CLASS V.

HC Deb 16 August 1889 vol 339 cc1525-75

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £116,698 (including a Supplementary sum of £7,650), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I have given notice of an Amendment to reduce the amount of the salary of the Minister to the Argentine Republic by £1,300. There are many Ministers in South America. Most of these Ministers used to be Consuls General and Ministers Resident, but they have been raised to Ministers Plenipotentiary. Why they have been so raised except to spend a little more money and give a little more patronage I do not know. In the case of the Argentine Republic you converted your Consul General into a Minister Resident, and then you converted him into an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. I have no objection to our Representative having any number of titles he likes; but, unfortunately, when a change of this kind is made it costs the country a great deal. £3,000 a year is paid to the Envoy Extraordinary to the Argentine Republic, £500 to the Secretary to the Legation, and £200 to his clerk, and £435 to the Second Secretary to the Legation; £400 is allowed for rent. In the case of a Minister Resident and Consul General there is no Secretary to the Legation, and there is no Second Secretary. The Minister Resident and Consul General at Chili receives £2,000, without any allowance for rent; in all our representative at Chili costs us £2,250, as against £4,535, the cost of the Legation in the Argentine Republic. Chili is just as respectable and important a country as the Argentine Republic. In Peru and Paraguay, which are close by, you find Ministers Resident and Consuls General. Besides an Envoy Extraordinary in the Argentine Republic you have at Buenos Ayres a Consul, to whom you give £900 a year, with an allowance for office; and in Chili you also have a Consul receiving, I think, £1,000 a year. If you have a Minister Resident and Consul General in the capital of the country, you surely do not require to have a Consul General at £900 or £1,000 per annum besides office expenses. But my great point in regard to the Argentine Republic is that really there is no difference between the Argentine Republic and any other place in South America. There is not sufficient difference to justify you in spending £3,000 more upon the Mission there than upon the Mission to any other South American Republic. A friend of mine told me the other day that it is really an absolute waste of money. He said— The inhabitants of the Argentine Republic are very sensible people. They despise all this fuss and show; they know nothing about an Envoy Extraordinary; they want a quiet, decent, honest man, who receives a reasonable salary, without all this fuss and bother, costing £5,000 a year. They are perfectly satisfied with your Minister Resident and Consul General, or they would be satisfied with having a Consul General alone. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £1,300, which will bring the salary of the Envoy Extraordinary to about the level of the salaries of our Representatives in other South American Republics.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Item A, Salaries, &c, be reduced by £1,300, part of the salary of the Minister to the Argentine Republic."—(Mr. Lahouchere.)

MR. BBADLAUGH

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers my hon. Colleague, I should like to ask him if he can give us any further information as to the result of the investigation concerning the unfortunate emigrants who suffered such severe privations in the Argentine Republic, and I would at the same time ask whether it is not possible for our Representative in the Argentine Republic—Minister, Consul General, or whoever he may be—to send information to this country before the evils rise to such an extent that of necessity they are brought before the attention of this House. I admit that after attention was drawn to these matters in the House the Foreign Office acted with great promptitude, and a great deal was done to relieve the distress, but it was after the distress had risen to a height to attract public attention, and while the agents of the Argentine Republic were still allowed to tempt emigrants.

* THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON, Manchester, N.E.)

I will first answer the points raised by the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He has moved the reduction of the Vote for the salary of Her Majesty's Minister at Buenos Ayres, and he says he does not know what good reason there can be for raising the rank of Her Majesty's Representative at these places in South America.

MR. LABOUCHERE

At this place alone.

* SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

Yes, in the Argentine Republic. The hon. Member thinks the duties might well be discharged by an official of lower rank, and that the staff of a Minister Plenipotentiary is not required, and that the South American Republics are indifferent to representation of this country by officers of high rank. These, I think, are the chief grounds upon which he moved the reduction. Now, on all these points I must traverse what the hon. Gentleman has said. On this subject I think I cannot do better than refer to the Report of the Committee which sat on the Diplomatic and Consular establishments in 1870. In that Report it was stated that it was desirable to give Her Majesty's Representatives at various places places in South America the rank of Minister without increasing their pay. Lord Hammond, who was then Under Secretary of State, gave evidence before that Committee as to the importance of keeping Representatives of the higher rank at those posts; and he said so keenly did these South African Republics feel the importance attached to our representation being by officials of high rank that one of these Governments, when accrediting a Minister jointly to this country and France, fixed the residence of their Representative at Paris instead of London, because we kept a Representative of lower rank in South America. Lord Hammond particularly noticed the case of the Argentine Republic, and dwelt on the importance of British interests there. Since 1870, the Argentine Republic has greatly advanced. The country has developed in an extraordinary degree during the last 10 years. Last year about 1,100 persons emigrated from this country to the Republic, and there are probably 100,000 British subjects there now. Our commercial interests there have very much increased, and undoubtedly our relations with that Republic are more important now than with any other South American country, except, perhaps, Brazil. Her Majesty's Representative at Buenos Ayres was already a Minister Plenipotentiary when we were represented by a Chargé d' affaires at other places in South America, and it has always been considered that the post there is more important. The tide of emigration which has flowed towards Buenos Ayres and the Argentine Republic has thrown a great deal of extra work on Her Majesty's Minister there, and I cannot speak too highly of the manner in which that official has devoted himself to the interests of the poor people who have emigrated there in large numbers. He has been well seconded by the British residents, who formed themselves into a Committee for the assistance of poor emigrants, and requested the British Minister to put himself at their head. The junior Member for Northampton has asked a question as to the result of the inquiries made with regard to emigration. I have had considerable experience in watching emigration to our own possessions and to foreign countries, and I have never heard of so much care being taken of emigrants in any country as in the Argentine Republic, except in our own possessions. The Argentine Government, according to our information, have made careful and liberal arrangements for their reception and distribution. No doubt there has been mischief done by unscrupulous agents in Europe who have held out hopes to all sorts of people of fortunes to be made in the Argentine Republic, and many unsuitable persons were sent from Ireland—bad characters and persons of idle habits. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, I suppose even in Ireland there are people of bad habits, I am speaking of facts within my own knowledge when I say that most unsuitable persons were collected and sent out as emigrants to the Argentine Republic, but there is abundant evidence that able-bodied men with small families can do as well there as in our Australian Colonies. Great pains are being taken to form Englishmen and Irishmen into special settlements under conditions suited to their former habits, and where their interests can be looked after much better than if they were scattered through the whole country. I believe the Argentine Government are now very much more careful as to the agents they employ, and we have done our best to furnish, the Emigration Office in London and the Irish Government with all the information that can be obtained from the full Reports sent home by Her Majesty's Minister at Buenos Ayres, so that those who think of emigrating there may have before them the exact prospects they may anticipate, and need not go out with any false ideas.

