§ (11.) £22,810, Diplomatic Services.
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, there was a Motion on the Notice Paper of the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson) for the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the expenses of the Inquiry into the murder of Mr. Ogle. It would, perhaps, save the time of the hon. Member, if he (Mr. Bourke) were to state that those expenses had been paid out of the Estimates of last year.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, he should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would explain what was the amount paid, and under what head it was voted?
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, he could not state the precise amount of that particular Inquiry; it was included with the sums paid for other Inquiries.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONasked, Whether, under present circumstances, he could raise the question of the murder of Mr. Ogle?
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member can only raise upon this Vote a question relating to the sum proposed by the Vote, and as he is assured that it is not intended to apply any part of the money asked for in this Vote, he would not be in Order to go into that question.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, he should move a pro formâ reduction on the question of salaries, in which case he believed he should be in Order.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDventured to express his belief that the sum of 1347 £4,000, asked for the Eastern Roumelian Commission, would be of very little service, a fact which might be gathered from the ordinary sources of information; at the same time, he desired to know something of the opinion which the Government entertained with regard to the results of that Commission, for, as far as he had been able to ascertain, they were but "confusion worse confounded," one Commissioner having, as it was supposed, lost his life in the service; while the population declined to admit the validity of the Commission. He inquired, therefore, whether the labours of the hon. Member for Christ-church (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had been more successful than those of his colleagues? He (Sir Julian Gold-smid) imagined that the hon. Member for Christchurch would have been of more service in the House than on this Commission, which it appeared was not at all likely to be successful, and he was very anxious to know whether the sum of £4,000 in question would cover the whole expenditure, or whether a further sum might not hereafter be asked for? Again, he would like to know how long the Commission, which, in his opinion, was a futile one, would continue; because he thought that it was an interference in the internal arrangements of another country that could only be justified upon very strong grounds. They had already seen indications that all the results of the Treaty of Berlin were not so satisfactory as they had been led to expect; but, at the present moment, they were only concerned with one particular result, and that was the Eastern Roumelian Commission. On these grounds, therefore, he thought that some information should be afforded by the Government, both with regard to the present and past expenditure of the money required.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI think, Sir, the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid) takes rather an unusual opportunity for, I will not say criticizing, but denouncing the Treaty of Berlin, and the manner in which it is being carried into execution. No doubt, it is a very large question how far the arrangements of that Treaty, and the particular arrangement with regard to the Eastern Roumelian Commission, have been successful. But the time for that discussion has not arrived, inasmuch as 1348 the results are not yet complete, and are therefore not before the House. It will be remembered that the time allowed for the execution of the Treaty of Berlin has not yet elapsed, and will not do so until May; and that work is in progress which was deliberately undertaken at the Congress. When that work is complete, I am bound to say that I think it will be found that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) has been doing excellent service to the country; and that when these results are known, they will reflect great credit upon my hon. Friend. It is quite impossible for us to enter into a discussion as to the results of the Eastern Roumelian Commission, or to speculate upon what they may be. The hon. Member says he has read a great many things about this subject, of which, of course, some may be correct and some not; but whether they are or are not correct, the work in hand is of that vast character that, until a final conclusion is reached, no judgment respecting it can possibly be formed; and to attempt this would be like looking at a scientific painting when the work of the artist is but three-parts finished, and which, although at that stage it does not promise a successful result, might be found on completion to be perfectly satisfactory. I hope the upshot of the work which is now being done by the Commission will be of a satisfactory character; but I would rather adjourn the consideration of that point to the time, which must soon arrive, when we shall be able to lay before Parliament the whole story of what has passed, and be in a position to discuss the question upon its merits. The hon. Baronet has asked whether this Vote of £4,000 will cover the whole expense to be incurred on account of the Commission? We have not, at the present moment, the means of saying what the whole cost will be. The Estimate is but a rough one, designed to cover what we suppose to be the expenditure up to the end of the present financial year; and, of course, there will be some addition for the expenses which may be incurred by the Commission from that period until the time when it comes to an end—probably about the beginning of May. I presume, however, the charge will not be of a very formidable character. I hope the Committee will not think the present a convenient season for entering 1349 into any discussion as to whether the Commission has or has not been successful.
§ MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he was quite prepared to wait for the fulfilment of the favourable anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he trusted would be realized. He had to make an inquiry of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke); and, with regard to the item of £3,000 included under letter A, desired to know whether it was a special grant to be made to Her Majesty's Ambassadors at Paris and Constantinople, and why the precise sum paid in each particular case was not stated? He had also asked a Question last Session concerning Paper 47, and would be glad to know if the right hon. Gentleman could state why that document had not Leon presented?
