§ SIR HUGH CAIRNSI rise, Sir, to call attention to a matter of great interest to a considerable number of families, and which would be a subject of interest to the whole country if the circumstances were as generally known as it might be expected they would have been. I refer to the imprisonment of some of our fellow-subjects in the kingdom of Abyssinia. At the present moment the English Consul accredited by Her Majesty to Abyssinia, two English missionaries, and several British subjects are in confinement in that country, and most of them have been in confinement for a period of some eighteen or nineteen months. The first news of their imprisonment came to this country with the 993 statement from Consul Cameron that he and other persons were at the time he wrote (February 14, 1864) in chains at Gondar. On the 27th of May, 1864, Mr. Flad, whom I do not understand to be a British subject, wrote, while in confinement, that Mr. Stern, one of the missionaries, was still bound, as were also Mr. Cameron and all his English servants. Mr. Rosenthal was free and living with his wife and children near Gondar. A little later, I find, by the intelligence which came to this country in November, and which probably left Abyssinia in the previous summer, the Emperor appeared to have taken some fresh offence. The statement was that his Majesty had gone the length of putting the prisoners, including Consul Cameron, to a kind of torture. I find next that a German missionary, writing in August, states—
No change for the better has taken place in the state of Abyssinian affairs. The captives, Messrs. Stern, Rosenthal, and the English Consul, have not only not been set at liberty, but have suffered from great violence.And Mr. Rassam, our Assistant Resident at Aden, appears to have discovered—that our unfortunate countrymen were confined in a tent next to that of the Emperor, all intercourse with them being forbidden under the severest penalties. Besides this vigilant watch, each European was chained to a trustworthy dependent of the Imperial household, who was relieved at short intervals. The chain being only four feet long, the prisoner could scarcely move without the knowledge of the guard.The House will allow that this is a strange and startling state of circumstances to have occurred in reference to an English Consul and a number of English subjects. Well, where has this taken place, because, although we may have some general knowledge about Abyssinia, many Members may have lost the trace of its recent history? The present monarch of that country, who professes the Christian faith, and rules over a people who are also Christians, came to the throne by deposing his predecessor in 1855, and has reigned there ever since. He is a man of civilization, he has had intercourse with this country and with British subjects, and has always professed the greatest friendship for England, and the greatest admiration for everything English. Consul Plowden, the predecessor of Consul Cameron, was his Majesty's particular friend, and was loaded by him with every mark of favour that could be conceived. And not only that, but Mr. Bell, another Eng- 994 lishman, was very high in rank in the military forces of the Emperor Theodoros, a Prince addicted to warlike objects, and who professed to be greatly guided by Mr. Bell's advice. I find also that the predecessor of the Emperor Theodoros entered into a treaty with this country, which was laid on the table of this House in June, 1852, by which, among other things—and I ask particular attention to one of its articles—Her Britannic Majesty engages—To receive and protect any Ambassador, Envoy, or Consul whom his Majesty of Abyssinia or his successors may see fit to appoint, and will equally preserve inviolate all the rights and privileges of such Ambassador, Envoy, or Consul.By the preceding article the Emperor of Abyssinia reciprocally engages to receive and protect any Ambassador, Envoy, or Consul which England might send to that country. The Emperor of Abyssinia was dealt with in that treaty as a Sovereign worthy of every respect and consideration, and as a person with whom a treaty ought to be made and observed in its integrity. Well, what was the origin of the Emperor's change of feeling? If some of the statements which are made be correct—and they come from a quarter which leaves no room for doubting them—they show what serious consequences may spring from a very small cause. I observe, from the papers very lately laid on the table of the House, that the Emperor Theodoros addressed an autograph letter to Her Majesty, dated at the end of 1862, but received in this country on the 12th of February, 1863. We have that letter given us in the form of a translation, written in very intelligible style, but of course presenting all the peculiarities which you would expect to find in an autograph communication proceeding from an Oriental Sovereign. It begins thus—In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, one God in Trinity, chosen by God, King of Kings, Theodoros of Ethiopia to Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England. I hope your Majesty is in good health. By the power of God I am well. …. Mr. Plowden, and my late Grand Chamberlain, the Englishman Bell, used to tell me that there is a great Christian Queen, who loves all Christians. When they said to me this,' We are able to make you known to her, and to establish friendship between you,' then in those times I was very glad. I gave them my love, thinking that I had found your Majesty's goodwill. All men are subject to death, and my enemies, thinking to injure me, killed these my friends. But, by the power of God, I have exterminated those enemies, not leaving one alive, though they were of my own family, that I may get, by the power of God, your friendship. I was 995 prevented by the Turks occupying the sea-coast from sending you an embassy when I was in difficulty. Consul Cameron arrived with a letter and present of friendship. By the power of God I was very glad hearing of your welfare, and being assured of your amity. I have received your presents and thank you much. I fear that if I send Ambassadors with presents of amity by Consul Cameron they may be arrested by the Turks. And now I wish that you may arrange for the safe passage of my Ambassadors everywhere on the road. I wish to have an answer to this letter by Consul Cameron, and that he may conduct my Embassy to England. See how the Islam oppress the Christain !It appears that Captain Cameron, who, I believe, served on the staff of Sir William Williams when the latter was our Commissioner with the Turkish army, was appointed Consul to Abyssinia in 1861, and proceeded in 1862 to his post at Massowah, on the Red Sea. But Consul Cameron was intrusted with presents to take to the Emperor, and it was incumbent on him, in the first instance, to go inland to the capital to present them. He went accordingly, and offered these tokens of goodwill and friendship on the part of the Queen of England towards the Emperor of Abyssinia. In his autograph letter it would be seen that His Majesty proposed to send an envoy or ambassador to be received by the Sovereign of this country, as the treaty provided that any such Ministers should be received. He said he feared that if he sent ambassadors with presents of amity by Consul Cameron they might be arrested by the Turks, and he asked that arrangements might be made for the safe passage of his ambassadors everywhere on the road. This was a despatch coming to this country, as to which I do not presume to offer the least opinion whether the proposal ought to have been accepted or not, whether the embassy ought to have been encouraged or not, except that I find in the treaty a positive stipulation on our part to receive and give every protection to any ambassador or envoy whom the Sovereign of Abyssinia might see fit to appoint. Yet one thing was, I think, incumbent on Her Majesty's Government, and the omission of which, I