THE EARL OF ROSEBERYI rise to put a Question to the noble Earl at the head of the Government, of which I have given him private Notice. In the debate of Tuesday night the noble Earl said:—
Now, I wish to give to the House the most striking illustration of the complete ignorance that pervaded not England alone, but the whole world, the whole of Europe, and especially those countries nearest to the spot where those atrocities were committed, and whose border populations were, above all others, most deeply interested in the matter. When the three Imperial Powers met to compose the Berlin Memorandum they composed it with an aggravation of all their charges against the Porte, which was a very natural and diplomatic course to adopt, and pointed in succession to every circumstance ad invidiam that had occurred since the publication and failure of the Andrassy Note; and yet, although Germany, Austria, and Russia were the Powers that concocted that celebrated State paper, not a single allusion is made in it to the Bulgarian atrocities, notwithstanding all of them had been perpetrated a fortnight or three weeks before it was drawn up.798 Now, my Lords, since the debate I have referred to the Blue Book, and I find that the Berlin Memorandum was communicated to the Representatives of the Six Powers on the 13th of May, and from the report of Vice Consul Dupuis and other documents it appears that at Batak on May 9—that is, four days previous—there was a wholesale massacre of about 5,000 persons; at Perushtitza on May 13, of 750; and at Boyadjikeui, on May 24, of 149. It is not, indeed, necessary to mention the various dates at which massacres were committed after the 13th of May. I think I have stated enough to convince the House and the noble Earl that there are some inconsistencies, real or apparent, between the facts as they appear in the Blue Book and the statement made by him on Tuesday night. I, therefore, beg to ask the noble Earl whether those inconsistencies are real or only apparent?
§ THE. EARL OF BEACONSFIELDI have received from the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) an intimation of his intention to make an inquiry, connected with the inquiry of the noble Earl, and I shall be able to answer both inquiries at the same time.
§ EARL GRANVILLEIn that case, with the noble Earl's permission, I should prefer to put my Question before he answers it. The noble Earl in the debate said—
But the truth is this, we have heard something in these debates about Consular agents, and the information that could be obtained by their means; but the truth is this, that these atrocities were perpetrated in parts of Turkey which are almost denuded of Consular supervision, there being no commercial demands for such agencies, and the Government of a past day—I will not inquire what were their politics, representing a commercial country—having cut off all Consular agencies in that part of the Turkish Empire.That is the report of The Times, and it concurs with my recollection of the words used by the noble Earl. As the statement twice said to be the truth of the matter did not coincide with my recollection of a transaction with which I had something to do, I asked the noble Earl whether he could state the names of the places from which Consular supervision had been removed. This the noble Earl was unable to do at the moment, but with his usual courtesy promised the information; and added that he did not 799 blame the action of the Government, which had its origin in the House of Commons. In this he was perfectly right; but my recollection does not further coincide with his. In consequence of a Resolution of a Committee of the House of Commons on the Consular Service Lord Clarendon decided to have an inquiry on the spot. This decision I carried out, and Mr. Kennedy, a most competent person, was sent specially to Turkey. He found that an alteration had been made by the Government with regard to the Vilayet system, and that large districts were placed under one Governor, and that these Governors were apt to play one Consul against another; and he therefore recommended a system by which a Consul should reside at the seat of Government with Vice Consuls under him. I concurred generally in these recommendations; and the result was, as regards Turkey, one Consulate was abolished at Janina in Albania, leaving only a Consular Agent there; the Consulate at Monastir, in Macedonia, was reduced in rank and emoluments; and at Varna the emoluments of a Vice Consulate were diminished. In the four remaining cases of changes in Consular establishments in European Turkey, the emoluments were, in different degrees, in each case increased. I am not aware of any action at all in respect of any Consular establishment in that part of European Turkey where the atrocities were committed. I may mention that the Foreign Office was pressed from outside to abolish the Consulship at Adrianople—to which I could not consent, conceiving it would not be for the public advantage. The Estimates carrying out these changes were prepared by the late Government, but they were examined, adopted, and presented to Parliament by the noble Earl's Administration. I therefore take the liberty of asking the noble Earl again which were the places in that portion of Turkey in which the atrocities were committed from which Consular supervision had been taken away?
§ THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDWith reference to the Questions that have been addressed to me by the two noble Earls, noble Lords will remember—if they can remember the observations I addressed to the House on that occasion—that the observations I made 800 on the points respecting which these Questions have been addressed to me were casual remarks, that there was nothing in the Motion of the noble Duke, nothing in the speech which he then delivered, and nothing which occurred in the course of the debate itself, which could have led me to believe that the lamentable incidents which have occurred in Bulgaria or any information which had been received by the Government in reference to those incidents would be made the subject of question in that debate. What happened was this. Before the Leader of the Opposition spoke, a noble Earl, who approved the action of Her Majesty's Government generally in the transactions the subject of the discussion, severely impugned the conduct of the Government in regard to the Bulgarian atrocities, and stated that the agitation which had been excited in the autumn when those atrocities became known had been caused by the Government not having imparted to Parliament and the public the information they had received. My Lords, you must feel that was a very grave accusation to make, and it was impossible for me—although directing my argument to the subject which had been brought under our consideration with great ability by the noble Duke—not to advert to those observations of the noble Earl. Had I been in the least aware that the incidents in Bulgaria and the conduct of the Government in reference to the atrocities would be called in question, I should, of course, have refreshed my memory before entering on the debate by a reference to the Papers on those points; I should have made no statements respecting the Consular Service, or anything else, without having the documents at hand to bear me out. But that was not the position of affairs. The matter was introduced most unexpectedly and suddenly. It was one which I could not have anticipated to find brought forward, and I could speak only from my general knowledge of affairs. I think the principle on which a Minister should answer Questions addressed to him in Parliament is a clear one. He is bound to give Parliament the fullest information in his possession, provided that it is not confidential information or that its communication would not be detrimental to the interests of the State. But authentic information must be information 801 received from responsible sources. It would not do for the Government to come down to Parliament and give information merely because it had been received in society, however plausible it might seem, or however authoritative the private communication. I made no answer on these occasions until after consultation with my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and we then imparted to this House and to the House of Commons the information—I am perfectly aware—the slight and vague information on the subject of these atrocities as they were at first reported to us. I am well aware how slight was that information, but we gave all we could; and on subsequent occasions when we had fuller information we gave it also; and therefore I trust we may not be considered guilty of the charge made against us that the agitation in the country was occasioned by our refusing to disclose information. Now, there is not the slightest doubt that Tier Majesty's Government was ill-served on that occasion—they did not receive the information they ought to have received. I beg that in saying this I may not be understood as casting any imputation on the honourable and eminent gentleman who was then and is still our Ambassador to the Court of the Sultan. It must be remembered that Sir Henry Elliot was placed at that moment in very difficult circumstances. This is a consideration which is too frequently forgotten. Constantinople was in a most critical state. Revolutions were impending which afterwards occurred, and incidents were threatening which might have been more serious than those revolutions. The mind of Sir Henry Elliot must have been on the strain during the whole of that time, and I have not the slightest doubt that any one placed in the same position would have acted in the same way. Sir Henry Elliot has a thorough knowledge of Constantinople and the Turks of that city—few men have greater—he was deficient in information as to the Provinces in which these atrocities occurred. That I attributed, and do attribute, to the Consular Service not having been adequate to the occasion, and that it had been improvidently reduced. The noble Earl mistakes me if he supposes that I made any charge against his Government in respect of that reduc- 802 tion. Quite the reverse. I did not at the moment clearly remember under what Government it was the Consular Service in Turkey had been reduced. Called on unexpectedly to address myself to the point, I rather thought that the reduction had been made by the Government of which I was a Member. But that matters little—whether it was by a Conservative Government or a Liberal Government—because the reduction had been made on the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons, and no Minister would treat the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons on public expenditure but with the highest respect. Therefore, there was no desire on my part to attribute to the noble Earl or the Government of which he was a Member the ill consequences, as I believe, of the reduction in the Consular Service. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) says I stated that the Consular Service had been reduced in that particular part of Turkey where those atrocities were perpetrated. I am not aware that I did so, but I do not dispute it. I never question the accuracy of a report—though I never saw one that was accurate—because I know well that if we were to be entering into controversies as to the accuracy of reports it would be impossible ever to come to a conclusion on any human affair. Therefore I do not dispute it, though I do not remember it. Now, my Lords, I do not know any instance in which the Consular Service was reduced in the immediate scene of the atrocities; but there has been a great reduction of the Consular Service in Turkey. The first Committee on the Consular Service sat in 1858, and it made many recommendations which were carried into effect. Your Lordships will find that in consequence of those recommendations six Consuls or Consular Agents were abolished in Turkey. In 1874 the Consulate at Janina, an important place, was abolished, and there was a reduction in the important post referred to by the noble Earl at Monastir, in Macedonia. There have also been reductions of Consuls to Vice Consuls. I do not wish at all to intimate that because a man is a Vice Consul only ho may not be a very experienced servant of the Crown. I know there are many cases in which they have displayed much ability; but in most cases reductions 803 such as those must impair the efficiency of the particular service.
§ EARL GRANVILLEWill the noble Earl state the instances in which the Consulates have been reduced to Vice Consulates?
§ THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDI have no Papers here, but I shall have no difficulty in giving the names to the noble Earl. But what I allude to is not a solitary instance. It was the remembrance of those circumstances, and speaking, as I must impress upon your Lordships, casually and to a point which I had not expected to have been raised in the debate, which induced me to make the observations I did on Tuesday night. These localities to which the noble Earl has adverted have been and may again become scenes of great interest. They may become scenes of war, or they may become scenes of peace; but in either event they must attract constant attention. I trust they will be scenes of peace; for I do not yet despair of the common-sense of the Porte, and I have much confidence in the wise unanimity of the Great Powers; but whether they be the scenes of peace or the scenes of war, no doubt they will attract and even absorb the attention of the nation, and therefore I am sure your Lordships will hear with satisfaction that the whole subject of the Consular Agents in this part of the world has been for some time under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, who intend to make a proposal to Parliament which, whether by changes or modifications, will we hope lead to considerable improvement in that service, and do away with those causes which, in our opinion, now impair its efficiency. I will now say a word in reply to the Question addressed to me by the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) on the subject of Bulgarian atrocities. I spoke from memory; but, speaking from memory, I cannot see any substantial difference between what I stated and the facts. The facts stated by the noble Earl do not seem to be so exact as he described them to be. What happened with regard to the Berlin Memorandum? The Berlin Memorandum was communicated on the 13th of May. The first Bulgarian outrage occurred on the 1st of May; and every day was more or less signalized by excesses. If, then, the 1st of May saw the commencement of 804 those outrages, I was not particularly unfounded in my expression when I said that those incidents occurred a fortnight before the delivery of the Berlin Note. The noble Earl referred to the case of Batak. These excesses were not known to Parliament when its attention was first called to the subject. The horrible scene that took place at Batak was not the cause of the indignation which was expressed so unmistakeably in Parliament, and especially in the House of Commons. The outrages and massacres which occasioned that great ebullition of feeling in the House of Commons were those that took place in the early part of May, and Batak, which exceeds them all in horrors and infamy, was absolutely discovered by Mr. Baring on his mission. It had not been reported by the American Missionaries or by Mr. Schuyler himself, who took such an active part in sending information to this country. Though it was undoubtedly one of the most terrible of all the scenes that occurred in Bulgaria, it was not discovered till Mr. Baring's subsequent investigations into those atrocities. When you find that the three Imperial Courts, two of which were intimately connected with that part of the world and had extensive commercial relations with it—when you find that, sitting in council on the 13th, they were not aware of massacres commenced on the 1st of May, it is a proof that however ill-informed the English Government was it was no worse off than the others. It had not the advantage of the two Imperial Courts either from its commercial relations or the presence among its subjects of those who took a very active part in these transactions: is it surprising then that the English Government should have been so ill-informed, when neither the Prussian nor Austrian Governments appeared to be cognizant of these transactions? I have endeavoured to place before you—I trust with the utmost candour—what my views are upon the subject. The spirit of my observations, as I think entirely indicated, was that there has been a large and unwise reduction of the Consular Service in Turkey, and that, though the British Government was imperfectly informed of what occurred in Bulgaria, those who had the greater advantages of position and circumstances were not better instructed.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYobserved that the noble Earl seemed to some extent to have misapprehended his Question. He had asked for an explanation of an apparent inconsistency in the noble Earl's statement that no allusion was made to these atrocities in the Berlin Memorandum, although all of them had been perpetrated a fortnight or three weeks before it was drawn up. The noble Earl's answer only showed that one of them had been committed 12 days before the presentation of that document.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, perhaps as reference has been made to the debate which took place in this House two days ago, I may be allowed—though the noble Duke who opened that discussion (the Duke of Argyll) is not now in his place—to take this opportunity of answering a Question which he then put to me, and to which I was not then able to give him a reply. Your Lordships will remember that I promised to answer him as soon as I had an opportunity of ascertaining accurately what had passed. The noble Duke expressed a curiosity, which, under the circumstances, was not unnatural, to know what was the nature of the communication referred to but not included in the Blue Book, which had been made by me towards the end of December to the Turkish Government, and which had led to a very warm expression of gratitude on the part of that Government. The noble Duke appeared to think that it must have had some reference to the proceedings of the Conference—and, I am bound to say, that was not an unreasonable suggestion. I have been able to refresh my memory upon the subject. I have also communicated with the Turkish Ambassador here, and I find that my recollection of what occurred at the time was quite accurate—namely, that this communication to which so much reference has been made, was one of no political significance whatever. It was simply a verbal expression of congratulation addressed to the Turkish Ambassador here, upon the receipt through him of official information of the accession to office of Midhat Pasha, the new Grand Vizier. It was a complimentary expression of congratulation, such as your Lordships know is not unusual on such an occasion; and on this particular occasion there was 806 I a peculiar fitness in it, for whatever has been the result, there was, no doubt, a very general belief that Midhat Pasha was a man who, on his accession to power, would carry out the reforms which had been promised. The communication was verbal, and there was no reference in it to any proceedings at the Conference, or to any political business whatever. It was simply a message of courtesy and compliment, and the expression of a hope that the new Grand Vizier would carry into effect that policy which we all desired to see. So much was it the case that no political significance was attached by me to that communication that I did not keep any record of it; and if I do not produce the document which the noble Duke asks for, it is for the most conclusive of reasons, that no such document is in existence.
§ EARL GRANVILLEIn the absence of the noble Duke, I may be permitted to thank the noble Earl for his courtesy in answering the Question, and to say that, in my opinion, his answer would have been satisfactory to the noble Duke had he been present. At the same time, I think it was a very natural thing for him to put the Question, seeing that the telegram had been referred to in another conversation given in the Blue Book.