§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, "Whether he has received 1093 any information as to a Note said to have been presented by Prince Labanoff to the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Constantinople, commenting on the Report made by the Grand Vizier to the Sultan of the result of his inquiries into the complaints of the Christian subjects of the Porte; whether that Note has received the support of the French Minister; and whether the subject of that Note, and the demands it contains, are to be brought under the notice of the Conference at Paris? He did not desire to detain the House long upon the subject of his notice, but it involved a question of so much importance that he hoped he might be allowed to make a few I remarks. His hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson) had put upon the paper a notice in respect to a kindred subject, and he would rather have followed his hon. Friend, as no one was better qualified than he was to address the House on the subject. But as that was; not possible according to the rules of the House, he would put the question of which he had given notice to the noble Lord. Before referring, however, to the circumstances that had made it desirable to give this notice, he would venture to call to the memory of the House and of the noble Lord an incident of great gravity that occurred not long ago, but which, in his opinion, threw no dubious light on the policy of certain foreign Governments. Shortly before the present Government came into office an announcement appeared in the public journals, both of this and foreign countries, to the effect that an alliance offensive and defensive had been entered into between the Governments of France and Russia. The importance of this announcement could not be overrated, and such was its gravity felt to be that the funds of this country fell in one day not less than 5 per cent. It was considered by the Government then in power to be their duty to ask for some information with reference to such an announcement from the Government of Russia. The reply of Prince Gortschakoff to the inquiries made produced a great effect at the time, and attracted the particular notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle. The reply was, that he would not deny that there might be an understanding between the Governments of France and Russia, but all he would undertake to say was, that that understanding contained nothing hostile to the interests of England. He should not have recalled that incident 1094 had it not in his mind an important bearing on what since had occurred with respect to Turkish affairs. In the early part of last year he had felt it his duty to call the attention of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to a circular addressed by Prince Gortschakoff to the representatives of Russia at the various Courts of Europe. That circular declared that from information possessed by the Russian Government, it appeared that the condition of the Christian population of the European provinces of Turkey was so deplorable, and that they suffered under oppressions so grievous, that it became the duty of the European Powers to interfere; and collectively to call upon the Porte to fulfil the promises obtained after the Crimean war, and from which it had up to that time grossly departed. The importance of that circular could not be overestimated, because it was clear that the Court of Russia still persisted in that policy which had for years exorcised such a disturbing effect on Europe, that it was still desirous of putting itself forward as the protector of the Christians in the European provinces of Turkey; and that, notwithstanding the result of the Crimean war, it still pursued what had been its constant policy of interfering actively in the internal affairs of Turkey. The noble Lord did not conceal from the House his sense of the important character of that circular, and he insisted in his remarks on the importance of maintaining the prestige of the Sultan's authority, which he said was menaced by the circular in question. The noble Lord added that, so far as he could learn, the statements of the Russian circular were not accurate; that the Christian subjects of the European provinces of Turkey were not suffering under any exceptional system of oppression; and that, although defects existed in the Turkish system of government, there was no reason for thinking that the condition of the Christian population was such as to call for European interference. The noble Lord applauded the resolution of the Turkish Government to issue a Commission to inquire into the subject. At the head of that Commission was the Grand Vizier, who made a tour through these provinces, and himself inquired into the condition of the Christian population. He satisfied himself that the representations made by the Russian Government were not founded in fact, and the information since received by the noble Lord confirmed the representations of the Grand Vizier. He must now pass 1095 from this subject in order to point out how the interference on the part of Russia with the Christian population of Turkey naturally led to discontent and disorder in those provinces. Contemporaneously with the publication of the Russian circular Achmet Pasha was Governor of Damascus and the representative of the Sultan there. He felt it his duty to represent to the Government of the Sultan at Constantinople that, owing to the interference and intrigues of foreign emissaries, so much irritation and uneasy feeling had been caused that it was impossible for him to become responsible for the maintenance of the public peace. He represented that his force was so feeble that, if disorders did occur, it would be impossible to interfere by force of arms, and that if he were unsuccessful the authority of the Sultan would not only be disturbed in the districts of Syria, but also that the prestige of the Sultan's name and authority would be greatly compromised elsewhere. Shortly afterwards, it was announced by the Turkish Government to Achmet Pacha, that in consequence of the circular of Prince Gortschakoff, the tendency to discontent and irritation had so much increased among the European provinces of Turkey, that it was impossible to spare him any reinforcements. Achmet Pacha sent in his resignation, which was accepted, and, at the time of the outbreak of the disturbances, he only held office until the arrival of his successor. He wished the noble Lord to observe, that the very first effect of the interference of Prince Gortschakoff by means of this circular, to which he had called the noble Lord's attention last year, was this—that it rendered it impossible for the Sultan to support his officer even where his authority was menaced; and, therefore, led in no ambiguous degree to the disturbances that had since occurred. At the present time the position of affairs was somewhat altered. For some time the attention of those who were interested in Turkish affairs had been drawn to the approaching termination of the French occupation in Syria. He had already expressed his opinion with respect to that occupation. He believed that by its continuance not only was the peace of Syria endangered, but that a hostile spirit was rapidly growing up between the various sects and creeds in those countries, the result of which it was impossible to foresee. The fanaticism caused by the presence of the French troops would provoke fanaticism on the 1096 other side, violence would be met by violence, and it would be impossible to tell where these troubles would stop. Prom Syria they might spread to Arabia and to further countries in the East, and even to India. The question was, whether a prolongation of the French occupation in Syria were necessary? The Turkish Government denied its necessity, and alleged that they were ready to make themselves responsible for the preservation of the peace in Syria; and, where able, to protect the Christian population. At that very moment, when it would be supposed that the interest of every European power was to support the prestige of the Sultan's name to the very utmost of its authority, the Minister of Russia again came forward with a proposition which the noble Lord himself had described last year as materially interfering with the authority of the Sultan. He impugned the veracity and even the honesty of his highest officer, and at the very moment when it was important that the Sultan's power should be supported the representative of the Russian Government did his best to sap and undermine that authority. Nothing could be further from his object than to say one word which would add to the embarrassment of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary; he understood and appreciated the difficulty of his position, and delicacy of the case with which he had to deal. He did not wish to raise a discussion on the general question of the occupation; his