fear, has led to serious consequences. King Theo-doros, I should have thought, was entitled to an answer in some shape or form to the communication which he had sent. The despatch containing the Emperor's autograph letter was received in England on the 12th of February, 1863, and the papers that have been laid on the table state that no answer was returned until the 996 26th of May, 1864, or a period of more than fifteen months; and then the answer was not conveyed through any Britsh Consul in Egypt, but through Mr. Rassam, our assistant resident at Aden, himself a subject of Turkey—the very Power towards which, if the Emperor of Abyssinia was not actually at war with it, he at all events entertained feelings of considerable hostility. What was the result? The Emperor of Abyssinia had sent to France a similar communication to that which he had sent to this country, and from the French Government he had received an answer. Towards the end of 1863 he became greatly irritated at not obtaining any answer from the British Government. I do not at all pretend to justify the course which he took; certainly his acts were not warranted by the offence which he supposed had been offered him. But, smarting under a feeling of irritation, all the stronger because among Eastern nations such slights are more keenly felt than among Western races—wounded at what he thought the contemptuous reception of his communication and the rejection of his proposal to send an embassy to England—wounded also at what he might have taken to indicate a change of sentiment towards his country on the part of Great Britain, the Emperor arrested Consul Cameron, the two English missionaries to whom I have referred, and the other English subjects who were in his capital at this time, and put them in such confinement as I have described. That there may be no doubt that I am warranted in my inferences as to what led to the imprisonment of these persons, I will take the opinion of Sir William Coghlan, one of the most competent authorities on this matter, who was consulted in regard to it by the Foreign Office, and who drew up a memorandum for the guidance of that Department. The subject of that memorandum was the Abyssinian difficulty, and how to get out of it; and it is most interesting. If some advice had been obtained from the same quarter before the Foreign Office got into this difficulty it might not, perhaps, have been much amiss. But, however, Sir William Coghlan sets out by advising the Foreign Office how best to get out of it. He says—There are probably several causes for the altered demeanour of the King of Abyssinia towards Captain Cameron, the British Consul. It is understood that his dignity is grievously wounded by the silence, which he accepts as an 997 affront; and this sense of injury, coupled with other circumstances, has led to the deplorable state of affairs now existing at Gondar. Also, there is reason to believe that the King refuses Mr. Rassam's mission as one which is not of sufficient dignity: that Mr. Rassam is, in fact, a mere messenger, and not an Envoy; hence the contemptuous silence with which his letters and requests have been treated,I stated to the House that in May, 18G4, an answer was sent to the communication which had been received from the Emperor, but it was sent by Mr. Rassam, who was a resident at Aden and an Ottoman, which nation was particularly distasteful to the Emperor in every shape and form. The statement of Sir William Coghlan is that Mr. Rassam was not of sufficient dignity, being, in fact, a mere subordinate, resident at Aden. Sir William Coghlan goes on to say—Inquiry into the 'other circumstances' alluded to in paragragh 9 would inconveniently lengthen this memorandum, which is intended only as a brief statement of the existing difficulty, and a suggestion as to the best means of overcoming it. If any further effort is to be made to release the captives, it must be by means of an Embassy, headed by an officer of rank, who should be supported by such a suite as would give dignity to his mission; a secretary (a military officer), two or three officers of the scientific corps or departments, and a medical officer, should be of the party; these could be supplied either from England, or from Bombay, or from Aden.Well, then, to corroborate what Sir William Coghlan says as to the cause of offence being perfectly notorious, I have here an extract of a letter from Egypt, dated the 3rd of June in the present year. It is to this effect—Theodoros is reported to have expressed himself very indignantly that the Queen's Government should have sent an Asiatic—a more subordinate—on a mission to him, and, it is said, he does not intend to take the least notice of him.He has not taken the least notice of him. The Emperor has refused to receive him, and has even treated it as an aggravation of the first offence he supposed he had received. I do not desire, far from it, to say one word in justification of the course taken by the King of Abyssinia towards these unfortunate prisoners. It was a violation of all that was proper as regards any of them, and especially as regards the British Consul. But it is only proper that we should know all the circumstances and facts of the case. It was suggested in another place, where some notice was taken of this question, that Consul Cameron had exceeded his duty in staying so 998 long as he did at the capital of Abyssinia, instead of remaining at Massowah, the port on the sea-coast; but he could not present the gifts he bore to the Emperor without going to the capital. It is besides impossible to know whether he remained too long in the capital, because the papers carefully withhold all letters written by Consul Cameron to the Foreign Office explaining what his reasons were, and we have nothing but replies from the Foreign Office to Mr. Cameron censuring him for not returning to Massowah. I do not propose to enter on that question, nor does it really at all bear on the object I have in view in bringing the subject before the House. Suppose Consul Cameron committed an error in judgment, still the question now is, what is to be done with reference to these unfortunate persons? They have been confined for upwards of eighteen months. They have suffered great hardships, and the only step which the Government have taken, so far as I am aware, is that they have sent Mr. Rassam, who was not received by the Emperor, and treated as a mere messenger unworthy of notice. I would submit to the Government that this is a case in which, admitting to the fullest extent that the acts of the King of Abyssinia were a flagrant outrage on International Law, we can confess that there has been a certain amount of neglect, a certain degree of indecorous treatment of a Sovereign with whom we have a treaty of alliance, in refusing to answer a despatch sent by him to the Sovereign of this country for a period of a year and a half. It seems very easy to make an admission of that kind, and not to solicit but accompany it with a demand for the release of those persons who have been kept in confinement. In a case of this kind where the liberties, if not the lives, of our fellow-subjects are concerned, I cannot help thinking the time has come when the advice of Sir William Coghlan should be taken in some shape or other, and that a mission of some sort or nature acceptable to the King of Abyssinia should be sent him. I think it would be an act which the Sovereign of this country should be advised to do, seeing there had been an undesigned but unfortunate neglect of the communication sent by him for so great a length of time, and I should hope that overtures of that kind would not be unavailing. At all events it does seem to me that before Parliament separates some active and energetic steps should be 999 taken to set these unfortunate persons at liberty, and I do hope that some announcement may be made which will relieve the anxiety which is felt by so many throughout the country on this subject.