MR. BRADLAUGH

May I ask whether there has come to hand the result of the investigations into the alleged insufficient supply of food to emigrants and bad treatment on the voyage out by the agents of the Argentine Republic?

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

Yes, that has been gone into, and the Papers, if they are moved for, will give the House all the information we possess on this subject. I cannot find there was much wrong in the food supply on the voyage except, perhaps, on one vessel where there was a dishonest steward. On the whole, I do not think that the emigrants suffer greater hardships than may be expected by newcomers in any country. I think the Committee will see that no case has been made out to justify the reduction of the Vote on the grounds put forward by the hon. Member for Northampton.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I do not think that anybody who has listened to the right hon. Gentleman will agree that he has made out a case against the reduction. The right hon. Gentleman has based his defence on one ground. He defends the expenditure of £3,000 a year more in the Argentine Republic than in other South American Republics on account of the rank of our Representative, on the ground that there is a large emigration from this country to Buenos Ayres and that the Minister looks after the emigrants. Now the right hon. Gentleman has distinguished himself as a Governor and in other ways, but I do not think he was ever on a mission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had some diplomatic experience at Constantinople. But I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that the last place an emigrant thinks of going to is the Legation if there happens to be a Consulate. No emigrant to America ever dreams of going to the British Minister at Washington. I really do not think the right hon. Gentleman supports his position in any way when he says there are more emigrants go to the Argentine Republic than to other South American Republics. He tells us there was a Committee in 1870, and no doubt there was, and the rank of our Representatives is in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. Probably some 50 people in the Republic know the difference between a Minister Plenipotentiary and a Chargé d' affaires, and it may make them happier. The Committee wanted to do something, and they made their recommendations. We know how these things happen in Committees. But you do not carry this out fairly; you make a distinction in regard to the Argentine Republic. Now, Monte Video is almost opposite Buenos Ayres, just as Calais is opposite Dover.

* SIR R. FOWLER (London)

Ninety miles apart.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Yes, I know; and Calais is only 24 miles off. You have Uruguay on the one side, and, I suppose, there are a considerable number of emigrants there, and there you have a Consul General to whom you pay £1,600, or, with his clerk, £1,750; and at Buenos Ayres, opposite Monte Video, you have a Minister and his Secretary, &c., costing £4,635. The right hon. Gentleman mentions a case in which he says a South American Republic, influenced by the rank of our Representative out there, fixed the residence of their joint Representative for England and France in Paris. Well, of course it is the same in South America as in North America—the people like Paris, they look upon Paris as a place for good people to go to. Having a choice between London and Paris they prefer Paris. It may be bad taste, but so it is. Really, considering the Ministers we have had from these South American Republics—I have known some of them—the less we have of them the better. So far as I am concerned they may all live in Paris. I am not speaking of present Representatives—let these be exceptions—but my experience of these gentlemen who have the title of Ministers is, that they get little salary; they get their livelihood in a precarious, speculative sort of way; they make bogus treaties, and they play billiards. When we are told that we ought to pay £3,000 extra to one of these South American Republics, because if we do not that Republic may positively be so antagonistic that they will send their Minister to live at Paris instead of in London, it is a litle too absurd. If that view is the true one, then we ought to make them all Ambassadors at once for fear of exciting jealousy. It is the duty of the Under Secretary to defend it; but with his experience of the Foreign Office, he must know perfectly well that it is an utterly useless and wasteful expenditure of public money. Under the circumstances, I must ask the Committee to divide.

MR. MOLLOY (King's County, Birr)

I shall support my hon. Friend, not that I can enter into these diplomatic distinctions and what he calls fuss and feathers, for I am bound to admit I do not understand these things; but in regard to emigration I may say a word or two. Our Ambassador—or whatever he is called—in the Argentine Republic took no precautions whatever in regard to the arrival of emigrants.

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. The Minister engaged himself with the Relief Committee beforehand, when he heard that a large number of English and Irish emigrants were coming. It happened that a large number of emigrants had arrived a day or two before, and the barracks where emigrants are accommodated on their arrival were full. The Minister with the British Relief Committee took immediate action. The Committee provided for some of the poor people in their own houses, and but for the relief afforded by the Committee the people would have suffered much more than they did.

MR. MOLLOY

The fact remains that no action was taken by the Minister until the British residents formed themselves into a committee and went to the Minister and induced him to put himself at their head. Agents came from the Argentine Confederation to England and Ireland to induce people to emigrate, but what notice of this was taken before these agents came over? The intention was well known in Buenos Ayres, and yet no information was given, no precaution was taken; the evil was allowed to be done, and no action was taken until the British residents took the matter up, and, thus invoked, the Minister gave his assistance. The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfactory. For what purpose I cannot conceive, the right hon. Gentleman stated, as an excuse for the miseries that these unfortunate people suffered, that the emigrants were mostly Irish and of bad character.

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

No.

MR. MOLLOY

I noticed at the same time that the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer tried to stop the right hon. Gentleman by pulling his coat-tail. Now this is a grave accusation to make. We know these people who went out yielded to the temptations of the Argentine agents over here, and owing to the want of precautions taken by our Minister. What warrant has the right hon. Gentleman for saying that the people who went from Ireland were mostly composed of idlers and bad characters?

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

I never said such a thing. I said that too little care was taken in the selection of suitable emigrants, and that many sent from Ireland were not fitted to make good colonists; that a considerable number were of idle habits. It was the fault of selection. I know that there are a large number of Irishmen now in the Argentine Republic who are doing exceedingly well, and are good colonists from every point of view. I never said anything approaching the statement that the Irish emigrants were chiefly bad characters. I said there were many who were unfortunately chosen.

MR. MOLLOY

The great majority of them.

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

I never said so.

