§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether a deputation of Armenians was received on Wednesday by the Earl of Dufferin, Her Majesty's representative at Constantinople, now on leave in this country, and that expressions derogatory to the Turkish Government, and menacing to the security of the Ottoman Empire, were used both by members of the deputation and by Lord Dufferin in his reply; and, whether he can give any precedent for such a proceeding on the part of an Ambassador accredited to a friendly state?
MR. GLADSTONESeeing the Question of the hon. Gentleman on the Paper, I have commmunicated with 693 Lord Dufferin, and I learn from him that he received a deputation of Armenians, as it was called in the newspapers, with none of the formalities attending a public deputation, and that the reception was not the subject of any previous communications with Her Majesty's Government. Lord Granville is out of town, and I have had no opportunity of communicating with him. Lord Dufferin says that, so far from his reply having the character of a menace, it consisted of an exposition of the strong motives of self-interest which guaranteed the loyalty of the Armenians to the Turkish Empire, and that it notified the fact that the Sultan had returned a gracious answer to Lord Dufferin's representations. What Lord Dufferin said in addition was merely what he conceives to be a repetition of that which has been already repeatedly stated on the part of Her Majesty's Government in Parliament.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question?
MR. GLADSTONEThe last portion of the Question turns upon an assumption of the accuracy of the previous portion of the Question—that there was in Lord Dufferin's statement a menace or expressions derogatory to the Turkish Government. I am aware of no precedent of that character; and, undoubtedly, I do not think this is a case of that kind.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTHas the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that in the newspaper report it was stated that Lord Dufferin said that the Turkish authorities, instead of protecting the Armenians, seldom lost an opportunity for subjecting them to every kind of injustice and oppression, and that the upshot might prove extremely disastrous to the Porte? Is there any precedent for an Ambassador using language of that sort with regard to a friendly Power?
MR. GLADSTONEAs to the persons who constituted the deputation, I have no knowledge. With regard to the statement that there was frequent oppression by the Turkish authorities, and that they were trying patience which might come to an end, those Turkish authorities are the local authorities of whom Lord Dufferin speaks; 694 and, no doubt, it has been his constant duty, as it has been the constant duty of the British Government, for many years past, to bring to the notice of the Turkish Government, sometimes with advantage, the fact that there are very great abuses in connection with the acts of the local authorities in various parts of the Turkish Empire. Lord Dufferin, I know, is loyally attached to the Turkish authority, always assuming that it is an authority to be exercised, as the authority of every Government should be, for the benefit of its subjects; and his desire is to see it so exercised.