§ MR. LAYARDSir, I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that if Her Majesty's Government have refrained from entering fully into this painful subject, it is from no desire to screen their own conduct, or avoid full inquiry into the whole facts of the case. The reason why my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the other House of Parliament, and myself in this House, have declined to enter into the subject was simply this:—In the first place, we feared lest anything should be said which might be conveyed—and it certainly would have been conveyed—to the Emperor of Abyssinia, which might lead either to the death of those unfortunate persons who are now held in captivity by him, or to their being treated with even greater severity than that with which they have hitherto been visited; and, secondly, I felt it would scarcely be fair to Consul Cameron, before receiving a full explanation from him, that statements should be made reflecting on his official character. But, after the statements we have heard to-night, and after the gross misstatements which have been made in a certain portion of the press, I think it my duty, if the House will kindly permit me, to enter at some length into the subject. I shall endeavour, as far as possible, to avoid anything that would lead to unfortunate results; but if anything does happen from what I shall state tonight, the responsibility must entirely rest upon those who have forced the Government to make these explanations. Before going further, I would make one remark on what I before stated with reference to the Pall Mall Gazette having published a statement derived from official sources. My statement has given pain to the members of the Foreign and Indian Offices. I have now to state that the information in question was not furnished by either of those offices, but it was furnished from Government confidential sources, and I trust I shall be enabled to ascertain who it is that has been guilty of a breach of confidence which may lead to serious consequences. I do not wish to go into a history of Abyssinia. If any hon. Member wishes to read an authentic account of what has taken place of late years in that 1000 country, I would refer him to two articles in the Revue des Deux Monies, written by M. Lejean, a gentleman who was French Consul there at the same time as Mr. Cameron was in Abyssinia. The Emperor of Abyssinia was formerly somewhat in the same position as the Mikado or Emperor of Japan—a mere puppet; the country itself being divided into several almost independent kingdoms, each governed by a great feudal lord, owning a mere nominal dependence on the Emperor. The principal of these chiefs, Ras Ali, reigned for several years over a large part of Abyssinia, waged many successful wars, and attained to considerable power. Two Englishmen, Messrs. Plowden and Bell, had assisted him materially with their advice in the conduct of his wars. Mr. Plow-don came to this country some years ago. He described Abyssinia as very rich in natural resources, and represented that it would be very important that friendly relations should be established between that country and England. In consequence of his representations the Government appointed him Consul at Massowah—not an Abyssinian town, but a Turkish port on the Red. Sea. Abyssinia is separated from the Red Sea by a broad tract of arid plain, forming a kind of petty kingdom under a chief who owns himself a vassal of Turkey, and there is no entrance to Abyssinia except through Turkish territory. Mr. Plowden, while Consul, was allowed to embark in trade, and the object of his being sent to Massowah was to extend British trade. But he did not remain there, but returned to Ras Ali, and, in company with Mr. Bell, appears to have continued to give him advice and assistance. In 1855 the present King Theodore, who had married the daughter of Ras Ali, rose against his father-in-law, defeated him, waged a series of wars against other feudal chiefs of Abyssinia, was very successful, and in a short time completely conquered the country. The treaty to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, was concluded, not with the present King of Abyssinia, but with Ras Ali. It was repudiated by the present King. This, as it will be shown, is very important. The present King never accepted it. This son-in-law of Ras Ali, Kassai, as he was called, was not of royal birth, but was a successful adventurer, and one of those enthusiasts who have often risen in the East. He took the name of Theodore because there was some pro- 1001 phecy current in Abyssinia that an Emperor of that name would defeat the Turks, recover Jerusalem, and found a great Ethiopic Empire in the East. A very curious description of this Theodore is given by M. Lejean and others who have written on Abyssinia. He is described as waging continual wars, and killing not only his tens, but his twenties of thousands in cold blood. In fact, the accounts given of his deeds reads very like those Assyrian records which have been translated of late years, He carried off men, women, and children into captivity, and committed many horrible acts, which, it is to be feared, have been of common occurrence amongst those who have ruled in Abyssinia. Unfortunately, Mr. Plowden, our Consul at Massowah, instead of attending to the object for which he was placed there, that of encouraging commercial intercourse between Great Britain and A byssinia, plunged into local intrigues. He and Mr. Bell sided with King Theodore, and Mr. Plowden is stated to have actually commanded some of his troops. When information reached home that Mr. Plowden was thus mixing himself up in local conflicts, and acting exactly in opposition to the spirit of the policy which he had been placed there to carry out, Her Majesty's Government at once sent out instructions for him to return to his post at Massowah, and no longer to interfere in Abyssinian affairs. Unfortunately, before these instructions could reach him, Consul Plowden had been killed by a native Abyssinian chief. Before Mr. Plowden's death it had become known to us that the King of Abyssinia desired to send a mission to Europe, and this mission was heralded by letters written, not only to Her Majesty, but to the Emperor of Russia, the Emperor of the French, and some of the Gorman potentates, calling on them to help him in a great war against the Mahomedans, and to place him as ruler over the whole of Abyssinia and Ethiopia, and over all the dominions belonging to the Turks. Her Majesty's Government had, of course, no desire to engage in any undertaking of the kind, and accordingly wrote to Consul Plowden that they would receive no mission from King Theodore except he gave
a distinct assurance that he renounced all idea of conquest in Egypt and at Massowah; for that Her Majesty's Government had latterly remonstrated in the strongest terms against the intentions of the Viceroy of Egypt to attack Abyssinia, and that the then reigning Viceroy had 1002 not only put a stop to such proceedings, and had confined himself within the limits of his own dominions, but that he had set free the Abyssinian prisoners reduced to slavery by his predecessor, so that Her Majesty's Government would subject themselves to grave suspicions if they received an embassy from a Sovereign whose designs against the Sultan, Her Majesty's ally, were previously known to them.
§ MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to ask whether the despatch from which the hon. Gentleman was reading had been laid before the House?
§ MR. LAYARDIt has not been laid before the House, but if the hon. Member so desires it shall be furnished. Such was the nature of the instructions sent to Mr. Plowden. The fact upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns) relies—namely, the existence of a treaty, which entitled King Theodore to send a mission to this country and bound us to receive it, is entirely at variance with the facts; for when Theodore came to the throne, the first thing he did was, as I have stated, to refuse to acknowledge the treaty entered into with his predecessor. As Ras Ali was not the Emperor of Abyssinia, but held a position somewhat similar to the old French maire du palais, in order to avoid all doubt as to the validity of the treaty, the signature of the puppet Emperor was also affixed to it. I believe that even at this moment Theodore admits he is not the real Emperor, and that the descendant of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba is living, to whom he owes a nominal allegiance; though, at the same time, he calls himself "King of Kings." Consul Plowden having been wounded and taken prisoner, was ransomed, but shortly after his release died from his wounds. This ransom of £200 was at first believed to have been paid by the King of Abyssinia; but I have received a letter from Mr. Plowden's brother, in which he states that, so far from the ransom having been paid by Theodore, it was paid by Consul Plowden's family, through M. Baroni, the English Vice Consul at Massowah. At that time, at any rate, the Government had reason to believe that Mr. Plowden had been ransomed by the King. Upon the death of Consul Plowden, Theodore wrote a letter, addressed to Lord Russell, and not to Her Majesty, as it has been asserted, stating that he had taken signal vengeance for the death of Mr. Plowden, whom he described as his personal friend. I may mention that that letter was never received in England, 1003 although we received information of its contents—it appears to have been lost by the way. Lord Russell, in reply, thanked King Theodore for what he had done with regard to Mr. Plowden, and sent him, in the name of the Government, some presents. Sir William Coghlan, the Political Resident or Governor of Aden, being then at Bombay, advised the Indian Government to lay out £500 in some further presents to the King, which was accordingly done, and some handsome carpets and other ornaments were sent to Theodore. But what were the services to the British Government, for which Theodore took credit? He stated himself to Captain Cameron that he had massacred in cold blood 1,500 persons in revenge for the loss of Mr. Plowden, and as a special mark of friendship towards Her Majesty. The French Consul estimates the number at 1,700, and even Dr. Beke, in his pamphlet, which is no doubt in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns), writes on the authority of Mr. Stern—
On the 31st of October, 1860, 3,000 rebels, with their leader, Gerat, were defeated by the Royal Troops near the western bank of the Taccazy, and mercilessly butchered in cold blood; in fact, so inexorable was the King, that even their wives and children—contrary to former custom—were indiscriminately condemned to perpetual slavery. The other statement is that of M Lejean, who, in the Revue lies Deux Mondes for the 1st of November, 1861 (p. 234), states, that the prisoners, 1,700 in number, were taken by the Emperor to his camp at Dobarik, and there cut to pieces, and their bodies left unburied on the plain of that name, which three years afterwards was still covered with their bleached skulls.All this was in revenge for the death of Consul Plowden, who had no business at the place where he was killed, who had been warned against taking any part in the affairs of the country, and met his death mainly through neglecting his instructions. It is not a pleasant thing to reflect that 1,500 innocent persons, more or less, have been put to the sword to revenge the death of one British subject; it is not a thing one can think of without horror. When it became necessary to send out some person with Lord Russell's letter and with the presents, to which I have alluded, Captain Cameron, who had been appointed Consul at Massowah, was chosen to take them to the King. Captain Cameron had served with distinction at Kars, and had held a consular post in the Russian territories in the Caucasus. Before proceeding to his post he came to London, 1004 was shown all the correspondence with his predecessor, was made acquainted with everything that had occurred in the case of Mr. Plowden, and received instructions himself, which will be laid before the House. He was directed most positively to refrain from interfering in any way whatever in the internal affairs of the country; to refrain from mixing himself up with intrigues, or attaching himself to any party in the country; he was merely to go to the King to deliver the letter and the presents, and then to return to Massowah, and there promote by every means in his power the trade of England with Abyssinia. I must now refer to some circumstances which have an important bearing upon this question. There were in Abyssinia at this time three missionary establishments, and I am sorry to say that, as usual, they were intensely jealous of one another. These establishments consisted of a German mission from Basle, a Protestant mission from this country, and a French Roman Catholic Propagandist mission. The Basle missionaries hated the English with an intensity of which some conception may be formed from the pages of the Standard, in which some letters on this subject have recently appeared. The Roman Catholics hated all the others. The King had no love for any of them. He soon put an end to one of the missions, and said, "I will have nothing to do with preaching the Gospel; but if you can be of any use to me, I shall be very glad that you should stay." In consequence of that decision the members of the Basle mission were compelled by the King to turn their attention to the manufacture of muskets; but as they produced very bad weapons he made them devote themselves, and with better success, to manufacturing brandy. Mr. Stern was allowed to preach to Jews and Mahomedans, but was strictly prohibited from converting any native Abyssinians. The Roman Catholic mission, with a bishop at its head, was expelled the country. Mr. Stern, who had been sent as a missionary from this country had returned to England, and having, while