MR. MOLLOY

Certainly the impression conveyed was that a large number were composed of idlers and bad characters, and I at once drew attention to the remark across the House, and the Chancellor of the Exchecquer tried to check it. Does anybody know if an emigrant is well fitted until he becomes acquainted with the habits and work of a new country? Still the fact remains that the Minister Plenipotentiary, with practically nothing to do—I have visited some of these countries, and I know their life is that of case and leisure—allowed these agents to come to England and Ireland and induce these families to go out, and sent no word of warning that might have saved them from the miseries they underwent. There is nothing more unfortunate in the history of my country than the miseries that emigrants have had to undergo. I have seen them landed in foreign countries where we have Ambassadors, Consuls, and an expensive Diplomatic Service, and yet they have become absorbed in the miseries and vices of a foreign city, and no help has been afforded to give them a fair chance; the men become drunkards, the women become something worse. How is it with all this expenditure on the Diplomatic Service no precautions are taken against these things? Go to any country you like, it is not from the diplomats the emigrants get any assistance, whatever help there is comes from private associations. And here in this House we have excuses made, and no word of sympathy for the unfortunate people who have suffered these miseries that a word of warning might have prevented. So far as I know, and I have made some inquiry, notwithstanding the examples we have had, notwithstanding the evil that has been done, no public warning has been sent by the Minister. It may be he has done so in private but that is of no use to the public. The agents are still endeavouring to get people to emigrate, and there is no warning of the dangers and difficulties before them. I shall support the hon. Member in his Motion for a reduction, not on the ground he has himself taken, but on the ground that the work for which these gentlemen are paid has not been done, and in order to mark the opinion of the Committee with regard to the grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Minister Plenipotentiary in the Argentine Republic.

* SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

Before we divide I should like to assure the Committee of my own knowledge that there is not the slightest foundation for the statement of the hon. Member that her Majesty's representative at Buenos Ayres has been in the least degree indifferent to any of his duties, and particularly in looking after emigrants who have gone out there. That gentleman has gone out of his way to take an immense deal of trouble to assist them. He has also sent home a large quantity of useful information, as will be seen when the Papers are distributed.

MR. MOLLOY

I do not dispute that he is doing so now—

* SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

And has done so all along.

MR. MOLLOY

I challenge denial when I say that no warning of any sort was sent by our Minister Plenipotentiary to this country, and the truth is a number of unfortunate families have been dragged to ruin through his dereliction of duty.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the distinction between a Minister Resident, or Envoy Extraordinary, and a Consul? The business of the former is to communicate with the Government respecting political matters, while the latter has to send home Commercial Reports. You have at Buenos Ayres, in addition to the Minister Resident, a Consul General who receives a salary of £1,000 a year, besides expenses to the extent of £500 a year. You have also a Consul at Rosario who gets £500 per annum. Why do not these gentlemen look after emigrants, and why is so much more given to our Representatives at Buenos Ayres than at Monte Video?

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I did not hear the formal speech of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but I heard the account given of it by my hon. Friend, and I must say that the few words which have just been uttered have not materially qualified that account. In defending the inaction of the Minister to the Argentine Republic the right hon. Gentleman has defamed the character of the people of Ireland. You give this Minister a salary of £3,000 a year, while your Consul gets £1,000 a year, and when it is obvious that poor people have been seduced from Ireland by false representations, these officials might surely have issued a warning as to the conditions under which the emigrants could be safely conducted. But the Consul gave no such information, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why. Surely the Minister could have made some arrangements for the reception of these emigrants and have issued some notification to the people at home, which would prevent a recurrence of these disgraceful calamities. It does not appear that up to a recent date any sort of information was given, though the Minister now seems to be atoning for his neglect. With regard to the attack which the right hon. Gentleman felt himself justified in making on these emigrants, my hon. Friend informs me that he spoke of them as people of bad character, and I think we are entitled to know what he meant by that, for it is not to be tolerated that a Minister should rise in his place and fling general imputations of bad character against these poor helpless people. It is the first time I have heard, either in this House, or out of it, that the Irish emigrant is unwilling to turn himself to any particular work, and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what work it was that these emigrants were unwilling to do. If the charge be true that these people were idle and not good colonists, then they must be different from all the Irish emigrants I have ever heard of, and I think the Home Secretary, who has had some experience of Ireland, will be able to confirm me when I say that if there is any hard work to be done, the Irish emigrant is the man to do it. I repeat that these Irish people are about the best colonists that can be obtained. They are as ready and as able as any other people to accommodate themselves to different kinds of labour. If the right hon. Gentleman knew anything about the Argentine Republic, he would know that it is Irishmen who have done most to build up the prosperity and make the progress of that Republic; and, in the face of these facts, I think he was not judicious in rising at the Table and making an attack on an inoffensive people who were led to a distant part of the world by false representations. I noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was on the Ministerial Bench at the time, and did not interfere; but had the First Lord of the Treasury been present, no doubt he would have used his influence to prevent such unfounded charges being made.

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

The right hon. Gentleman could hardly have heard my answer to the hon. Member for Northampton with respect to the hardships suffered by some emigrants to the Argentine Republic. I thought it proper to give the information which I have received, and which will soon be in the hands of Members. What I said was that for the most part the emigrants did very well, but that in some cases there had been a careless selection of emigrants, some of whom were not suitable, and others not of good character. As a fact, I believe that some of the emigrants have proved excellent colonists. In Ireland, as in England, I suppose, some are fitted for emigration more than others. I cannot help it if the right hon. Gentleman is not pleased. I am glad to know that the Minister has been doing his duty and exerting himself on behalf of colonists.

DR. CLARK

I think good reason has been shown for this reduction. Why should the Argentine Republic have both a Minister and a Consul, while seven other South American States are satisfied with a Minister and Consul General combined in one person? Why should the Argentine Republic have a special envoy?

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

I have already answered that point. I cannot help it if the hon. Member was not in the House when I answered the hon. Member for Northampton.

DR. CLARK

I was in the House and heard the attempted explanation of the right hon. Gentleman; but certainly, so far as I can judge, he gave no reason why we should vote this extra money to the Argentine Republic.