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, that if the hon. Member would call his attention to Paper No. 47 on the following day, he would afford him every information in his power. In reply to the other Question, £2,000 had been granted to Lord Lyons, for the purpose of meeting the additional expenses incurred on account of the Embassy in connection with the Paris Exhibition'; and the remaining sum of £1,000 had been divided amongst the secretaries and employés of the Embassy at Constantinople, in consequence of the rise which had taken place in prices during the war with Russia.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDcomplained that, inasmuch as he had expressly stated that it was not his desire to raise the general issue, he had been treated with unfairness by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the replies given to his inquiries by the right hon. Gentleman. But he had observed that such a course was often followed by Ministers in the House of Commons, where a Member of the Government often rose to say that such or such matter could not be discussed at a particular time, because it was incomplete; while if any hon. Member deferred his Motion to another period, in obedience to that suggestion, he was told it was too late to raise objection, as the whole matter was concluded. He had seen that happen many times in the course of the last 12 years; and he would mention that he had intentionally come down to the 1350 House for the purpose of calling attention to the expenditure then going on, and which he understood to be but a small portion of what was contemplated for the Eastern Roumelian Commission. The right hon. Gentleman, he repeated, had, in his opinion, not acted quite fairly towards him, and should bear in mind that his answer was of the unsatisfactory kind given by so many Ministers on former occasions. If he could see that any benefit would be derived by the populations affected by the Commission, he would have been willing that the money should be spent; but, as he understood, upon good authority, that they did not wish for that Commission, he felt himself justified in speaking of it as futile, and objecting to the expenditure in question.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONexpressed his surprise at the answer given by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the subject of the mission of Captain Sing to inquire into certain alleged outrages in Thessaly. He had put a Question to the hon. Gentleman, and endeavoured to elicit from him an answer which he could understand. And the answer received was that no such officer had been sent out. If the hon. Gentleman would refer to Hansard, he would see that he (Mr. H. Samuelson) was correct in his statement.
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, he had a perfectly accurate recollection of the circumstances referred to, and of the answer given, which was to the effect that Captain Sing was not employed on the mission in question, but that he had been employed in various other capacities.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (12.) £3,000, Consular Services.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would state what further inquiry was contemplated with regard to the murder of Mr. Ogle. The subject had been introduced by the hon. Member for Frome last year, who had furnished upon that occasion many arguments to show that the inquiry which at that time had taken place was both unsatisfactory and incomplete. He was of opinion that anybody who heard the speech of the hon. Member upon that occasion could come to but one conclusion, which was that 1351 the inquiry was incomplete, and that fact had been admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who promised that another inquiry should take place as soon as the country in which the unfortunate event had occurred was in a sufficiently settled state. But there had been no further inquiry, although the district in question was in as settled a condition as the districts under Turkish rule usually were. There could, therefore, be no reason why the further inquiry should not take place, and the sooner the better, as more and more difficulty would be met with, and if it were not instituted within a reasonable time the country might never know the causes which led to the death of Mr. Ogle. He would be glad to be informed when it was contemplated to go further into the matter?
MR. H. SAMTUELSONsaid, that after referring to Hansard, he found that he was perfectly correct in his statement with regard to Captain Sing. He had asked the hon. Gentleman, "If it is not true that Captain Sing has been sent out as a Commissioner?"—[3 Hansard, ccxlii. 1950–1.] Upon that point, he (Mr. Samuelson) happened to have some information which, although it was not necessary to state the source from which it was derived, as far as accuracy was concerned, need not be doubted. The hon. Gentleman had replied, that "All he could say was that he knew of no such Commissioner being sent." He contended that that answer was sufficient to lead him to believe that Captain Sing had not been sent out on that mission. Before quitting the subject, he begged to say that nothing could be further from his intention than to impute anything like intentional inaccuracy to the hon. Gentleman; but he was bound to say that, in putting Questions to him, he had not always been met with quite such straightforward replies as he thought himself entitled to.