here, written an account of his adventures in Abyssinia, in which he did not speak in very complimentary terms of King Theodore, he had had the great imprudence to go back to Abyssinia. Such was the state of things when Consul Cameron reached Gondar. He found that the King had established his rule over the whole of Abyssinia, though there were still 1005 some rebels here and there, and that the missionaries were quarrelling among themselves and with the King. He presented Earl Russell's letter, together with the presents, to the King, and at first was well received, but shortly afterwards got a strong hint to leave the country. His provisions, which had at first been sent to him daily from the palace, were gradually diminished, until he was nearly starved. He was surrounded by spies, and every effort was made to induce him to leave Gondar, which, according to his instructions, he ought to have done immediately after delivering Earl Russell's letter and the presents. Instead of doing this, however, Consul Cameron began to open negotiations with the King, which might certainly have had the effect of leading him to believe it not impossible that he might receive support from England in his struggle with the Turks; and to our great astonishment, we one day received at the Foreign Office a despatch from Captain Cameron informing us that he was entering into formal and official negotiations with the King. [Sir HUGH CAIRNS: Is that despatch on the Table? The reason why the despatches of Consul Cameron have not hitherto been produced is that they contain passages which might tend greatly to jeopardize him. Consul Cameron wrote to say—I wrote immediately (to the King) stating that I was deputed to present him with certain gifts and a letter of introduction; also to discuss with him regarding the future; that when Mr. Plowden was killed there were two points under discussion—namely, one, a treaty; two, the sending an embassy to England. I offered to take these up where Mr. Plowden had left them.Now, that was altogether contrary to the instructions he had received. So far was Consul Cameron from being instructed to propose an embassy to England from the King, that he was distinctly told that Her Majesty's Government would not entertain the idea of a mission unless he gave up all idea of conquering the Turks and invading Turkish territory. So that Consul Cameron was not justified in making such a proposal to the King. It appears that the King, thinking that Consul Cameron might induce Her Majesty's Government to assist him in exterminating the Mahomedans, wrote the letter to Her Majesty which has been quoted by the hon. Gentleman. It is one of those things you do not like to state in a person's absence, but I have reasons to think that 1006 this letter was suggested by Consul Cameron, who wished to come to this country with the embassy. I am quite under that impression; Sir William Cogh-lan is also of this opinion, I believe, and the letter hears that construction. The King, after writing this letter, ordered Consul Cameron to leave Gondar at once, and to go to Massowah. He had declared from the first that he would not receive a Consul; that one of the reasons for his refusal to ratify the treaty was, that it provided for the residence of a Consul at Gondar, and that he knew that with European nations the appointment of a Consul was only the first step to conquering a country. In spite of this warning Consul Cameron remained—most imprudently remained—in the country. Shortly afterwards we received a despatch from him stating that he had gone eastward, and that he was shut up in a kind of sanctuary, where he was surrounded by rebels, and that he had lost all his papers. A few days afterwards we received another despatch, stating that he had got out of the sanctuary and gone to the Egyptian frontier, and had extended the protection of the British flag to the tribes on that boundary. All this was so contrary to his instructions and so alarming that we wrote out without delay to desire him to refrain from all interference in Abyssinian affairs, to confine himself to his duty of promoting commercial relations with this county, and to return at once to his post at Massowah. A great deal has been said as to no answer having been sent to the letter from the King. I will ask any impartial person—whether having Consul Cameron's despatches such as I have described them before us—knowing that that letter originated after a distinct understanding with the King that Her Majesty's Government would not receive a mission until he had given up all idea of conquest upon Turkey—after the King had rejected the treaty which authorized him to send a mission to Europe—whether, under such circumstances, we were under any obligation to answer that letter at all? I can only say that even now, after what has passed, if the letter were put into my hands I should say it did not require an answer. The first letter of the King had been answered, and we did not wish that Consul Cameron should come home with a mission from the King. Having no wish to answer that letter, we sent it to the India Office to know whether they wished 1007 to answer it, because, it must be remembered, our relations with Abyssinia have been at all times more an Indian than an Imperial question. The India Office had, it appears, no wish to do so. They did not think it necessary that a mission should be sent to this country, the object of which was to get us to go to war with Turkey. What happened when an answer was sent to a similar letter from the King? As I have mentioned, the King wrote, not only to Her Majesty, but to the Emperor of Russia and the Emperor of the French. The latter sent a civil answer, through his Minister M. Drouyn de Lhuys, by a Consul, M. Lejean, stating that he was very glad to receive the King's letter, but all that the French Government begged of the King was that he would be more tolerant in his dominions, and not oppress the Roman Catholics. When M. Lejean presented that letter, the King of Abyssinia said it was signed by M. Drouyn de Lhuys, of whom he had no knowledge, and not by the Emperor. He then quarrelled with the French Consul, threw him into prison, and loaded him with chains He released him after five or six weeks, and then ignominiously expelled him from the country. The day he was expelled from Gondar, Consul Cameron appears to have asked him how he liked the feel of Abyssinian chains. M. Lejean replied, "You may be able to judge yourself in a day or two's time." Consul Cameron, according to M. Lejean, answered "Very likely." One would have thought that after these repeated warnings he would have gone away with Consul Lejean, instead of which he remained in Gondar, almost inviting a similar fate. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns) has mixed up several facts and dates. He wishes the House to believe that Consul Cameron and the missionaries were imprisoned because no answer was sent to the King's letter. Nothing of the kind. The two events had nothing to do with each other. The missionaries were imprisoned when Mr. Stern returned to Abyssinia, and sometime before Consul Cameron. It is not quite clear what took place between the King and Mr. Stern, but the latter was directed to leave the country. He did not go, and at a subsequent interview the King said Mr. Stern was not to blame because he did not know the customs of the country which made it necessary that the King's orders should be immediately obeyed, but that his ser- 1008 vants were to blame because they did. He then ordered them to be so severely bastinadoed that they both died during the night. While they were undergoing their punishment, Mr. Stern, horrified at the sight, bit his thumb. The King perceived this gesture, which in Abyssinia is supposed to infer an insult and a threat. He had Mr. Stern beaten, and his books and papers were seized. The book which he had written and these papers were translated for the King by some Europeans, who appear to have borne no goodwill to Mr. Stern. Amongst other things, Mr. Stern had stated that the Queen's mother had at one time of her life sold in the streets a bitter medicine much used in Abyssinia. The King was exceedingly angry, and Mr. Rosenthal's papers having also been seized, both were thrown into prison. He next called a Court of all the Europeans at Gondar to judge Messrs. Stern and Rosenthal. The Court condemned them both to death, but recommended them to mercy; the reason given by the Europeans being that if they had not condemned the prisoners to death they (the prisoners) would certainly have incurred that fate, whereas by condemning them and recommending them to mercy they hoped that the prisoners would escape death. It appears that they were right. Messrs. Stern and Rosenthal were condemned to perpetual imprisonment on the finding of the European Court. But to return to Consul Cameron. Not only had he got into trouble with the Abyssinians, but he had actually got into trouble with the Turks also, for he wrote to us to say that so angry were the Turks at his interference at Bogos that he should not be surprised if they had another "massacre of Jed-dab," that massacre having taken place shortly before. It appears that Consul Cameron went soon afterwards to Tigré, and he wrote on the 31st of March to say that the King had stated that if anything happened to him he would reduce Tigré to a desert, and he added that the King would have kept his word. Thus perhaps tens of thousands of innocent persons might have been slaughtered because of the indiscretion of one Englishman. Could the Government do otherwise than tell Consul Cameron to go back immediately to his post at Massowah, and can blame be attached to them if their despatches to that effect were intercepted by the King, and made an additional 1009 cause of grievance, as it is asserted, against the British Government? I now come to the imprisonment of Consul Cameron. Dr. Beke, who cannot be suspected of being anxious to exonerate Her Majesty's Government, has published a letter in which he says that the Emperor Theodore's ill treatment of Consul Cameron was caused by the altered policy of the Government with regard to the relations between Abyssinia and Egypt, and that he (the Emperor)hoped to induce Her Majesty's Government, by holding our Consul and British subjects in captivity, to retrace its steps, and continue to afford him material aid against his enemies. M Lejean, moreover, positively declares that the imprisonment of Consul Cameron had nothing to do with the non-receipt of an answer by the King to his letter to the Queen. When we first received the news of the Consul's imprisonment, we consulted Sir William Coghlan, a gentleman of great experience of the East, and long British Resident or Governor at Aden, but who is now living in England. He knows a great deal of Abyssinian affairs, and he agreed with us in thinking that the first thing to be done was to endeavour to obtain the liberation of Captain Cameron, by sending a letter from the Queen to King Theodore, and to intrust that letter to Mr. Rassam. Mr. Rassam's character and position have been much misunderstood. Mr. Rassam's brother has for a long time been British Vice Consul at Mossul. Although a Chaldean Christian, and a native of Mossul, he was brought up in this country, was educated at Oxford, and in every respect—manners, dress, and appearance—is like an English gentleman. He was with mo during the whole of my explorations in Assyria, and without Mr. Rassam's assistance this country would not, perhaps, now be in possession of that valuable collection of Assyrian antiquities which are deposited in the British Museum. Mr. Rassam was at first sent to Aden in a very subordinate position, but, by his ability and attention to his duties, he raised himself to be Assistant Resident or Lieutenant Governor of Aden, was made an English magistrate, and the country round about Aden, which before was almost inaccessible to Europeans, was reduced by him to perfect peace. What does Sir William Coghlan say of Mr. Rassam? He says—Mr. Rassam's antecedents, his status, and his qualifications are greatly misunderstood and mis- 1010 represented by a portion of the press of this country. He has been variously styled Levantine, Greek, obscure Armenian, Turkish subject, nondescript, &c. In answer to these assertions it is but just to a very deserving public servant to say what Mr. Rassam really is. He was born at Mossul, of Christian parents (his brother is British Vice Consul there), he received his education in England, he is a gentleman in manners and conduct, and his qualifications for the peculiar line in which he has been employed during the last ten years cannot be surpassed. I speak with confidence on this point, for Mr. Rassam was my assistant at Aden during many years of trouble; a part of that time he held charge of our political relations at Muscat, and acquitted himself to the entire approval of the Government which placed him there. In short, Mr. Rassam's whole previous career well justified the expectation which Her Majesty's Government entertained in appointing him to the delicate and difficult mission on which he is now employed. The disappointment of that expectation is not attributable to any fault