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

What I said was that British trade and interests were greater in the Argentine Republic than in any other South American State except Brazil. The expense of living at Buenos Ayres, owing to its rapid development, has largely increased of late years. There is no reason at all for the reduction of the Vote.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I admit that the right hon. Gentleman has given reasons for this heavy expenditure, but they are not good reasons. The cost of living in the Argentine Republic is not greater than in Peru or Monte Video, and the Minister is not called upon to entertain to any considerable extent.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 101.—(Div. List, No. 313.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I have an Amendment to reduce theVoteby£3,000, but I propose only to move a reduction of £500, and in doing so I have to discuss two points, the first being the salary paid to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Vienna. There is nowadays a great tendency to appoint Ambassadors where Ministers Plenipotentiary and Envoys Extraordinary have been before. An Ambassador has a higher salary and a higher retiring pension, in return for which the country gets no practical advantage, the only difference between the two positions being that an Ambassador can demand a private audience of the Monarch of the country to which he is accredited, because he is supposed to be the direct representative of the Sovereign who accredits him; whereas a Minister Plenipotentiary and an Envoy Extraordinary has not that right. It seems to me that this is a small and impracticable advantage. I have taken the case of Austria because it is first on the list, but the same observations apply to other countries. In Spain and Italy, for instance, Envoys Extraordinary have been converted into Ambassadors. It may be said that where foreign countries send Ambassadors here we should send an Ambassador to those foreign countries; but that is not true as a general rule. In some cases we send Ambassadors to foreign countries which only send Envoys Extraordinary here. That is my first point. My next is that the Ambassador at Vienna is paid £500 a year more than the Ambassadors at Berlin and St. Petersburg, and I want to know the reason for that difference. It is said that the Ambassador is given this high salary at Vienna because the expense of living is very high. I should have thought it was as expensive at Berlin, but there is no question of this—that the expense of living at St. Petersburg is at least one-third higher than in Austria, although we pay less to our Representative in St. Petersburg than we do to the Ambassador in Vienna. I, therefore, ask the Committee to agree with me in making this reduction as a protest, in the first place, against the whole system of these Ambassadors abroad; and, in the second, against paying our Ambassador in Vienna so much more per annum than those in Berlin and St. Petersburg. There is another small point I wish to deal with. There is £300 put down for a chaplain. There is no such thing as a chaplain to an Embassy, but in places where there is a Consul a chaplain can be paid double the sum subscribed by the residents for his support. Here the chaplain is put down as chaplain to the Ambassador. I find that there is a Consul General at Vienna. He is a very ornamental sort of gentleman, because he receives no fees, and the total fees he collects during the entire year are £35. The existence of this gentleman entails upon us a cost of £300 for a chaplain, and, I think, most improperly. I beg to move the reduc- tion of the salary of the Ambassador in Austria by £500.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Item A, Salaries, &c., be reduced by £500, part of the Salary of the Ambassador to Austria."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

I am glad the ton. Gentleman has not referred to the Vienna Embassy because he objects to it particularly, but only on the general ground that Ambassadors are not necessary, and that the work may as well be done by representatives of lower rank. Well, Sir, it has become the practice of late years for the Great Powers to be represented at each other's Courts by officials of the highest rank. It is a matter of International courtesy, and certainly English interests abroad are not less now than in times past. The hon. Gentleman has remarked on the recent raising of the rank of the Representative at Madrid to that of Ambassador, but he has fallen into the mistake of imagining that the Spanish Representative in our Court is not an Ambassador. It was because he was raised to the rank of Ambassador that Her Majesty's Government raised the rank of our Representative at Madrid. The proposal came from the Spanish Government, and it was not thought desirable to refuse such a mark of respect to a country which I am glad to say has, of late, been making remarkable advances. The change made there has been made without any additional cost to the public. That has been avoided by a rearrangement of salaries and allowances in other places. As to the chaplain, it has long been the custom to maintain a chaplain at such places, and it is a very comfortable thing for British subjects when they go to a foreign country to find their own church is represented there.

MR. LABOUCHERE

The right hon. Gentleman has thrown a most extraordinary light on the mode in which money is obtained and spent on this Vote. We have hitherto managed with a Plenipotentiary in Spain and were perfectly satisfied. Suddenly Spain in a swagger sort of way—being a little Power that wants to be a great Power—sends an Ambassador to London, and as a consequence we have to send an Ambassador to Madrid. How is the money got? By the transfer of salaries from other offices. Then the right hon. Gentleman admits either that the Government have been most cruel to other public servants, or year after year they have been paying salaries which are unnecessary. Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether the Spanish Ambassador receives the same salary as our Ambassador in Madrid? I should say that most undoubtedly he does not. So that Spain has made an uncommonly good bargain, because she gets a much larger amount of British money spent in Madrid than she sends to England. How far is this to go? If the Republic of Honduras should send an Ambassador here, would Her Majesty's Government return the compliment? There is one country which shows common sense in this matter. The United States never appoints or receives Ambassadors. An Envoy is good enough for that great country. Then the Under Secretary says it is a pleasant thing to find a church abroad. That may be so, but it is not a pleasant thing for me to have to pay for the chaplain of a church which is not necessarily my church. There are many sects in this country, and for my part I regard them as pretty equal. There is a sect called the Church of England, and there is one called the Presbyterian. The right hon. Gentleman, being a Scotchman, may be a Presbyterian. Does it not shock his sense of justice when he goes to Vienna and finds that, as a member of the fine old sect of Presbyterians, he has to pay for the Church of England chaplain, and cannot find any Presbyterian church? The shameful thing is that this is done by trickery and dodgery. The Ambassador has no right to a chaplain. By rights, I ought to divide twice over—that is to say, in regard both to the Ambassador and the chaplain—but I think I shall have done my duty if I divide the Committee over the Ambassador.

MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)

I have been struck with the argument used by the hon. Gentleman in regard to these chaplains. I find we have such chaplains in Austria, Denmark, Greece, Spain, and Turkey. But what becomes of the wretched and unfortunate Englishman who at this time of the year is wandering in Belgium? There is no chaplain there. What becomes of the English traveller in France? There is no chaplain there. In Russia and Italy we are chaplainless, and why on earth do we not have a chaplain in Persia? We have as our Representative there a very eminent former Member of this House, and one would have thought that his spiritual affairs would have been looked after more carefully. The fact is, it is simple nonsense, and the excuse is simply an excuse. There is no reason that could be given in regard to any one of these cases that would not apply just as much to the other. As to the question of Ambassadors and Envoys. I should like to know why one is paid more than the other, seeing that they do exactly the same work and have exactly the same responsibility. Why should you pay a man more because you give him a nicer name? I shall certainly feel it my duty to vote with my hon. Friend, unless some explanation is given of the change in the rates we are paying for an article which is admittedly the same.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 96.—(Div. List, No. 314.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I see no Cabinet Minister on the Front Bench, and I do not see the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of whom I am anxious to ask a few questions respecting our position with regard to Italy. I experience a difficulty in asking him those questions when he is not here.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. LABOUCHERE