object was to strengthen the hands of the noble Lord to the utmost, and to urge the necessity of maintaining that course of policy which had been so long advocated by the noble Lord at the head of the Government—namely, that of supporting to the utmost the independence of the Turkish Government at this time. In the most earnest words at his command he would impress upon the noble Lord that by no vacillation at the approaching Conference, by no concessions against his better judgment, should he consent for one moment to the adoption of any steps on the part of the Governments of France and Russia which should promote, in the smallest degree, that policy which he honestly believed they were at that moment endeavouring to carry out. On that account it was that he desired to put the Question of which he had given notice. He wished to say a few words on another subject before he sat down. When the attention of the noble Lord was called the 1097 other night to the case of the unfortunate men who had been lately tried and condemned for their alleged participation in the outrages in Syria, he (Mr. FitzGerald) thought the noble Lord had not given the House satisfactory assurances, and he entreated the noble Lord, in the interests of humanity and justice, to take more decisive steps in their behalf than he seemed up to that moment to have adopted. It was notorious that from the beginning to the end of the outbreak one of them—Said Bey—had done his very utmost to maintain tranquillity, and that hundreds of Christians owed their lives to him. He was tried and on certain evidence condemned to death. On a reperusal of the evidence it was held to be insufficient to justify his sentence, and he was a second time put upon his trial. He was again sentenced to death, yet after that second trial the evidence was not considered sufficient to justify his conviction. The House would scarcely believe that that unfortunate man was at present undergoing a third trial, and he had no doubt that if the British Commissioner retired from Syria that person, who had done so much to protect the Christian subjects of the Porte, would be ruthlessly condemned. In the name of humanity and justice he appealed to the noble Lord to take some prompt steps in this matter, more efficient than those indicated the other night. With respect to the other wider and more important question which he had put, he had already said that he did not desire for one moment to embarrass the noble Lord. All that he urged the noble Lord to do was steadily and earnestly to pursue that policy which so distinguished the present Prime Minister when at the Foreign Office, and he was convinced that the only means of maintaining peace was by arresting, at the very outset, those intrigues which he believed were going on at present against the independence of Turkey.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Whether, in the event of the French occupation being prolonged beyond the period fixed by the Convention of July, 1860, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to act upon the right reserved to the other Powers by that Convention of uniting bodies of their troops with those of France in the occupation; and whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of further information upon the subject, which it will be consistent with the 1098 interests of the Public Service to communicate to the House? He hoped the House would not charge him with presumption in again calling its attention to a subject on which he had felt it his duty more than once to address it, but that it would show that tolerance to him on this occasion which it never failed to exhibit towards those who addressed it upon questions of great moment, when they were actuated by sincere convictions. The question was one of great and pressing importance, and he bogged to remark that, if the influence of Parliament was to be brought to bear upon it at all, it should be exercised at once and without any delay. The question of the prolongation of the occupation of Syria by France was one which would probably be decided very shortly, if it had not been already decided. The House would recollect that a short time since the country was startled by a rumour that France was preparing to annex certain provinces belonging to her neighbour, questions were asked in that House with a view of ascertaining what information the Government had received in reference to the matter. The Government, in the first place, expressed their ignorance of any such intentions on the part of the French Government, and afterwards deprecated any remonstrances or discussion upon the subject. No discussion consequently took place on the matter, and before Parliament became possessed of accurate information the time had passed by for interference—the annexation of Savoy and Nice had taken place, and the frontiers of Switzerland were destroyed. Now, although the responsibility attaching to Members of that House was such as to induce them to abstain from irritating discussions, or from interfering with the free action of the Government, yet it was equally the duty of Members not to suffer the influence which Parliament had ever exercised on the affairs of the world to be silent upon a matter such as he was about to draw attention to. When the Convention that sat in Paris last summer arranged that an armed occupation of Syria by France should take place, it was stated that that occupation would be only for a limited period. He thought that this country had looked with some jealousy upon that occupation, as an infraction of the principle of that treaty for the support of which so much money and so much blood had been expended. It was, however, hoped that the Government would take every step to prevent that occupation 1099 being prolonged. Nevertheless the French press were allowed to advocate the prolongation of the occupation, and the projected adulatory address of the French Senate to the Emperor claimed it as a right for France to protect distressed nationalities, and praised the Emperor's policy in avenging the slaughter of their fellow-Christians. It was evident that unless the other Powers of Europe interfered the occupation of Syria would be prolonged. If so, no one could fortell when it would cease. It behoved them, therefore, at such a crisis of affairs to express themselves in language becoming that House, and to urge upon the Government the duty of interfering to prevent this country from being, by as grave a departure from a just policy as led to the Russian war, again drifted into a conflict, the consequences of which might be more serious than any the world ever saw. It was by vigorous action adopted in time that such evils were prevented. He would beg the House to bear with him while he gave a slight sketch of the circumstances preceding the recent outbreak, as up to the present time they had not looked into the origin of those disasters. It was not because the intrigues which had been going on had not been mentioned that they had been overlooked. For a long time Syria had been exposed more than any other part of the world to the interference of foreigners. A multiplicity of races and religions combined to produce anarchy and discontent. The races differing in their superstitions which occupied the Lebanon had never become united; but from generation to generation they had been engaged in bloody strife. It was most unfortunate that a country so divided should be placed under the authority of a minister so incapable as that of the Turkish Government. It was to be regretted that the weakness of that Government had been taken advantage of by the other Powers to gratify their personal ambition, and to promote their intrigues. The Russian war commenced by the interference of Russia and Turkey in Syria. It was not the sudden incursions of the Druses and Maronites that produced those massacres, as was evident from the contents of the despatches which had been received on the subject. The Foreign Office must have been aware that when the massacre of Jedda broke out there was a feeling of animosity brooding over the whole of the East. The mutiny of 1100 the Indian army was connected with the massacre of Jedda. There was a massacre at Aleppo, and at another place. And as it appeared by a despatch received at the Foreign Office it was at that time hourly expected that there would be a fanatic outbreak in the shape of an attack by the Mussulmans on the Christians. That impression was increased by the fall of Delhi. But by the vigorous action of the Government of that day in punishing the leaders in the massacre of Jedda those additional horrors were averted. The letters which he had received from that part of the world expressed gratitude to our Government for having saved the people there from the murder and rapine with which they had been threatened. The energy of our Government had the effect of changing the demeanour of the aggressors