§ MR. BOURKEwould not delay for a moment to give his denial to the allegation made by the hon. Member. He had not the slightest right to make such a statement as that just put forward by him. He (Mr. Bourke) challenged the hon. Member, or anyone else, to contrast any Question asked upon the subject of Captain Sing's mission with the answer returned by him. He appealed to the 1352 House, as to whether the quotation of the hon. Member did not substantially bear out the reply which he had given to his Question, "Whether Captain Sing was going to be employed on this particular commission?"—namely, that "he knew of no such appointment." That statement was absolutely true. Captain Sing was not employed in the service to which the hon. Member referred. He had made that statement, and he distinctly repeated it now. It was, therefore, a matter of surprise that the hon. Member had thought it his duty to make the statement of which he complained, and which was absolutely contradicted by facts.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONWill the hon. Gentleman state to what commission Captain Sing was appointed, and in what part of the world?
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, that was another point entirely, and whatever answer might be given to it did not affect the question between him and the hon. Member. Captain Sing had been employed by the Government since that time on several occasions; but the Question now asked had nothing whatever to do with the controversy, and he must decline to answer it.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, he had no wish to impute to the hon. Member any motives inconsistent with his character as a Minister of the Crown, and, if by accident, he had made use of any strong expression, it was that at the moment a more suitable one did not present itself. He freely withdrew the words "not straightforward." Perhaps he should rather have said that the hon. Member's answers were not always strictly categorical. He was, however, willing to leave the whole question between himself and the hon. Gentleman to be judged of by the country. The Motion made by him (Mr. H. Samuelson) in August, 1878, was to the effect—
That, in the opinion of this House, Mr. Consul General Fawcett's Report upon Mr. C. C. Ogle's death is inconclusive, and that a fresh Commission of Inquiry ought to be instituted, composed of Englishmen only, who should be specially empowered to assure the witnesses of the protection of Her Majesty's Government.By the advice of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) he had withdrawn the words "composed of Englishmen only." In the course of the debate, he had shown 1353 that the inquiry over which Mr. Consul General Fawcett presided was absolutely inconclusive, and he had also cleared the character of Mr. Ogle from imputations unjustly east upon it by Turkish and English officials. Great care was taken by him not to say anything which might be considered an attack upon Her Majesty's Government for the action taken by them in the matter; at the same time, he had quoted the opinion of an impartial observer, the correspondent of The Standard newspaper, who said that—The impression upon himself, obliged to be present at the inquiry, was painful, for he felt that a prostitution of the British name was going on. It would have been better that no inquiry at all should have taken place."—[3 Hansard, ccxlii. 1980.]Again, he had shown that the depositions taken by Mr. Blunt were, with one exception, not given upon oath; that a great part of them were untrustworthy, and much irrelevant, and he had disproved the allegations against Mr. Ogle. He also showed that at least one witness, upon his own evidence, was suborned, while he assured the House of his belief in the existence of a mass of fresh evidence which carried conviction to his own mind, inasmuch as every part of it was corroborated by the other. He had further stated that Mr. Consul General Fawcett did not take the evidence of a single witness, and made clear, by quotations from the Blue Book, the animus existing against Mr. Ogle on the part of the Turkish officials. He had likewise pointed out that the guarantee which was considered to be necessary by numerous authorities had been refused by Mr. Fawcett, and that evidence which had been tendered had not been received; he had quoted the three findings of Mr. Fawcett—1. That C. C. Ogle met his death by a gun shot or bayonet wound, on Friday afternoon, the 29th of March, whilst retreating with the insurgents after the second battle of Macrinitza. 2. That he was afterwards, mutilated, his head being cut off by Turkish soldiers. 3. That his great imprudence made it extremely probable that some casualty would happen to him."—[Ibid, 1976.]Further, he had challenged the production of any evidence to show that Mr. Ogle met his death on the 29th of March while retreating with the insurgents, and had, on the contrary, stated that there were witnesses who saw him on the 1354 morning after the battle, when he could not be accused of taking part with the insurgents, or being guilty of any imprudence. It seemed to him, that in asking that the evidence should be sifted by a proper Commission, he was but making a very reasonable request, and he had understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to promise that a fresh inquiry should take place as soon as possible without waiting until everything was "entirely quiet and peaceable in the country,"—[3 Hansard, ccxlii. 2003,]—and that the witnesses who gave evidence should be assured of the protection of Her Majesty's Government, and afterwards, if necessary, taken to a place of safety. As he had said before, he had touched as little as possible upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, and merely stated thatIf they allow a murder of this kind to be neglected, as I believe I shall be able to prove it has been; if they allow it to remain not only practically uninvestigated, but coloured and distorted by a prejudiced statement of facts; if they allow the guilty to remain undesignated, I think the House will agree with me that upon them will rest the very grave responsibility of rendering more insecure in the future than in the past the safety, honour, and welfare of our citizens abroad."