proceeded: Some time ago I asked several questions in regard to our relations towards Italy, and particularly in regard to the Triple Alliance. I did not receive any great information upon the matter. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that since then official journals, both of Germany and Italy, have stated that England has actively interfered with the object of inducing the Italian Government to join the Triple Alliance. I wish to know whether this country has any relations with Italy; and, if so, what are they? At the present time Europe is practically divided into two camps. There are Austria, Germany, and Italy on one side entering into what they are pleased to call an alliance for the purpose of peace, but which appears to be practically an alliance of a defensive kind against either Russia or France singly, or Russia and France combined. Now, I am one of those who think that the less we meddle in affairs on the Continent the better it will be for us. This country is an Island, and it seems to me that we ought to take up the same position towards the Continent as the United States adopts towards Europe. If the Continental Powers go to war certainly we ought to regret it, but we ought not to put ourselves between the hammer and the anvil. We ought, perhaps, to give good advice, which probably would not be listened to; but we ought not, directly or indirectly, to enter into any engagement or liability which might drag us into a Continental war. The Emperor of Germany has lately been in this country. I asked a question sometime ago as to whether there was any truth in the statement that conversations had taken place between the Emperor of Germany or Count Bismarck and Lord Salisbury defining our position in regard to the Triple Alliance? An allegation has since been made in the Opinione, the official journal, that when Prince Bismarck was anxious for Italy to join the Triple Alliance he found Italy somewhat reluctant to do so. The Italian Minister perceived that if a war broke out between Germany, Austria, and France, and Italy were to become the ally of Germany and Austria, although she might, with the aid of Germany and Austria, hold her own on land yet her sea-coast was open to attack on the part of France, owing to the stronger Navy of the latter Power. In those circumstances, it is alleged that Prince Bismarck asked Sir E. Malet to use his good offices with Her Majesty's Government to say or do something that would lead the Italian Government to join the Triple Alliance. Whether a despatch was written or a private letter, or whether personal assurances were given to Italy, does not appear; but, undoubtedly, it is generally believed that at that time Lord Salisbury did make certain communications to Italy which indicated that she could with safety join the Triple Alliance—that we would be on the side of the Triple Alliance, and do our best to prevent Italy suffering loss of territory in consequence of her joining that alliance. These statements are again renewed in the Opinione and another foreign journal; and I should like to have a clear and distinct assurance from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that neither directly or indirectly have we given any species of assurance, either to Germany, Austria, or Italy, that might lead them to suppose that in the event of war between those Powers and France and Russia we should in any sort of way side with the members of the Triple Alliance.

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

This is not the first time the hon. Member has asked me a question of this kind. At the beginning of the Session last year the hon. Member asked a question on the same subject, then as now prefacing it by quoting some rumours which he said had prevailed.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to correct him on one point? Only two or three weeks ago I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether certain statements in the Opinione, which is regarded generally in Italy as an inspired organ of the Government, were correct or not.

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

That is so; but still I am quite correct in saying that the hon. Member asked a question last year which he prefaced by quoting rumours similar in their character to those now brought forward. The hon. Gentleman asked me a fortnight ago whether certain statements in the Opinione, alleging that Her Majesty's Government had in some way committed themselves to join the Triple Alliance or give material assistance to Italy in certain contingencies, were correct. At that time I gave a distinct reply, and said that there were no such engagements, and that Her Majesty's Government preserved entire freedom of action in future in case of any eventuality. I happen to know that immediately after I made that statement another Italian newspaper, the Italia, which is supposed to be as well informed as the Opinione, said that from their point of view, and having the greatest regard for the friendship of England, they thought the statement I had made was perfectly satisfactory and consistent with the facts. The hon. Member asks, à propos of some rumours which he has again quoted, of a character which I should have thought were manifestly unauthen- tic, whether I am still able to say that Her Majesty's Government have not committed themselves to a possible junction with the Triple Alliance. The statement I made to the House in answer to the hon. Member in February of last year was still literally correct. I said on that occasion that Her Majesty's Government were under no engagements to employ the Military or Naval Forces of this country except such as were known to the House, and that their attitude was entirely within and consistent with the Treaties known to the House. I cannot imagine any declaration that can be more precise and authentic than that, and I do not know that the hon. Member has any ground whatever for doubting the repeated statements that have been made, not only in this House, but on behalf of the Government in another place, and which are entirely consistent with that declaration. No country in Europe has more at stake, or is more interested in the maintenance of peace, than Great Britain; and the fact that she is strong makes her moral influence, which must always be on the side of peace, of greater importance. We entirely desire that peace should be preserved, and I believe that other nations appreciate the freedom of action which this country has always maintained. As our interests are worldwide—so world-wide that a disturbance in any part of the world must gravely affect us—it is the more necessary that while our endeavours must always be on the side of peace, the Government of this country shall be free in any eventuality to take that course which the interests of this country, in view of the circumstances, may require.

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

The right hon. Baronet referred in a tone of stricture to my hon. Friend's remarks concerning certain rumours. It is impossible for unofficial Members of this House to be altogether indifferent to this matter. We ask for definite assurances from the official Members of the House. The right hon. Baronet says that this country has preserved its entire freedom of action. That may be very true, but it is quite consistent with the idea that this country may have given an intimation to Italy that, in certain circumstances, this country will probably be inclined to take a particular line of action. The right hon. Baronet says that the Government have not committed themselves to any possible junction with the Triple Alliance, and I do not wish to misinterpret the right hon. Gentleman, but these words seem to me to be of a rather sweeping character.

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

I should not like to be misunderstood. In order to be quite precise I quoted what I stated before, to which I entirely adhere. I said, "Her Majesty's Government were under no engagements to employ the Military or Naval Forces of this country except such as were known to the House."

MR. PICTON

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for completing my information, "except such as were known to the House." Unfortunately we private Members are not able to keep ourselves exactly informed as to the precise terms which occur in the various public documents, and we would be extremely grateful if on occasions of this kind Members of the Government would tell us precisely to what we are committed. We want to know, for instance, whether the pressure put upon the House by the Government to increase the powers of the Navy this year was occasioned by the consciousness that we were committed to warlike contingencies. So far as hon. Members are aware there is no engagement except that relating to Belgium; we do not know of any Treaty binding us to maintain the unity of Italy. The pressure exerted by the Government in the matter of naval defence did occasion much uneasiness to some Members who may be regarded as specially lovers of peace—peace consistent, of course, with honour; and I do not think that the information we have received as yet can be deemed satisfactory. We on these Benches are quite as much concerned in the honour as well as in the safety of our native land as any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite; but we contend that our honour is not concerned in the defence of institutions which ought to be maintained by the inhabitants of the country that loves those institutions. Anxiety is quickened when we hear of rumours which are not completely contradicted that we are committed to the maintenance of the Triple Alliance.