from insolence and brutality to that of politeness to the Christians, and subserviency to the European inhabitants of that part of the world. Amongst the Christian population were persons who were possessed of considerable wealth. Documents were in existence to prove that intrigues were fomented in which the Maronite bishops were mixed up—the people were, in fact, entreated to rise up against their superiors. Arms were said to have been forwarded from Beyrout to the extent of 200,000 weapons. He had himself seen a despatch from our consul at Jerusalem, in which he stated that not less than 30,000 weapons had been sent from Jerusalem alone. It was further stated that the Bishop of Sidon was concerned in those matters. That Bishop had been educated in France, and was subsequently introduced into Beyrout by the Consul General of France. At that place he had been for years the active promoter of French intrigue, and his exertions in that respect were rewarded by the gift of a silver sword. He (Sir James Fergusson) was informed by a gentleman of the highest honour and veracity that the vigilance of the Turkish army officials had been eluded by a gross trick. A quantity of arms had been conveyed in coffins, over which the priests had actually read a religious service, in order to carry out the deception. Whilst he (Sir James Fergusson) was there, a civil war took place, which resulted in the feudal lords being driven out of the country. That temporary outbreak ended, the country continued in so bad a state that a fresh outbreak was expected. The conviction in that country, which had never wavered, was that French 1101 agency was actively at work stirring up the Maronites to a sense of their dependence upon Prance, and to an expectation that if they rose upon the Druses their acts would be commended. Finally, last year that contest broke out which had led to such disastrous results. He would not dwell on that subject longer than to show how unjust were proceedings founded upon the idea that the Druses were alone in fault. The noble Lord stated that attacks had been made by the Druses upon the Maronites, and by the Maronites upon the Druses. He did not want to palliate those atrocities. All he said was, it should not be assumed that all the injustice of the case lay with the one side alone. Mr. Grant, in his despatch from Damascus, said that for some time previously in every part of the mountains there were going on preparations for war; and there was in existence a letter addressed to a Maronite bishop, which showed that a plan had been concerted for the destruction of the Druses, and that the war which took place was as much the work of the Maronites as of their opponents. He believed, however, that if the British Government had stationed a small force on the coast no outbreak would have occurred. Much of the evil which had happened was owing to the defective character of the Turkish system of administration. Of late years there had been a succession in Syria of weak and sometimes culpable governors. The troops, moreover, behaved very ill in Damascus and the places of the Lebanon. His hon. Friend the Member for Horsham had stated that the Governor of Damascus was not so culpable as he was alleged to be, inasmuch as he had only a force of 400 men at his command to keep order in a city of more than 10,000 inhabitants. A few years since a conscription was ordered in Syria, and particularly in Damascus. It appeared there was a difficulty in obtaining the proper number of troops, and a peremptory order was issued that the prisons should be opened. That order was acted upon, and all the scoundrels that had been confined in them were drafted into regiments. These men, by a counter order, were brought to Damascus. They were quartered in the towns where the massacres took place, and accompanied the troops in the atrocities that took place after the Druses were victorious over the Maronites. One of the officers against whom the gravest suspicion existed at Baalbec only saved his own life by assist- 1102 ing in the conviction of his superior officer. Again, he was prepared to show that the most scandalous influence was used by the French authorities in all these affairs. Immediately after the signing of the Convention of Paris last summer the French troops sailed to the East—so immediately afterwards, indeed, that preparations for their departure must have been made long before the consent of the European Powers had been obtained. Those preparations were of a very extensive character, out of proportion to the number of troops sent; while the troops themselves were in excess of the 6,000 for which permission was given by the other European Powers. They exceeded the proper number by about 1,500 in the first instance, and reinforcements had since gone to Beyrout. At present the French force in Syria consisted of upwards of 8,000 men—the very flower of the army. It was remarkable that they were told in 1859 that the French army which was sent to Italy was intended for Cochin China. In the same way the army which was sent out last year by France to Syria was said to have been intended as a reinforcement of the army in China. Before their arrival peace had been signed between the Maronites and the Druses; the country had tranquillized itself, and the best policy would have been to let it alone. By the vigorous action of the Turkish Pacha at Damascus, a number of the guilty had been brought to justice, and the pacha was proceeding as rapidly as possible to punish the remainder. Had the French remained at Beyrout to support the Turks, as they were expected to do, they would doubtless have afforded material assistance to the Turkish Government in chastizing the authors of the disturbances; but they advanced into the interior of the country as soon as they could, and their passage through the mountains of the Lebanon was marked by pillage, murders, and atrocities of every kind, committed by the Maronite mob who followed them, and revenged themselves under their protection. He was afraid, moreover, that in many instances the French soldiers were far from being free from blame with respect to some of the vilest atrocities that were perpetrated. The accounts which he had received of the manner in which the French troops had conducted themselves included a number of cases—not doubtful, but well authenticated, guaranteed by British gentlemen, with the names and dates all given 1103 with perfect accuracy, which might well stain with disgrace the force under whose auspices they occurred. Out of more than 100 persons who were murdered he would mention a few examples of the barbarities committed. At a little village occupied by the French six individuals, some very young, others very aged, had their throats cut. At another place a child of not more than six years of age, was torn asunder by a man, who was named. At the same place several children, from two to six years of age, were strangled or had their throats cut. These atrocities were committed on the 27th and the 28th of September. At another place, within a short distance of where the French General was sitting at breakfast, a man was barbarously murdered. At another place, near the French head-quarters, a Druse woman was stoned by boys until she fell, and was then beheaded with a sword taken from a French soldier by a Maronite woman who had been cohabiting with the Zouave immediately before. An Englishman standing by told him (Sir James Fergusson) of this fact, and that the woman when first assailed had applied to the French for protection and was refused. In another place a bedridden man was dragged out of his house with many wounds in his body, and when he was found by his (Sir James Fergusson's) informant a ploughshare was sticking in his throat. These were the acts of the Maronites, and many of them took place under the eyes of the French soldiery, who made, no efforts to interfere. Such instances as those would, he was sure, plead his excuse for detaining the House. In addition the Maronites were everywhere allowed to uproot the mulberry trees, destroy the villages, and carry off the property of the unfortunate Druses. Moreover, the French exactions, imposed as indemnity for the Maronites, far exceeded anything that the Druses possessed, suffering as they were under a deficient harvest. In some instances these exactions were enforced by French soldiers; while in many others acts of cruelty were only prevented by the interference of the British Commissioner, who had, by his justice and impartiality, earned the honour and respect of every honest man in Syria. The noble Lord said last year that nothing could be more unfortunate than that anything could be done which should destroy or weaken the independence of Turkey; but the conduct of the French commander 1104 towards the Turkish troops was likely to produce precisely the effect which the noble Lord deprecated. Not only had he insulted the Government of the Sultan in every way, but he had so acted as to compel the Turkish General, Ismail Pacha, one of the European officers who fortified and defended Ears, to resign his command in disgust. Again and again had the French troops been quartered upon ground already occupied by the Turkish soldiers, and in one instance the French, in defiance of the guards, pillaged a village which was occupied by the Turks. These and other circumstances had compelled General Kmety to retire from his command. The tone adopted by the Druses presented so marked a contrast to the desire of the Maronites for the wholesale slaughter of their enemies that he must beg permission to read a few words of a petition from the former people which had appeared in the newspapers, and which had been forwarded to him from Beyrout. After stating that the two nations—the Druses and Maronites—had long lived together, some times in peace, and at others at war, the petition went on:—
