final decision. Some of the greatest statesmen of this country foresaw the difficulties likely to arise from the present arrangements, and that the day would come when Crete could no longer acknowledge the Turkish rule. Lord Palmerston had expressed most strongly his opinion that the Greeks of Crete, when they saw their brethren free, would no longer submit to the thraldom of Turkey. The late King of the Belgians refused to accept the Throne of Greece because Thessaly, Epirus, and Crete were not annexed to it. He hoped to receive an assurance from his hon. Friend that this matter had engaged, and would continue to occupy, the serious attention of the Government, and that he would be able to inform the House that our Plenipotentiaries at Berlin would take steps to restore to the unfortunate Christians in these countries a more beneficent rule.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he for the most part concurred in the views expressed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Monk). He feared, however, that annexation to Greece was not likely to be attained at present, for such a proposal was not within the four corners of the Treaty of San Stefano or the Agreement of Lord Salisbury. We were bound, however, by all that had occurred to see that the future government of Crete was a satisfactory autonomy. The Constitution of 1868 could not be satisfactory, for the Mahomedan minority had the advantage over the Christian majority. In these circumstances it was impossible that justice could be fairly done to the great mass of the inhabitants, who were Christians. He believed that discontent would be removed if Crete had a real autonomy, in which the Christian population had due weight. Several of these islands had formerly enjoyed, under Turkish dominion, practical autonomy, which had been wrested from them in modern days, when the Sultans had assumed a despotism not justified by Mahomedan law. We might hope some day to see these islands again enjoying constitutional government better than that which had been accorded to Crete, and that they would eventually be united to the mainland of Greece by a federal bond.

MR. BOURKE

said, no one could be surprised that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had brought this matter before the House. It had created during the last few months a great deal of interest, and the hon. Member for Gloucester and the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had shown that they were alive to its importance. At the same time, they would feel that this was hardly an opportune time to discuss a question of such magnitude. In the Papers before the House there was material for a long debate, so that it was hardly possible to discuss the subject seriously on the Motion to go into Committee on the Education Estimates. He hoped, under these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman would not expect him to go into the subject at any great length. All that was asked was, that the matter should not be forgotten in the negotiations at Berlin. The condition of Crete had been mooted on many occasions within the last 50 years, and no Minister had ever been able to say that that condition was satisfactory or promising. No matter how bad the condition of the inhabitants was, it was always admitted that there were insuperable difficulties to the island passing out of the hands of the Porte; and no one held that view more strongly than the late Lord Palmerston. The noble Lord acknowledged that there were a certain number of persons in Crete who wished for transference to Greece; but, at the same time, he said, Greece had never shown a capacity to govern so well that portion of Europe which was under her sway as to justify Europe in wishing to see Crete added to the territory of Greece. One would suppose that people who were enthusiastic about the annexation of Crete to Greece, were of opinion that the Government of Greece was a pattern Government, and that Greece was therefore entitled to have the islands annexed to it; but the past history of Greece had not inspired him with such confidence in the wisdom of its Government as to make him expect any amelioration for Crete as the consequence of annexation. They all knew that there was a great preponderance of Christian population to Mahomedan in the island; but, at the same time, if that was taken as a criterion for annexation, it could be shown that a great portion of the whole of European Turkey might be said to be in a similar position. Therefore, that argument could not be sustained by statesmen. As he had stated several times this Session, the matter was under the consideration of the Government. There was no part of the Eastern Question to which they had given more attention; but it was impossible for this country, or any country, to take upon itself to say that any portion of the Turkish dominions should be annexed to a foreign country. The question was, no doubt, under the consideration of the Plenipotentiaries at Berlin. He believed that very day the question of Greece was being considered, and it might be assumed that the question of Crete would be taken into consideration as part of it. Whether anything would come of it, it was impossible for him to say. With regard to the better government of Crete, and the amelioration of the condition of the Christian population, no Government in Europe was more alive to the necessity of something being done than Her Majesty's Government. The Papers would show that they had been fully alive to the necessity for the amelioration of the government of Crete. No one would deny that nothing could be worse than the late government of the island, particularly during the last two months; they had not denied that for a moment. In every Answer he had given to the House, he had endeavoured, as nearly as possible, to epitomize the information given in the Reports of Consul Sandwith, which he did not think could be impugned. Hon. Members seemed to take rather a one-sided view of the question; for the Christians of Crete were not unanimously in favour of annexation to Greece; on the contrary, they were far more unanimously in favour of an autonomous Government of their own, and the Reports which had been received lately went to show that if the scheme which was devised in 1868 by Lord Derby had been carried out, there would have been nothing to be wished for in the government of the island. As usual, Turkey failed to carry out her promises of reform to Crete. Whether she would yet do so it was impossible to say. For his part, he thought we had better look for reforms in the direction of those of 1868. When those were completed, the way would be paved for full reforms in the direction of annexation to Greece—an event which could not be brought about without great changes, and without exciting opposition on the part of Turkey. He hoped the hon. Member for Gloucester would be satisfied with this statement. He could assure him that there was no body of persons more anxious for the welfare of Crete than Her Majesty's Government, and that they were at the present time engaged in bringing this question before the Powers at the Congress in connection with the future of Turkey.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he did not think the tone of the speech of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs such as to give that satisfaction which he had hoped for, and he trusted Lord Salisbury's views would not be entirely those which the House had just listened to. Considering that the subject of Crete was being considered by the Congress at Berlin, the present was not a favourable moment for discussing it in that House. He, therefore, refrained from entering into the question; but he would take the opportunity of confirming the accuracy of the statement of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) as to Lord Palmerston. The hon. Member quoted from a speech of Lord Palmerston's of 1830, the whole of which was worthy of the most careful consideration. He might add that the contention of Lord Palmerston was supported by Lord Russell and Sir James Mackintosh, and also, he thought, by some influential Members of the House of Lords, so that it was erroneous to say that the views of the hon. Member for Gloucester had not been held by any influential statesman in this or the last century. At the present moment nearly the whole island was in the hands of insurgents; and so far as his own information went, the people of Crete were almost unanimously in favour of annexation to Greece, and certainly the argument in favour of that course was much stronger now, when the Mussulmans formed only one-fourth or one-fifth of the population, than in 1830, when they numbered perhaps one-half. Within the present century Crete had been three times in insurrection, and her claims to the consideration of the Congress were infinitely greater than those of Bosnia and Herzegovina.