§ MR. E. JENKINSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin, assented to by England and Turkey at a period subsequent to the secret Convention of the 4th of June, did not supersede the second 869 clause of the first Article of that Convention, and substitute the surveillance of the Powers for any special right granted to England under that Convention?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)In my opinion there is no inconsistency between the Articles referred to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman. The general reforms in the administration of Asiatic Turkey, provided for under the Convention of the 4th of June between England and Turkey, will of necessity include those particular reforms in Armenia which are prescribed in Article 61 of the Treaty of Berlin. The Porte will be under an obligation to make known these latter reforms to the Powers, and they will superintend their application. This latter provision is not likely to interfere with the policy of Great Britain, whose only object is to secure by every possible means the due execution of the reforms required.
§ MR. E. JENKINSI beg to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he has not answered my Question. I did not ask him with regard to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Turkey, but with regard to the interpretation of the two documents. I asked him whether the second document does not supersede the first?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)I am sorry I did not answer the Question so as to make myself intelligible to the hon. Member; but I should say most decidedly that the second Treaty does not supersede the first.