At all times, great as is the calamity of war, it is one which happens here below among God's creatures. Even as it has broken out at different times between the great and small Powers of civilized Europe, so, in the course of past times, it has taken place more than once between the two nations of the Druses and the Christians. Each war has been followed by a renewal of peace, of alliance, and of friendship, as will be again the case, we hope, after the late hostilities; for in all the wars which have taken place in the world, no one has ever sought to confound those who have bravely fought as men and soldiers with the criminals who have assassinated or who have acted as brigands. The first are considered as worthy of honour, because of their courage; the latter are deemed worthy of punishment, because of their crimes. In like manner, no one confounds peaceable people, who have not even taken part in the war, with those who have acted either in one category or the other. Thus, one portion of your slaves have taken no part in the last war, and the rest have fought honourably for the defence of their persons, their families, and their hearths.The criminality, however, was to be fixed upon the Druse chiefs, and, accordingly, a trial took place at Beyrout. These chiefs, he must observe, voluntarily gave themselves up, and went to Beyrout under an assurance from the British Consul General that they should have a fair trial. What sort of a trial they had received he would give the House some little idea. He had seen two gentlemen who were present at 1105 the trial, and one of them, Mr. Bourke, told him that this was the manner in which the proceedings were conducted:—If evidence was inconclusive to convict, if it reflected on the Turkish officials, if it was not expressed in language adequately strong, the witness was withdrawn, conversed with, and made to understand that which was required of him, and in some instances had stated diametrically opposite to his original testimony. At Said Bey's trial the prisoner had no assistance; the evidence against him was given in his absence, though he was allowed to peruse it afterwards. The Court was violent against him, and if he cross-examined the answers were omitted or altered. Evidence tending to innocence was omitted. Upon the last case mentioned here he must say one word. It would be a lasting disgrace to this country if the head of Said Bey fell. The despatches which had been laid upon the table showed that his sister had protected 400 or 500 Christians from massacre; before the disturbances broke out he warned the consuls at Beyrout of what was to be expected, and implored that active measures might be taken to prevent them. No man had stronger motives for desiring peace than he did; a rich landed proprietor, he had nothing to gain but everything to lose by violence. Seeing that the testimony against him was, as he was assured, perjured; that Christians who wished to give evidence in his favour had been beaten and ill-used, and that, contrary to all principles of justice, he had, under the eyes of the European commission been placed upon his trial three times at the dictation of the French officers, he said that it was incumbent upon this country, unless it would be shamed before the nations of the East, to interfere for Said Bey's protection. What must decide as to whether the occupation by the French troops should be prolonged was, did the aspect of the country justify their withdrawal? He believed that every day the French troops remained in Syria the prospect of its ultimate pacification became less. Their avowed predilection for the Maronites, their refusal to recognize criminality on any but one side, and their disregard for the principles of justice could not produce other than injurious consequences. The view which their generals took of their mission was very different from that entertained in regard to it by our Government; we were responsible for their deeds, because we were re- 1106 presented by them, and if their stay in Syria was to be prolonged we ought to have troops of our own side by side with them, in order that if we had a common responsibility we might at least be the guardians of our own honour. We had no military commissioner with the French army; our Government had no official connection with that army, nor had the commission which sat at Beyrout, and of which Lord Dufferin was a member, any control over it. The French commander received instructions different from those which were given to the French commissioner at Beyrout; and how, under those circumstances, could we take care that we were not disgraced by an army which acted in our name? If there was danger in weakening Turkey—if Turkey as had been alleged, when interfered with would only break into fragments, how could it be strengthened by insulting the Turkish functionaries, by preventing the Turkish soldiers from pacifying the country, and by committing in the name of justice atrocities which were a disgrace to humanity?
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, that he hoped the House would kindly extend to him its indulgence while he addressed a few words, to it on the subject. He would in the outset say, that there was so much of the foreign policy of the Government which he believed really represented the feeling of a large majority of the English people that he should be sorry to say anything which might lead them to think that he differed from them with reference to that policy. Moreover, with regard to Turkey, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had always pursued a wise and consistent policy, and one in accordance with English interests, and he, therefore, trusted that he should not be misunderstood in the remarks which he was about to make. The subject, however, was one of such enormous importance that the House ought not to be silent upon it, and he should therefore express himself with frankness in regard to it. He must say that he looked upon the Convention and upon the occupation of Syria as a most disastrous occurrence. He believed it to be disastrous on account of the principles and precedents which it had established; he believed it to be disastrous in the results which it had already produced; and he believed that it would be disastrous in the results which were likely to follow. What were the principles and precedents to which he had referred? The representatives of the 1107 great Powers met at Paris and laid down the principle that they could interfere in the affairs of a foreign State, and not only interfere, but occupy a portion of that State with an army. He might be told—and from the observation of the noble Lord (the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) he apprehended that that would be the answer—that Turkey was a consenting party. It appeared to him that the consent given by the Turk came under Dr. Johnson's definition of a congé d'elire—throwing a man out of a three pair of stairs' window and recommending him to fall soft. It was true the Turk had been to a certain extent a consenting party to the Convention, but he should like to know whether he had not been forced into being a consenting party. He was well acquainted with the eminent Turkish statesman now representing the Ottoman Porte at Paris, and with the opinions which he entertained, and he knew that he, for one, would never freely consent to see his country occupied by a foreign army. Would they have pursued the same policy with regard to a Power not in the same position as Turkey? If so, why did they not go into Austria and occupy Venetia, where he hesitated not to say there existed more cruelty, oppression, and injustice than in any part of Turkey? But mark what a principle the action taken in pursuance of this convention would establish. If one country could interfere in the internal affairs of another, and could occupy that country with its army, why might not another Power be at liberty to do the same? There was a report that Count Orloff