of his.That is the opinion of Sir William Coghlan in a letter addressed to me, which he has authorized me to read to the House. A letter has been written to The Times, by a great authority on such matters, Sir Gardner Wilkinson, stating that we ought to have consulted the Coptic Patriarch. We have not omitted to do this, but it must be remembered that there are great differences between the Abyssinian Patriarch and the Coptic Patriarch, and there is great doubt whether the assistance of the latter would have been of any avail, or whether any interference on his part might not have had a prejudicial effect. But we did get letters from him for Mr. Rassam for the chief Bishop of Abyssinia. It is all very well to say that we ought to have sent a great mission, with Sir William Coghlan at its head. But suppose we had sent a great mission, and it had shared the fate of Consul Cameron and the missionaries, what could we have done? On arriving at Massowah Mr. Rassam wrote to King Theodore to tell him that he was the bearer of a letter from the Queen, and that if he sent him a proper escort he would go up to him, The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns) has stated, on the authority of Sir William Coghlan, that Mr. Rassam being an Eastern was not a proper person to be sent to King Theodore. But such is certainly not the case. The King had no reason to know that Mr. Rassam was anything but an English gentleman, which he is in every respect, and a proper person, from his rank and station at Aden, to be sent on this mission. It was said that the Emperor was displeased at the small- 1011 ness of Mr. Rassam's mission. But the mission did not consist of Mr. Rassam alone; he was accompanied by a medical man and other gentlemen, and had with him a small vessel of war. So far from the Emperor having been displeased by the smallness of the mission, I have reason to believe that he was frightened by the vessel of war. The only explanation that I can give of the delay which has taken place in Mr. Rassam's departure for the interior, and the refusal of the King to answer the letters which have been written to him, and to give Mr. Rassam permission to visit his court and a safe conduct, is this—During the last two years the King has been waging war against his subjects, there has been an almost general rebellion in the country, his capital is at the present moment in the hands of the rebels, his power is greatly reduced, and his communications with the coast are cut off. Mr. Rassam's messengers had the greatest difficulty in getting through, and Mr. Rassam is of opinion that the King would not invite him to go up, because he would then see the state of the country, and might perhaps fall into the hands of the insurgents. It was not until Sir William Coghlan found that Mr. Rassam could not go up to Gondar, that he advised that a great mission should be sent, and he offered to go himself. Now, we have consulted Sir William Coghlan during the whole of these proceedings, but we could not agree with him on that point. After all the responsibility lies with us, and not with him. Suppose Sir William and his suite had been thrown into prison and ill-treated by the King, what would have been our position? We know that Consul Cameron and the missionaries have only themselves to blame; but if we sent up Sir William Coghlan with a large mission, and they had been imprisoned, the blame would have been entirely ours. I can assure the House that I have it on the highest authority—an authority which for various reasons I can not now name—that if we had sent up such a mission its members would have been thrown into prison; and the reason has been rightly given by Dr. Beke—namely, that the King thinks he can coerce us by holding our agents as captives into giving him assistance against the Turks. If he had thrown Sir William Coghlan and his suite into prison, would you have gone to war with the King? Remember that there is no sea-board, and that you would have to send an army across 1012 most unhealthy and inhospitable plains, to scale lofty mountains before they could reach Abyssinia—to do what? To avenge the imprisonment of a mission we had ourselves sent in spite of the warning we had received, and thereby sacrificing a large number of valuable British lives. If we had done so you would have justly condemned Her Majesty's Government. It appears, therefore, to me that the most prudent course was to decline to accept Sir William Coghlan's proposal. Sir William Coghlan is not responsible for the results, but we are. We had a great many other proposals; among others, that of Dr. Beke, who proposed to go to the King to preach to him on the advantages of free trade and to tell him what valuable coal and iron mines he possessed. But assuredly that is not the kind of lesson to teach King Theodore. Propositions of this kind are all very well coming from irresponsible persons, but her Majesty's Government are responsible, and if Sir William Coghlan or Dr. Beke had been thrown into prison would be held responsible for having exposed them to it. The hen. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns) has spoken of such an event as the imprisonment of a British subject as if it were a thing quite unheard of. But we had a similar case not so long ago. The House will remember the case of Colonel Stoddart and Captain Connolly, who, sent on a political mission, were imprisoned and put to death by the King of Bokhara. Did we send an army to the centre of Asia to avenge their death, or even a special mission to the tyrant who had caused it? In this case Consul Cameron exceeded his instructions; he might have left the country, but he mixed himself up with its affairs. At this moment it is impossible to say why he is imprisoned; but any one who reads the papers that have been laid upon the table will see that no one is to blame for what has happened but himself. All I can say, in conclusion, is, that everything which can in prudence be done for his release and that of the missionaries will be done. We had received intelligence up to the end of May from them, and, though still in captivity, they are in good health, and, as far as Captain Cameron is concerned, he is in good spirits. I trust that in a short time we shall hear good tidings. I have now made my statement respecting the case, and after this statement I hope it will appear to the House that the Government 1013 are not to blame, but that up to this time they have done all that they could do. The only reason for not making this full statement before was lest it might prove prejudicial to those for whom we all feel so deeply concerned.