MR. WADDY

Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House accept implicitly any statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, either as a private gentleman, or as a public official; but that is not the difficulty. The difficulty lies beyond that. I observe that the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us in definite language that there have been no assurances whatever given by this country, and that there would be no interference whatever by this country to secure the objects of the Triple Alliance. Instead of telling us what it is to which he pledges himself, he resorted to the quotation of words which related to another period; and he used a phrase calculated from past association to arouse suspicion. He spoke of a rumour not being authentic. That word "authentic" has a very unpleasant history.

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

If the hon. Member likes, I will say it is perfectly absurd.

MR. WADDY

That the statement of the Opinione is perfectly absurd?

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

No.

MR. WADDY

Ah!

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

No, the statement which the hon. Member made. I gave a categorical answer at the time as regards the quotation from the Opinione showing that it was incorrect. I said the rumours to which the hon. Member for Northampton referred are quite unauthentic, and I will go so far as to say they are absurd.

MR. WADDY

I do not understand the distinction drawn between things that are unauthentic and things that are absurd. I said that the word "authentic" has an unpleasant history. We all remember that a very eminent authority, when he was asked in another place questions with regard to a treaty, said, "the rumours in question are altogether unauthentic, and not deserving of the confidence of noble Lords." At the very time that was said the Treaty had been written, and the "unauthentic" statement was perfectly true. What we desire the right hon. Gentleman to tell us is whether we have entered into any undertaking to support Italy by military or naval force. We do not want to hear about what is included or excluded by any particular Treaty. Will he say that there is no truth whatever in the statement that this country is a party to any assurance or inducement to any member of the Triple Alliance?

MR. LABOUCHERE

The right hon. Gentleman has told us he repeats the words he used in a previous Session, and those words, as I gather them, are that he can assure the House that no engagement has been entered into with Italy to employ the Forces of Her Majesty in the defence of Italy.

* SIR. FERGUSSON

I said, "Her Majesty's Government were under no engagement to employ the military or naval forces of this country, except such as were known to the House."

MR. LABOUCHERE

But without being under any engagement to employ the Military or Naval Forces of the country in defence of Italy, you may yet convey to Italy in an indirect fashion that so far as the Members of Her Majesty's Government are concerned they approve of the Triple Alliance, and that should any harm come to Italy through her forming the Triple Alliance they will, if they are in office, use their best offices to protect Italy against any loss of territory. I do not suppose that Lord Salisbury, who stands in fear of public opinion, will give any assurances to Italy that will not leave the right hon. Gentleman free to make and repeat the declaration he has quoted. But I will submit to the right hon. Gentleman a form of words that will give satisfaction:— That no communication has been made to Italy by Her Majesty's Government, since the accession to office of Lord Salisbury, either orally or in writing, which may lead that country to suppose that Her Majesty's Government would, in any eventuality, protect Italy from the possible consequences in the Mediterranean of her finding herself the ally of Germany, or that Her Majesty's Government approves of the alliance entered into between Austria, Germany, and Italy. These are broad words; they cover everything; they express what I mean. I have written them down to make it perfectly clear what I mean. I am a simple-minded person, and do not understand all the refinements of the right hon. Baronet or of his chief. I remember the rumours in the Press and the statement of Lord Salisbury with respect to an agreement made with Turkey. If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to give any clear and specific declaration that nothing in the nature suggested by my question has been done, or if, on the other hand, he will give us a declaration which we shall be able fully to understand and be prepared to accept, and which, if given, will prevent our urging at any future time that any secret arrangement has been arrived at in this matter, we shall know or infer what is the true state of affairs. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs will answer my question. I am ready to accept the statement of those gentlemen, either jointly or separately. I hope we shall have some sort of assurance from one of them. [Laughter from the Treasury Bench.] The right hon. Gentleman laughs. He perfectly well knows that he cannot give any such assurance. He knows that when Lord Salisbury disappears from the Foreign Office traces of this business will be left behind, and the noble Lord will be discovered as he was once before when he made certain statements which were not put forward in that direct, right, or proper manner in which such statements ought to have been made and understood, in order to suit the exigencies of his European policy. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the representative of Lord Salisbury, whether he can give a satisfactory reply to the question I have written out? As I have said, this question covers everything; but if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give such an assurance as I have asked for and falls back on the sort of vague, ambiguous, and evasive statement he made last year—of course I mean no offence to the right hon. Baronet in saying this—I, and many others in this House will continue to believe that there is some secret alliance between the Prime Minister of England, Lord Salisbury, and the members of the Triple Alliance, and that that alliance is levelled, to a considerable extent, against France and Russia. I think it is more likely to be levelled against France than Russia, because although Lord Salisbury has a perfect mania with regard to the ambitious projects of Russia, he has, nevertheless, a special hatred against France, and has shown this hatred and grossly insulted that couu- try by declining to take any part whatever in the Exhibition.

* THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH), Strand, Westminster)

In answer to the very extraordinary observations of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I would say that there is not one atom of foundation for any of the fears or vaticinations in which the hon. Member has indulged, nor is there one atom of foundation for the views which he has attributed to Lord Salisbury or Her Majesty's Government with regard to France. The Government of this country are on terms of the most perfect friendship with the Republic of France, notwithstanding the efforts which have been made by hon. Members in this House and by other persons in the country to disturb those amicable relations. I have every reason to believe that the Government of France regard England as a Power on whom they may rely for the most friendly relations, and we have not the slightest apprehension that anything will arise to disturb these relations.