had gone to Constantinople—might it not be to act the part of another Menschikoff? For a long time the thunder had been rolling on the Danube; accounts of intrigues had been received, massacres had been reported which had never taken place, and exaggerated accounts had been forwarded of facts in themselves of small importance. What did all this foretell? There was another Power, which might, and which could with great ease bring about disturbances and massacres in portions of the Turkish dominions; and would she not at once say that she had a right to send an army to keep down the outbreaks which the Sultan himself was unable to repress. Bulgaria had a mixed population, and he undertook to say that the agents of Russia could in a very few days get up a movement there. What would be the consequence? Why, Russia 1108 would apply to England—as she would have a right to do—and say, "France occupied Syria to put down disturbances, I will now occupy Bulgaria with the same object, and I have a greater right to do so, because Bulgaria is nearer to my frontiers than Syria is to France." Persons expressed surprise at the facility with which Russia consented to the occupation of Syria, but it had never surprised him. On the contrary, it was what he had expected. Russia had no interest in Syria; but she had a strong interest in Bulgaria, and would justify the occupation of it on precisely the same grounds. But in Asia there were also mixed populations. In Armenia there were both a Christian and a Mussulman population; the Patriarch of Armenia at this moment was a Russian subject, and Russia could get up a movement there any day. The result would be, that in a short time they would have a Russian army in Bulgaria, a French army in Syria, and another Russian army in Armenia; and the very thing for which England went to war some years ago, and for which she spent so much blood and treasure, would be filched from her. The plain and simple course when the Convention was proposed would have been to call on Turkey to put down the insurrectionary movement in Syria. She knew at the time that she could put it down. She stated that she could do so, and she proved her ability to do so; because, as they had heard that night, before a French soldier put his foot on the soil of Syria the disturbances had ceased, the massacres were at an end, and a reconciliation had taken place between the Druses and Maronites. He did not blame the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary for the course which he had taken; he had acted under pressure, and he trusted he would be able to show the House that he had protested against the occupation of Syria. But the policy of intervention, whether regarded in its present effects or in its future aspect, was equally disastrous. One element to be eliminated from the discussion was, that portion of the inhabitants of Damascus and other cities, an idle and vagabond population, which professing to act from religious feeling, but more probably animated by motives of plunder, had murdered Christians and sacked houses. He did not care how severely they were dealt with, or how many of them were punished; but the quarrel between the Maronites and Druses stood on a very different foot- 1109 ing. A long series of feuds existed between them which broke out last year, as they knew, with deplorable results. In paliation of these he would not say one word; they all remembered too well the heartrending accounts which reached this country. But it had been asked again and again who were the cause of the outbreak? The document read by the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson), which was published at the time, showed beyond question with whom the strife originated. In that and other documents the Maronite bishops called upon their flocks to spare neither man, woman, nor child, but to exterminate the whole Druse race. He knew from the best authority that when that proclamation was given to the French papers the French Government refused to allow it to be inserted, although the proclamation was perfectly genuine. These announcements heralded a terrible massacre; but for that the Maronites were the responsible parties, and it was now known that the Druse chiefs expressed their readiness to treat on any terms which might be recommended by the consul, and even to give hostages to the Christians to avoid going to war. What had subsequently taken place? The French, under the Convention, sent an army to Syria. With what object did they go there? It was stated that they went there for the purpose of maintaining the cause of Christianity and of humanity. Was it the way to maintain Christianity to be guilty of most atrocious acts of injustice? If so, then he would say, shame on such Christianity! The statements they had heard from the hon. Gentleman opposite he hoped were not true; at all events they seemed to require some explanation. But they had another remarkable statement, from the highest authority, in "another place," no less a person than the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The words of the noble Lord seemed rather doubtful, but they read as if under the sanction, or at any rate with the cognisance of the French army, 150 unoffending Druses had been put to death, among them being 25 women and 86 children. If that were true, and if the French had sanctioned the destruction of the Druse people by the Maronites, then it ought to be distinctly stated that we had no part in such deeds, that English honour was clear, and that our Christian sympathy was better than that. It was now twenty-two years since he first went to Mount Leba- 1110 non. At that time the magnificent slope was covered by the most industrious, peaceable, contented, and happy population he had ever seen; every square inch of ground was cultivated like a garden, and where the rock pierced out from the bosom of the mountain, earth had been brought from a great distance and with extreme toil to form a little patch of cultivation. Never had he seen anything to be compared to it. Every traveller who visited the place was lost in astonishment at the beauty of the scenery, and the wealth and tranquillity of its inhabitants. In other parts of Syria travellers met wild Arabs and encountered danger; caravans, too, were sometimes plundered. But in the Lebanon the greatest security existed; the traveller was received everywhere with welcome by a mixed population, at the head of whom was the old Emir Beshir, at whose palace all guests were welcome, and whose house was full of feudal retainers of both creeds, with their horses and arms. The old man's toleration was so great that even his orthodoxy was suspected, for, it was whispered, that whilst outwardly a Druse he kept in his private apartments a Catholic priest who performed for him the services of that faith. Compare with that picture the ruin, the desolation, burnt houses, destroyed villages, a scattered population in a starving state, and the old Emir Beshir murdered, and let it be asked to what causes these horrible results were attributable. To foreign ambition, foreign intrigues, foreign missionaries, foreign consuls, foreign intervention, and foreign protection. Wherever the same causes existed the same results would be found. He trusted that what they had heard of atrocities committed by French troops with the sanction of their officers would be denied.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONI beg to explain. I should be sorry that any misapprehension existed about so serious a matter. I did not intend to say that acts of violence were committed by French soldiers; but that on certain occasions they were present, and therefore I thought not free from blame.
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, he was glad the matter had been explained. But the hon. Member certainly did say that one of those occurrences took place within fifty yards of General D'Hautpoul's tent. He hoped these charges would be repudiated by the French nation; but it was of no use denying that the state of things which had existed for the last twenty years was mainly 1111 owing to French intrigues. France united herself with the Maronites; and eventually England, if she did not ostensibly unite herself with the Druses, no doubt came to be regarded by them as a friend and supporter, as against the French, who were the upholders of the Maronites. He knew to what extent this system had been carried in the East; and he wished the noble Lord the Minister for Foreign Affairs would lay before the House the Reports drawn up by Mr. Alison, a distinguished member of the Diplomatic Service, who had officially visited Syria on more than one occasion. Those Reports had been drawn up before the outbreak of the disturbances, and he ventured to say that anybody reading them must feel that, sooner or later, the massacre which had occurred would sure to take place as a necessary result of those intrigues.