§ SIR HUGH CAIRNSWill the hon. Gentleman lay upon the table the documents from which he has quoted?
§ MR. LAYARDYes.
§ MR. LIDDELLSir, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, in the opening of his remarks, threw on my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns) the responsibility of any consequences that might arise from this discussion. I trust those consequences will not be serious, but I should like to point out that if responsibility rests on this side of the House for inquiring into the fate of imprisoned British subjects, a much greater responsibility attaches to the words and expressions of the Government on this occasion. Regarding this as a delicate matter, in which we are engaged in delicate negotiations with an irascible Sovereign, who has irresistible power over the captives, I think it would have been more prudent if the hon. Gentleman had not indulged in such terms as "puppet King" and similar expressions of that kind.
§ MR. LAYARDThe expression was not applied to the Emperor Theodore, but to the supposed Emperor of Abyssinia.
§ MR. LIDDELLI think the hon. Gentleman should have been more discriminating in his expressions considering the consequences that might ensue to the persons imprisoned. But, Sir, I have heard with the greatest satisfaction the altered tone of my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Layard), from which I think we may derive an instructive lesson. The House is in the habit of hearing many discussions on Oriental matters, but the Foreign Office is now, it appears, impressed with the expediency of a non-interfering, a non-meddling, policy with respect to these semi-civilized Sovereigns. I cannot help thinking that the Sovereign of Abyssinia must have heard of our policy in China and Japan, and that those feelings of jealousy have been excited by the past history of our conduct with regard to China. The Sovereign has had the greatest objection to an English envoy obtaining entrance to his capital. I cannot help thinking that the beginning of these transactions was coincident with an attempt—happily frustrated—for the establishment 1014 of an English naval officer in a high position in China for the purpose of intermeddling in the affairs of that country and wresting power from the hands of the proper authorities. I hope and believe that after to-night this description of policy will no longer be pursued with Oriental Sovereigns and semi-civilized nations. But we have other warnings. How is it that a person distinguished only as a military officer is chosen to fill the office of Consul? It may have been a proper reward for services, but the selection is evidently unfit. The responsibility of such appointments rests with the Government, and I trust that for the future persons better qualified will be chosen. It is perfectly evident that the matter must rest with the Government, and possibly the less said on the subject the better. I hope that our fellow-countrymen will be rescued from the position of danger and peril in which they are placed, and that in this respect the efforts of the Foreign Office may be crowned with success.
§ MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, that Consul Cameron had been a long time in the Consular service on the east coast of the Black Sea, had acquired great influence in that part of the country, and had shown himself well fitted to deal with half civilized tribes. He was not aware that he was a captain in Her Majesty's service, though he had been a volunteer in the defence of Kars. He thought his appointment as Consul a proper one. As a friend of that gentleman he protested against the course taken in quoting from despatches which had not been laid upon the table, reflecting upon Mr. Cameron. That was a most unusual practice, and his hon. Friend was not justified in resorting to it. As it was, Mr. Cameron would run the risk of being-condemned on the faith of his hon. Friend's speech, but the House would do well to suspend its judgment until the despatches were laid upon the table, and hon. Members could judge for themselves. Mr. Cameron was sent out to Abyssinia in 1861, his instructions being to make Massowah his headquarters, and obtain a knowledge of the political state of Abyssinia. Now, if a gentleman was not to travel in the interior how could he make himself acquainted with the political state of the country? and if he was instructed to make Massowah his headquarters, did this not mean that he should travel elsewhere? His instructions really authorized him to go to the capital, Gondah, and the only 1015 charge made against him was that he stayed there too long; but no despatch had been received by him telling him to return. Mr. Cameron's despatches ought to be produced unmutilated, and it was to be hoped that they would be laid on the table. The Consul was found fault with for endeavouring to make a treaty with King Theodore and for encouraging the King to send an embassy to Europe, because it was supposed that he would ask our help in a war against Turkey. As to the treaty, it was difficult to understand why Mr. Cameron should be blamed for trying to do that which his predecessor had tried to do. With regard to the proposed embassy, the Under Secretary had spoken with a strong animus; but what had we to do with the question whether King Theodore was or was not at war with Turkey? It was only right to have heard what the King had to say on this subject before refusing his embassy. But, besides this, such a refusal was a piece of bad policy in treating with a country with which we had been on friendly terms. In the case of such a country as Abyssinia, an embassy to England encouraged friendly intercourse, and did great good; and the grounds alleged for refusing this embassy were wholly insufficient. He thought that good would have resulted from an embassy from Abyssinia. Merchants of eminence had assured him that advantages arose from the Japanese embassy, and he could not understand why this embassy from King Theodore had been refused. Then, no good reason had been shown for not answering King Theodore's letter, which was a most civil one. The Emperor of the French had been more polite, and it would have been quite possible for us to have sent an answer, giving King Theodore to understand that we were the friends of all nations, and that our wish was to cultivate commercial relations with his people. As to Mr. Rassam, he (Mr. H. Seymour) knew that gentleman, and had the highest opinion of him; but it was natural that when the King was at war with Turkey, he should be prejudiced against an Envoy from the English Government who was not a British subject, but a native of the country with which the King was at war. He thought, therefore, the selection of Mr. Rassam an unfortunate one. He should like to know the course the Government intended to pursue with regard to Captain Cameron. Did they intend to leave him in exile for 1016 an indefinite period because it was supposed he had misunderstood his instructions? Such a course would be rather severe. Nor did he understand from his hon. Friend that any attempts had been made to penetrate Abyssinia through Egypt. He should like to hear what steps the Government intended to take on the question.