—[Ibid. 1958.]His object in making the Motion had been to give the Government the opportunity of relieving themselves from that very heavy responsibility. Since the murder of Mr. Ogle, there had taken place the murder of another British subject in one of the Turkish Islands—he referred to that of Mr. Anderson, in Crete, and he should be very glad to know what means had been taken by Her Majesty's Government for eliciting the truth, and punishing the guilty in that case also? As far as he (Mr. H. Samuelson) knew, no person had been punished, and no inquiry had taken place. The murder of Mr. Ogle occurred on the 30th of March, 1878, or, according to Mr. Consul General Fawcett, on on the 29th of that month. They had now reached the 20th of March, 1879; another year had elapsed, and nothing had been done. They were extending their ægis over Turkey and making themselves responsible to a great extent for her good government, and yet they had done nothing to show the Turks that the blood of British subjects could not be shed with impunity. He said nothing of the omission on the part of the Government 1355 to fulfil the promise which they had given, although he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of Exchequer, upon the day on which the Motion was made, did believe that there existed a primâ facie ground for another inquiry and fully meant every word he said. It might be that questions of policy had arisen in the meantime upon which he was uninformed; but it was not for want of continual pressure upon Her Majesty's Government upon his part, that this very important matter had been left uninvestigated. In again drawing attention to the circumstance of the murder of Mr. Ogle, he had only endeavoured to obtain what he thought they had a right to expect—namely, a further investigation into the brutal murder of a British subject. He was sorry to have detained the House, although he had not fully gone upon that occasion into the merits of the case. The delay that had taken place was very much to be regretted; for, as the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had pointed out, it could not but prejudice the chance of success of a future inquiry. Owing to that unfortunate delay he was now driven to make another public appeal. Only yesterday he had received a letter from the father of the young man who was so brutally murdered. The writer, who was not aware that it was his intention to bring the subject before the House that evening, stated that he "still lay under the shadow of last year," that he began to despair of obtaining justice in England, while he pointed as a contrast to the fact that the people of Volo intended to solemnize the day of Charles Ogle's death with some sacred rite. The day of his death was nearly upon them now, and he only hoped that before its arrival they would receive from the Government some assurance that the memory of Charles Ogle was really to be vindicated and justice done upon his murderers.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI feel, as I am sure all the Members of this House felt last year, the very powerful and touching manner in which the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson) brought forward his case. He has spoken again to-day with the same feeling which so creditably animated him upon the former occasion. At the same time, I ask the House to bear in mind that there are other points of view from which we may regard this 1356 question. With regard to what took place last year, although the hon. Member is within his right in saying that he had established, to his own satisfaction, a case for inquiry, on the ground that the investigation which had been made into Mr. Ogle's death had failed to arrive at the truth; still, the admissions we were able to make on the part of the Government, did not amount to the full acceptance of his position. What I maintained, and what I think I was justified, upon the evidence before us, in maintaining, was this—that so far as the case was investigated, and so far as the evidence before Mr. Consul General Fawcett went, there was the probability, though not the certain conclusion, to be drawn, that Mr. Ogle met his death in the pursuit on the day on which the fight occurred. But, having stated that, I will add that the Government believed that Mr. Fawcett had done his best to get at the truth of the matter, and that if he failed, it was because evidence had not been forthcoming. When the hon. Gentleman stated that he had evidence which would upset the story accepted by Mr. Fawcett, and could show that Mr. Ogle's death occurred on a subsequent day, I admitted that there was really a case in which further investigation should have taken place, and that the evidence should be placed fully before a tribunal which might be invited to see if it were possible to arrive at a different and more accurate conclusion. The promise given was, that an inquiry should take place when the position of the country should admit of that being done. I stated, I think, myself, that we did not mean to say that we must wait until the country was absolutely quiet, but until it was in such a state that the inquiry could be effectually prosecuted, and the Greek witnesses could come forward with a tolerable assurance of safety. Undoubtedly, at that time, we looked forward to being enabled to conduct that inquiry at a very much earlier period than we shall be able to do. Again, we had then reason to hope that the settlement of the boundaries between Turkey and Greece would have made more rapid progress than it has made, and, undoubtedly, it is one element to be taken into consideration, that this particular district may be regarded as certain to fall to Greece. Favourable arrangements had fallen through, or, no doubt, the inquiry would have taken 1357 place with very much greater advantage. The hon. Gentleman is aware, from communications which have passed between himself and the Members of the Government, that