He would next refer to the conduct of the Christians. He should be glad if the ideas entertained by many in England with regard to Christianity in the East were somewhat enlightened. The noble Lord had told the House with how many lives the Christians thought they could be satisfied; they had only required 4,000 out of an entire male population of 8,000, and when beaten down by a kind of Dutch auction, they put their very lowest demand at 1,200; and who was it that had made this request? Why Bishops—those Christian Bishops whom some people were benighted enough to imagine represented the primitive Church; and he had even heard of some deluded persons who had desired to put themselves under their ministry. Let them compare the conduct of the Christians with that of the Druses. He had the honour of being a member of the committee for the distribution of relief to the suffering persons in Syria; and he was glad to say that the committee was founded on most liberal principles. He joined it upon the ground—and would not have been tempted to do so on any other consideration—that the word "Christian" should be struck out of every document connected with it. Their principle was that relief should be given to all without distinction of person—Christians, Jews, Mahomedans—to whoever was suffering. They were a committee for the purposes of humanity, and not of politics. What was the result? The Christians in Syria for the most part, when they heard relief had arrived, left their work and came seeking for assistance; and he was informed, 1112 on good authority, that in many cases they had blankets and other objects given to them, which they went round the corner and sold, and then came back for more. He had received from a gentleman in Syria a letter of which he would read the following extract:—
The righteous Christians of Damascus are making a trade of the calamity. They give certificates of good offices rendered to Turks who shared in the massacre (who can pay), for a heavy sum, of course; and, on the other hand, they denounce Moslems to whom they owe money—the rope extinguishes the debt. The Russian Consul complains bitterly of a case of the first kind, where 200 signatures testified the innocence of a man who was concerned in the attack on his Consulate.What had the Druses done? The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir James Fergusson) had read their petition. It was a remarkable fact that, while the Christians came down in numbers to seek relief, not a single Druse did so. Noble men! With true fortitude they lived on bread made of acorns, and died one by one sooner than come in and ask for charity. Let the House contrast their conduct with that of the Christians. It was always so. A brave nation was always generous, and possessed of high qualities; and a cowardly nation, bloodthirsty. He believed that nothing could be more disgraceful than the conduct of the Christians in the mountains, and during the trial of those Druses. He was not advocating the cause of the Druses, but when such occurrences as had been described took place, it was the duty of hon. Members to examine matters fairly and impartially; and, viewing all the circumstances, he did not hesitate to assert that it would be to the infamy of this country if the execution of the Druses who had been condemned took place. The effects of the Convention had been disastrous, and so would be its results in future. Further intervention in the way provided by it should be renounced. The Turkish Government did not want a prolongation of the armed intervention in Syria. They might, perhaps, be got to consent to it. But had they not told the European Powers that they did not want it, and that they were able to keep down the disturbing parties in Syria without it? Yet, in opposition to that statement of the Turkish Government, the French were allowed to keep their troops there. What was the logical conclusion from that? Why that the five great Powers assembled in conclave could dispose of any part of the territory of a 1113 weak State. That conclusion was a most dangerous one; but it nevertheless logically followed from what was being done in the case of Syria. If the Turkish Government were able to take care of the country, they ought to be allowed to do so; but the French said, "If we leave Syria, the events of last year will again occur there." No doubt they would; but, who would make them occur? Who but the French themselves? Had they not got every bishop and priest in Syria under their thumb? Could they not to-morrow, if they left, get up a rebellion there? Of course they could, and then throw the responsibility on this country, because their troops had been withdrawn. How long was that state of things to continue? If the people were left to themselves a reconciliation would take place, and an end would be put to these feuds; but if occupation were countenanced when the French departed, of course, they would get up another disturbance in Syria; and, of course, that could not be the end of it. Whatever might be the opinion of the other Powers, England ought to act on one great principle—namely, that foreign occupation should cease. Turkey ought to be left to govern Syria if she could; and if she could not, those in the country itself, who could govern it, would do so. What we ought to do was—let them alone. He believed that if the French withdrew their troops, and the people were left to themselves, the Druses and Maronites would soon find out that their best plan was to make peace and to cultivate their lands again. Such a desirable state of things was impossible so long as the French troops were left in Syria, and the European Powers gave their sanction to the occupation. He repeated that the Convention was the most dangerous political measure that had been adopted in Europe for years. In conclusion, he wished to repeat that his observations were made in no spirit of hostility to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, or the Government. He made them in the hope that he would be supported by the House and the country when he asked the noble Lord, for the sake of peace, to use his influence to put an end, as early as possible, to this disastrous Convention.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLSir, I will endeavour, with respect to the very serious discussion that has arisen, to be as impartial as possible, because I feel it is of the utmost importance. I do not question the right of hon. Gentlemen to find fault, if 1114 they so think fit, with much that has taken place in Syria; but, on the other hand, we ought not to make charges against the Government or the army of a great nation with whom we are in alliance without the strongest proof and evidence that that which we impute to them is founded on truth. Now, Sir, I will in the first place reply to the observation of the hon. Member for Horsham, and then refer to what has taken place with regard to Syria. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. FitzGerald) asked me a question with respect to a note presented by Prince Labanoff to the Minister of Foreign Affairs at Constantinople; and he has referred correctly to what I stated last year with respect to occurrences which had taken place at St. Petersburg, and the proposition to the Turkish Government that there should be a joint commission. I was convinced that such a joint commission would impair the authority of the Turkish Government. I was more convinced of that by the answer of Prince Gortschakoff to our objections. He said that unless European Commissioners were present, the witnesses who were brought forward to prove abuses and crimes committed by the Turkish officials would be afraid to tell the truth; but, if that were so, it was obvious that the presence of the European Commissioners might be made to serve as a protection to Turkish witnesses when they came to tell falsehoods of their own Government in order to weaken its authority. The plan of an European Commission, as the hon. Gentleman knows, was relinquished. They have lately made a new proposal—I am not sure whether it is a note or not—that an inquiry should be instituted at Constantinople with the Grand Vizier or some other high officer of the Porte at its head; but that proposal has been rejected by the Turkish Government, and, I believe, has not been renewed. The Prussian Government have made another proposal—namely, that the reforms now in contemplation by the Grand Vizier should be communicated to the Foreign Ambassadors. In that proposal Sir Henry Bulwer, our Ambassador, concurred, and thought the step a desirable one. I agree with him that it would be very desirable; but of course it is not intended that those Foreign Ambassadors should do anything more than point out the way in which the proposed reforms might be effected, leaving it to the Turkish Government to adopt such suggestions, or reject them, as they might think fit. With 1115 regard to bringing the note to which the hon. Gentleman refers before the Conference at Paris, that is not necessary. It is founded on the Report made by the Grand Vizier to the Sultan. It states that that Report was founded on very defective information given to the Grand Vizier, and that many evils and abuses exist which were not brought to his knowledge; and it gives details in support of that allegation. But that is not a question for the Conference. It is a question for the Porte. "We have said at Constantinople that it was our desire that the Grand Vizier, or the Minister for Foreign Affairs, should make an answer to that note because the charges are very grave, and ought not to be passed over without some notice.
I come now to the affairs of Syria, and I am very sorry—speaking not only from official sources, but also from the reports of officers and other gentlemen who have travelled in the country—that I am obliged to concur in much of what the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire(Sir James Fergusson) has mentioned. It should be stated, in the first place, that by an arrangement made in 1842, and confirmed and enlarged in 1845, two separate authorities were set up in the Lebanon, to a great degree independent of the Turkish Governors of the provinces in Syria. One is a Christian, and is called the Christian Caimakan; the other, who is over that part particularly inhabited by Druses, is called the Druse Caimakan. Those two officers exercise their authority under an European arrangement come to by the great Powers, and it has been stated, and I believe it, are viewed by the Turkish Government with considerable jealousy. The Turkish Government would have preferred—and I do not blame them for it—to have their own authority paramount, and not to have separate authorities, under an European arrangement, who, to a great extent, were independent of the Sultan. Now the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire stated part of what occurred at Damascus; but there are other statements which I have heard, which I am inclined to believe, and which should be told, because when we have to consider this question, so vast in its extent and so great in its importance, it is not desirable to avoid the difficulty of the situation, or to shut out from view any errors which we should endeavour to repair. The officials sent by the Porte into the provinces are, in some instances, found to be worthy, ex- 1116 cellent, and honest governors. But there are others who make it their object to amass wealth as rapidly as possible by means of oppression, and by withholding from the Sultan that which is his due. It has been stated that the Governor of Damascus was instructed to levy a certain body of troops, which troops were to be at the disposal of the Government for service in any part of the Empire when required. The Governor did not raise those troops, but he informed the Sultan that he had done so, and regularly received the means of paying them. He went on for two or three years receiving pay for the troops, and was at length desired to take them to the provinces on the Danube, where their presence was required. He had no troops at his command; but he then did what the hon. Gentleman has alluded to—he cleared the prisons, took the most notorious murderers and robbers who had infested the province, and enlisted them in regiments that were to be sent to the extreme frontiers of the empire on the Danube. In that way he thought he would be able to answer the demands of the Sultan, and at the same time rid the province of some of the worst characters to be found in it. But, unfortunately for him, there arrived information that his own province was likely to be immediately disturbed, and would require the protection of the troops he had raised, so that he had to call back those very men of whom he had hoped to get rid, and to employ them in putting down the revolt, when, in fact, they were the men most likely to join in the plunder. They did, in fact, join in the plunder, and to them was owing much of the loss of life and property which shocked us so much last year. I state this, not only because I believe it to be the fact, but because when we are called on, and justly called on, to pursue our ancient policy with regard to Turkey, we should not lose sight of the maladministration that pervades the provinces of Turkey. These are occurrences which are liable to occur, and which it is impossible for us to foresee or prevent. Sir, the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, said, with great truth, that for many years there has been a great amount of foreign intrigue in the dominions of the Porte in Syria. I have been told, and the story is not unlikely, that a certain Maronite bishop used to pay visits to the French Consul, and talk with him over the topics of the day, and afterwards point out to the Maronite chiefs how constant 1117 he had been in paying those visits, and impress upon them the belief that this was a sure sign they would receive the support of the French Government whenever they came to require it. That is a probable story, because, while it is true that persons in the situation of consuls, in order to give themselves importance, often take too great a part in the local affairs of the provinces in which they are placed, it is likewise true that the inhabitants of a country such as Turkey are very guilty of setting up parties by which they hope to gain supremacy—more especially when they have, as in the present case, persons whom they have considered their enemies for centuries. The Maronites were able to introduce a vast quantity of arms into the country, and, on the other hand, the Druses also had prepared to arm. I stated last year that I believed these two parties were waiting for and watching each other, and that each of them had long been prepared to enter into deadly conflict. I should say that while the one party, the Druses, had nothing like true religion about them, being partly Mahomedans but still more idolaters, those who are called Christians have no right to that title, unless you gave it to those who are totally ignorant of the doctrines and who violate all the principles of Christianity. It happened that a dispute of no great importance took place on the road between Beyrout and Damascus, A person, either Druse or Maronite, was killed in the dispute. The parties who heard of it—I believe the Christians—came down and killed three or four or more of the opposite party. The two parties then assembled in arms; and were ready to enter into conflict with each other, but the Druses, being superior not in numbers, but in strength and valour, got the ascendancy and committed those horrible massacres which shocked the feelings of all Europe last year. We cannot forget that in two or three towns, and in some of the villages, every person found armed or unarmed was put to death; and that the streets were so crowded with corpses that the stench became intolerable. These and other details, which I need not refer to, were related to us on the authority of Mr. Cyril Green, who knows the habits of the people, and who visited the scenes of the massacres. All Europe was shocked by these accounts. Nothing at that time had taken place at Damascus, but there was great fear lest massacres 1118 should also occur at Damascus and other places, and the great Powers of Europe met in conference at Paris. The French Ambassador stated to me, and I stated it to the Cabinet, the apprehension of the French Government, and their intention to propose at the Conference that a body of European troops, without mentioning the nation to which they should belong, should be sent at once to Syria. It has been mentioned to me very lately by the gentleman who, I believe, was one of the informants of the hon. Baronet opposite that it was his belief that if foreign troops had not been sent to Syria there would have been the same massacres at Bagdad and Jerusalem that had taken place in other parts of the province. My hon. Friend (Mr. Layard) has stated that the Turkish Government were not disposed to consent that foreign troops should be sent to Syria, and that they were coerced into a consent. I say to this, in the first place, that unless the Turkish Government had consented, I should have thought it my duty not to have directed our Ambassador at Paris not to sign any protocol; but, in the next place, I must confess that the consent of the Sultan was not a willing, but a reluctant consent. It was founded, I imagine, on this ground, which cannot be controverted, that if the massacres had extended to Bagdad and Jerusalem, and if intelligence of them had been circulated throughbout all the fanatical portions of the Mahommedan population in other parts of the Turkish empire, and if other massacres had taken place, so that no safety remained for the Christian subjects of the Porte, then some at least of the Powers of Europe would have interfered, not in Syria alone, but in other parts of the Turkish Empire. If in such a case I had come to this House and stated the fact that thousands on thousands of the Christian subjects of the Porte—men, women, and children—had been destroyed by the fanaticism of the Turks; that the secret societies known to exist in the Turkish provinces had set on foot these massacres, and that the Turkish soldiers had not interrupted them; that the Turkish regiments stood quietly by and saw the massacres taking place; and that in consequence of this other European Powers threatened intervention—and that I called upon the House to assist the Turkish Government and defend the authors and spectators of these massacres—would that have been a good case to have placed be- 1119 fore the House? Would the House have consented to it? Would the hon. Baronet who complains of the occupation by the French—would my hon. Friend, if he had then been a Member of the House, have stood up and defended such a course? The course we adopted was designed to limit the extent of the disaster as much as possible. At the same time I think few greater misfortunes can happen to a country than an occupation by foreign troops. But this I must say for the French Government, that from the beginning of the discussion and during the execution of the Convention up to within a few days ago, they have said that if it were the wish of the European Powers to send other than French troops to take part in that occupation they were quite as willing to see them in Syria as the troops of France. I believe that the French Government were quite sincere in that declaration which they have repeatedly made. I may be blamed for not taking advantage of it; but I considered that there were serious evils in a joint occupation. Only a few days ago I received from the Earl of Elgin a representation that he hoped we should soon be able, together with the French Government, to put an end to the occupation of Canton, because, he said, that a joint occupation by the troops of two different nations would surely lead to differences and dissensions, jealousies of command, and various difficulties that would make that occupation a misfortune to the place itself, and inconvenient to the occupying forces. But if that is the case with Canton, where neither England nor France have any sympathies with the Chinese, what might have been the case with Syria, where, as it has been truly said, the Maronites have constantly looked to France as the protector of the Roman Catholic Christians, as they call themselves, and where the Druses have as constantly turned to the English as their protectors. What unfortunate consequences might have arisen if the French detachment had gone up to Haurân, and if the English being there also had thought the Maronites had too much protection and the Druses not enough? Therefore, although I did not say I never would consent to it, I was unwilling to make it a joint occupation, and I always thought it should end as soon as possible. Every hon. Member will remember a letter published by the Emperor of the French, in which he declared that he had consented very unwillingly to the occupation of Syria by 1120 the French troops, and that if it lasted only three months it would please him much better than if it lasted six.