the subject has not been out of our minds, although we have not been able to do that which we hoped to do. They had at one time considered the names of gentlemen to undertake the inquiry, but I will not now mention them. I have communicated again with Lord Salisbury, and my noble Friend still remains of the opinion which he expressed in August last—he still believes that a better opportunity would occur for the inquiry when this settlement has been effected. The matter is one that has more than once been considered by us, and I do hope that some opportunity may be given for bringing the circumstances of which the hon. Member has spoken to the test of examination. With regard to Mr. Consul General Fawcett, I am bound to say, upon the evidence presented to him, I think the House will consider that he came to a not unreasonable conclusion. If the evidence was not conclusive, I do not think anything has occurred that would justify the imputations such as I have observed have been cast upon him. It is not only natural that there should be deep sympathy expressed on account of Mr. Ogle, who was undoubtedly a man of most estimable character, but it is also natural that his relatives should entertain some feeling of dissatisfaction, which, as far as Mr. Fawcett is concerned, is hardly to be justified.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that even now it was impossible, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to know whether the inquiry would be made within a reasonable time. If they were really to wait until the boundary question between Greece and Turkey was settled, and if no more pressure was to be exerted upon Turkey by the Government, he was afraid that they must wait for the inquiry until the Greek Kalends. He wanted to know, whether any inquiry would take place within any reasonable time, or whether we were going to wait until the boundary question was settled? They had a right to ask whether that inquiry was to be held at once, or whether it was to be put off for an indefinite period? If they were to go on month after month the evidence 1358 would disappear, and the inquiry would be quite useless. He was sure that if any further delay took place, no real inquiry could be held, and we should never know under what circumstances Charles Ogle lost his life.
§ MR. RAMSAYfelt some interest in the case of Charles Ogle, and could not help expressing his regret that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen fit to give some assurance that a satisfactory investigation of the whole circumstances connected with his death should be made at an early date. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that one point of the case was that Mr. Consul General Fawcett came to a conclusion which was not warranted by the evidence which came before him; and he had also been objected to as not an impartial investigator. He (Mr. Ramsay) inquired at what time they might expect to have the investigation entered upon, in order to satisfy the just expectation of the public; and he could not but feel that the right hon. Gentleman himself must sympathize with hon. Members who had to press upon the Government the investigation of the murder of a British subject under circumstances of such atrocity. It was to be hoped that some assurance would be given by Her Majesty's Government that the inquiry should take place within a short time. It was not enough to tell them they must wait until the Turkish boundary was settled; that was, no doubt, a matter of consequence; but he must express a hope that Her Majesty's Government would feel some impulse to press upon the Sultan a circumstance which occurred in a part of his territories expected very soon to be separated from the rest of his dominions. In his opinion, also, Her Majesty's Ministers might very well point out to the Turkish Government that the murder of a British subject was one that demanded immediate attention.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, after what had been stated on behalf of the Government, he should feel it to be his duty, if no inquiry were made within a reasonable time, again to bring the subject before the House, although it would be painful for him to go over the whole case again. In that event, he would certainly take a Division. On the former occasion, not one hon. Member had spoken against his Motion, and he had been put off with fair promises, for 1359 which reason he did not Divide; but, had he done so, he believed he would have gained the day. The House would not expect him, after a lapse of 12 months from the time when the murder took place, to guarantee the continued existence of the testimony which he had then declared to exist. He firmly believed in it at the time, and he firmly believed in it now; but, in his opinion, the chances of a successful inquiry being held would be seriously diminished if a much longer period of time were allowed to elapse before it took place.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he would like to have some answer to his Question as to whether it was intended to postpone this inquiry until the conclusion of the negotiations with Greece, or whether the inquiry would be held within a reasonable time?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not in a position to answer that Question at the moment; but perhaps he should be able to give the hon. Member the information shortly.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that though Mr. Consul General Fawcett seemed to be a gentleman thoroughly impartial, yet he pressed upon the Government, if possible, to get some gentleman of character whose report would have some influence.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (13.) £19,246, Treasury Chest.
§ MR. WHITWELLsaid, he should like to know the amount of these large sums, and the number of transactions?
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was afraid he could not give the hon. Member the number of the transactions, but he believed the net amount was £1,000,000. It was to make up for the deficiencies arising from the depreciation of silver.
§ Vote agreed to.