The conduct of the French troops has, indeed, been such as to expose them, or a part of them, at least, to the remarks that hon. Gentleman have passed upon them. It is not that they have taken any part in these murders by the Maronites. But I am sorry to say that my reports from Syria, from Her Majesty's Commissioner there, from a gentleman who went there as an agent from the English to be with Fuad Pacha, and from officers who were there on leave, and remained there—all concur that the Maronites, under the protection of the advance of the French into the Lebanon, took the occasion to wreak their vengeance upon those whom they considered their enemies, and that old men and women and very young children were murdered in cold blood by these Maronites, and without even the semblance of their being brought to justice. But this is one of the circumstances which make me wish to see that foreign occupation ended. That foreign army is placed in this dilemma:—It sees committed atrocities such as I have mentioned. It knows, perhaps, the persons who have committed them. If it does not interfere it is said that it has almost sanctioned, that it has permitted murders to take place without punishment. But, on the other hand, if these troops sent sergeants, or corporals, or officers to take these persons and bring them to trial, then they would be justly liable to the charge of taking upon themselves the administration of the Turkish authority in a Turkish province, and it would be said it was no longer a Turkish but a French authority that prevailed in the Lebanon. That is the dilemma—that is the consequence of a foreign occupation, and it is not a reason for continuing that foreign occupation, but for discontinuing it. I must add, however, that we have stated these matters to the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, and he says that his accounts from Syria are entirely the reverse, and that he does not believe a word of what our Ambassador was instructed to say. I stated the matter quite lately to the Count Flahault, a man who has himself fought in the wars of Europe, a man of distinguished military character, who in the wars of the Empire was a distinguished officer. He naturally was shocked at such an imputation. He could not believe that the honour of the 1121 French arms could be so called in question, and so tainted by charges of this kind. It was the natural and honest indignation of a man of honour upon hearing such things imputed to the arms of his country. I can only say that I do not believe while the French occupation continues, we can provide a remedy against those acts of individual vengeance; for they are merely individual instances, as there has been no such massacre as that of the Druses last year. The only remedy we can have is by a cessation of that occupation.
The case of Said By has been mentioned, who, I believe, was perfectly innocent of the charge of taking part in these massacres. Lord Dufferin, Her Majesty's Commissioner in Syria, has used every effort to obtain a fair trial for this man. He has desired persons to attend the trial, and has remonstrated against what he considered the injustice and the false evidence to which he was exposed. He has done his utmost to save him from an unjust condemnation. I have no doubt he will continue his efforts, and I expect that the life of this man will be saved. But hero, again, we have to contend with the defects of the Turkish administration and the Turkish character, because our notions of justice consist in bringing the witnesses face to face with the man who is accused, and allowing him to cross-examine them with the view of proving the falsehood and defects of their story if any exist. But in Turkish justice it is much more common to say, A crime has been committed; we must inflict punishment for that crime. A life has been taken; we must have a life." But as to the particularity of the evidence, as to the minutiæ which prove a man to be guilty, all that is superfluous. All they say is, "Here is a crime committed; hero is an accused man brought into court; let that man be punished; and then the ends of justice will be satisfied." Let that be recollected, too, which I have before stated, that with regard to the Druses and the Maronites the Turk does not willingly see the authority of the Sultan defied. Therefore, when the French say, "Let the Druses be punished," the Turks are willing to listen to those representations, and heartily agree that the Druses ought to be punished. When, on the other hand, the English say, "These Maronites have committed great atrocities," the Turks agree that punishment should fall upon them. The Turk, 1122 of course, holds that the Turkish power ought to over-ride both the Maronites and Druses, but between the two it is very difficult to get justice done. Well, I can say little as to the Conference at Paris, but some little I can add to what I stated the other day. When that Conference met, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs stated all the apprehensions that were entertained in Syria that if the French troops go away the massacres will be renewed. Such was the statement he had received, and he laid it before the Conference of the Powers. The Turkish Ambassador said, on the other hand, that he believed tranquillity had been restored, that the Turkish power was sufficient to maintain that tranquillity, and he saw no reason why the occupation should not end at the time fixed by the Convention. But, on further discussion, the Ambassador of Austria—and Austria is a power like ourselves anxious to maintain the independence of Turkey—said he thought that some time might be fixed, and that until the Lebanon was more settled, and that some authority more capable of keeping order was established, it was desirable that the French troops should remain. He suggested that a period, such as the 1st of May, should be fixed at the time at which the occupation should cease. The Turkish Ambassador received that proposition and said he was willing to transmit it to his Government; and there the matter rests. I quite agree in all that has been said as to the desirability of an evacuation taking place. We must, of course, act partly for ourselves, and partly in combination with the other great Powers, more especially with Austria, who in all these discussions as well as in all former discussions has shown herself sincerely desirous to maintain the independence of Turkey. Without saying anything in reference to other Powers, I will state with respect to Austria that I believe she is sincere in her wish to maintain the independence and integrity of that country. I certainly will do my best to put an end to the French occupation, which, I believe, was useful in the beginning, not only in the places I have mentioned, but in other parts of the Turkish Empire, when there was a notion that but for it massacres might have occurred which would have been attended with dreadful consequences to Turkey itself. Now, however, the danger and the occasion have passed away, and I wish to see the occupation at an end.
§ MR. FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to explain that the Governor of Damascus to whom he had alluded was the last Governor, and not the one to whom the noble Lord had referred.
§ MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he thought the discussion had opened up a much larger question than the temporary occupation of Syria. It showed that the authority of the Sultan within his own dominions was incapable of maintaining order and administering justice between the mixed subjects under his rule. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was ready to proclaim the principle of non-intervention in some cases, but he had not acted rigidly up to his principle in the case of the French intervention in the Turkish dominions. He wanted to know whether, in the not very remote contingency of a revolution in Hungary, the English Government would enforce the principle of non-intervention, or allow the troops of Russia to inarch into that country? He had such an opinion of the spirit of the British people, whatever might be the professions of the noble Lord, that he would be compelled, and that in no hesitating manner, to act upon the principle of non-intervention. When the intervention of Sardinia in the affairs of Venice had been expected, the noble Lord had written an emphatic despatch, which he could not sufficiently condemn, and, considering the Power represented by the noble Lord, that despatch amounted to a virtual command to Sardinia not to interfere. He believed, if Turkey had been allowed to settle her own affairs there would be no great difficulty in effecting such a settlement. The struggle on the European Continent was as to who was to have the mastery. It was for that the Emperor of the French was struggling, and struggling bravely, for he sought to uphold the honour and dignity of the French nation. What he found fault with in the British Government was that they carried out a timid and halting policy, instead of manfully and openly upholding the Liberal cause in Italy and throughout the world; sometimes supporting Austria, at other times encouraging the revolutionary party in Italy against French interests. The fire of revolution was fermenting over the whole of the nations of central Europe; and he believed the day was not distant when they would secure their freedom, as the people of Italy had done.