MR. W. M'ARTHUR (Cornwall, Mid, St. Austell)

I have heard the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and I may say it is all very well for him to comment on the language of my hon. Friend the senior Member for Northampton in reference to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government towards the French Republic. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the perfect amity which exists between the two countries; but Her Majesty's Government have so extraordinary a way of showing this that I am reminded of the couplet— It's all very well to dissemble your love, But why did you kick me down stairs? I do not see why all the dispatches which have passed on this subject between England and Germany and England and Italy should not be produced. This House and the country have had a great deal too much of the old-fashioned system of Foreign Office diplomacy, which is still being conducted in the hugger-mugger method that has characterised it for so many years past. It is next to impossible for this House to form a reasonable judgment on any subject connected with foreign affairs, because every time any information is called for which might be of the least use to the House it is withheld until the country is irrevocably committed to engagements from which it cannot recede, and the judgment of the people, who, after all, are the masters of the Ministry, is reduced to a perfect farce, and the House of Commons to a perfect nullity. I consider that in this particular matter of the Triple Alliance the House of Commons has been kept without information with which it ought to have been furnished. The country has been kept in the dark as to the communications that have passed between Italy and England and France and England, and until the right hon. Gentleman can state that every possible information has been made public and can be judged in the light of day by this House and by the country generally we on this side of the House will always feel it our duty to resist these votes for the Foreign Office. I therefore beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £500 from the salary of the Ambassador to Italy, and I have to add that I shall take a Division on the question.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, &c., be reduced by £500, part of the Salary of the Ambassador to Italy."—(Mr. William M'Arthur.)

MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)

I think that one, at least, of the statements of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Austell is justified. I do not believe that for some years past there has been a year during which, communications on the subject of our relations with foreign Powers have been, so scarce as has been the case during the past year. Indeed, I do not think there has been a single volume of Foreign Office correspondence put before the House with the exception of the one which relates to Samoa. I would remind the House that when we had a discussion on foreign affairs arising on the Queen's Speech the First Lord of the Treasury promised Papers on the subject of our relations with Germany in regard to East Africa, but when we pressed for them we were told that they could not be produced. And now, upon this most important subject of the re- lations between Great Britain and the Great Powers of Europe we are absolutely denied any information whatever, the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs having told us nothing except that, in order that the Government might not commit themselves, he read to us a statement repeating the words he had used in February last. Since then there have undoubtedly been a great number of communications between our Government and the Governments of France, Italy, and Germany. Things have not stood still in regard to the relations between Italy and Germany, and, as is well known, there is a considerable feeling of uneasiness as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Triple Alliance. There is a feeling that we may have been committed to engagements on this subject without being made aware of the extent of our responsibility. I venture to think that it would be much wiser if Her Majesty's Government were to pursue a more open line of policy in foreign affairs towards the people of this country. They should recognise the fact that this House and the electorate of this country ought to be made aware of our relations with foreign Powers, and what engagements they are committed to. The English people are not at all averse to undertaking obligations such as it may be deemed necessary to undertake; but they view with apprehension the possibility that they may be committed to engagements, the extent of which they do not know, and which they may be called on at a very awkward moment to fulfil. I would most earnestly urge the Government to give us, if possible, some fuller information as to what are the actual relations of this country towards the Triple Alliance.

* MR. LEA (Derry, S.)

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said there never has been a time when foreign affairs received so little attention in this House. That proves clearly that this House has perfect confidence in Her Majesty's Government with regard to the foreign relations of this country, and that confidence is reflected outside this House.

MR. MOLLOY

Looking at the statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury, I understand him to have said that there is no treaty and that we are not committed to any particular policy with regard to Italy or the Triple Alliance, and that, in point of fact, England is in no sense committed to any of the Powers of Europe. I do not think we could ask for more than this, and we certainly ought to feel bound to accept that statement; because I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would have used the plain language he did if he had believed the words conveyed a meaning that could not be comprehended by the Committee. I think that that statement was very fairly made, and as I am quite prepared to accept it, I have to say that under these circumstances, anxious as I always am to vote with my hon. Friend below me, I do not think I can vote with him on this occasion.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 118.—(Div. List, No. 315.)

Original Question again proposed.

* MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I have to move the reduction of the Vote by £100, being part of the salary of the Ambassador to Turkey. I make this Motion in order to draw attention to recent events in Armenia, and to the policy of the Embassy at Constantinople as a vehicle of information in regard to the condition of the Christian population of Asia Minor, and as an instrument of English influence on the policy of the Porte in reference to these matters. The result of the previous Debate on this subject was that we were left in a Cimmerian darkness by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. All that was then made manifest was that our policy at Constantinople was merely a policy of shutting our eyes and ears, and not even venturing to state our opinion with regard to what was going on in Turkey and Asia Minor, for fear that if we expose these outrages we shall be weakening the authority of the Turkish Government. The information we have obtained through the pressure brought to bear by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, as given in the Blue Book which has been laid on the Table, shows that the policy of the Government is faithfully carried out by Her Majesty's Representative at Constantinople—the policy of shutting the eyes to what is going on in those Eastern regions. The statements in the Blue Book confirm almost every detail that was previously laid before the House. We have in the statements of Her Majesty's Consuls, which are now laid before Parliament, an accurate confirmation of the worst of these reports; and I would draw the attention of the Committee to the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir J. Fergusson) in the previous Debate, where he said that the Government was served in Asia Minor by officers well able to distinguish truth from falsehood. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman will examine the Reports of the various Consuls he will find that the Representatives of Her Majesty who are on the spot in these remote districts have spoken out most distinctly as to these outrages, and have made it clear that there is a fresh recrudescence of that spirit of Oriental barbarity which is too well known, while at Constantinople, on the contrary, where the surroundings of the Turkish capital are brought to bear on Her Majesty's Representative, and those attached to the Embassy, he will find on their part that policy with which we are too familiar, of shutting the eyes and closing the ears to things that are unpleasant and may be troublesome. There is a despatch in the Blue Book to which I should like to draw attention as typifying the action of Her Majesty's Representative at Constantinople in this matter. On page 55 of the Blue Book we find Sir W. White writing to the Prime Minister as follows:— Your Lordship is aware, from previous Reports of mine, that my action with His Imperial Majesty on Armenian subjects is greatly paralysed by the interpretation which evil-disposed persons are constantly giving to the interest or sympathy which Her Majesty's Government or this Embassy may happen to show at any time in the condition of that race. The tone of that despatch, I contend, reflects the timid and time-serving spirit that has been too prevalent at Constantinople. It is true Her Majesty is served by good men in Asia Minor, but these good men, so far as we can judge from these Reports, are working under great difficulties in the outlying districts, and are not those under the influence of the Constantinople régime. In this Blue Book there are important passages which are calculated to rouse great indignation as to the treatment of the Nestorian Christians in the remote parts of Armenia. These people, who have retained a primitive Christianity, have been harried and subjected to the worst tyranny and exactions by the Turkish officials, many of whom are of Kurdish extraction, who have had command in the various districts in that neighbourhood, and they have recently gone through a period of suffering to which I am compelled to draw attention. Some 30 years ago, when the notorious Beder Khan was leader of the Kurdish tribes in that neighbourhood, these people suffered from one of the most atrocious massacres known to Turkish history, and on that occasion Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who at that time exercised a real influence in Asiatic Turkey, interfered and got some sort of protection and peace for these poor people. But last year what happened? Why, the Kurdish tribes who surround these Nestorian Christians, who live in the pent-up valleys of this mountainous region, collected and threatened them with annihilation, and the beginning of the campaign which they set on foot was signalised by some of the most atrocious barbarities which, I venture to say, have ever been described in any Report ever laid on the Table of the House. Frightful outrages were committed upon numbers of women tending their flocks on the hill sides, and were followed by the massacre of many of the women, as we find it detailed in the Blue Book. Now, how was the general massacre of the Nestorian Christians, which was foreshadowed by this first attack of the Kurds, averted? Mr. Browne, an English clergyman who had been sent on this mission by the Archbishop of Canterbury, managed to send a messenger across the mountains to Consul General Abbott at Tabreez, and it was owing to the vigorous action taken by Consul Abbott, and to the promptitude also of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff at Teheran, that help was sent in time to prevent the complete annihilation of the Nestorians by the Kurds of that district. I think we must feel a deep sense of gratitude to the head of the English Church for the part he has taken in this matter. We have the action of Her Majesty's Representatives supplemented in a singularly vigorous manner by that of the head of the English Church. We have the evidence of Mr. Browne, substantiated by independent witnesses like Mr. Athelstan Riley and Dr. Cholmondeley, who have several times visited these Nestorians as to these outrages. How have we been met on the opposite side by the Turks in the matter? Why, the Turkish view was put forward by the Turkish Ambassador, and is given on page 35 of the Blue Book. The Turkish Ambassador represents the attitude adopted at Constantinople, which was, apparently, too easily acquiesced in by Her Majesty's Representative in that city. The Turkish Ambassador wholly denied the facts thus established by independent evidence which would convince any Court of Justice in this country, and actually went so far as to say that Mr. Browne was the plague of the neighbourhood, and should be removed, and that no one desired his absence more than, the Patriarch of the Nestorian Church—Mar Shimoon. This view was enforced on Her Majesty's Government through the Turkish Ambassador; but what I have to complain of, further, is that we have in this instance, as we have in a great many others in connection with these matters, the familiar kind of memoranda got up by English officials who are under the Constantinople influence, and who seem, as I have said, to have eyes and ears open only to statements which tell in favour of the Turkish Government—I refer to the memoranda of Colonel Trotter and Colonel Bell. These memoranda show the willingness of Her Majesty's Representatives in Turkey to accept whatever representation the Turkish Government puts within their view, and which may serve to cast doubt or throw cold water on the evidence of people on the spot, who tell us of atrocities such as those perpetrated on the Nestorians. I denounce this policy on the part of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople as reflecting no credit upon the good sense of those who carry it out, or upon the honour of this country. I have referred in detail to this matter because of a passage in one of the despatches of Sir W. White. Speak- ing of these atrocities on the Nestorian Christians, he says they may break out again during the present year; and I would like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any later information as to the position of these Nestorian Christians than that of which the House is in possession? And now I would refer to the horrible atrocities with which we have been familiarised during the last two months, which have occurred in Armenia proper, chiefly in the District of Van, and which are connected, mainly, with the notorious Kurdish Chief Moussa Bey. What has been the action of Her Majesty's Representatives and the Turkish Authorities in this matter? The subject was touched on in this House and another place by the representatives of the Foreign Office with much hesitation and uncertainty of tone. The alleged atrocities with which Moussa Bey is specially connected were indignantly denied by the Turkish Ambassador, and there has been far too much disposition to accept or not to challenge those denials. What has been the policy of Her Majesty's Representative at Constantinople? That policy is-shown clearly by a typical passage in the Blue Book, in a despatch of Lord Salisbury to Sir W. White, on page 57, in which the statement of the Turkish Ambassador is quoted to the effect that— There were occasionally Kurdish raids, but they were repressed, and large bodies of police were employed to maintain order. The Porte selected the best officers at its disposal for the Armenian Provinces, and his Excellency maintained that the improvement there, as well as in the other Provinces of the Empire, was very remarkable.' And I wish to draw special attention to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, which is also given in the despatch:— Sir James Fergusson observed, in reply, that Her Majesty's Government had, as his Excellency knows, abstained from pressing the Porte on the subject in spite of the reports which had reached them, that the Armenians were suffering from considerable hardships, for they knew the difficulties with which the Porte had to contend. That is my complaint, that Her Majesty's Government will not use such powers as they have for fear of embarrassing the Porte, though they well know from the Reports of their Consuls that these atrocities are taking place. Then in the Blue Book there is a state- ment by the Sultan to Sir W. White, in which he says that these atrocities are carried out by nomad Kurds from the Persian Frontier, who raid into Armenia and then escape from Turkish jurisdiction, so that nothing can he done. And he adds, characteristically, that the atrocities which were attributed to Moussa Bey were so repugnant to the customs and habits of Mahommedans that he refused to credit them. That statement, which was transmitted to us by Sir W. White, was echoed without comment by the Prime Minister in another place, when he spoke about the atrocities being carried out by Kurds who come across the frontier into Armenia. This statement was absolutely denied by the Persian Ambassador, Maleom Khan, and is wholly disproved by the Reports of Her Majesty's Consuls on the spot. The scene of these outrages was the district between Bitlis and Moush, at a distance, I am told, of not less than 250 kilometres from the Persian Frontier. The whole history of this ruffian, Moussa Bey, is given by Mr. Devey, Her Majesty's Vice Consul at Van, of whom Colonel Chermside speaks in the highest terms—who has been four years in the neighbourhood of Erzeroum, who has made himself thoroughly acquainted with the neighbourhood, and, whose Reports give with an exactness—almost photographic—the details of these atrocities. He establishes absolutely the whole of the worst facts alleged against Moussa Bey—his long career of violence and crime which has led to the present state of things. The Committee must bear in mind that these Kurdish Chiefs are living in the centre of Turkish Armenia, and form part of the local powers of the district. Mr. Devey shows that Moussa Bey was not a nomad at all, but was the ruler over five villages in the district of Khuit, in the plain of Moush, near Bitlis, and had an armed force of nearly 1,000 men at his disposal. This man has been able to make atrocious attacks on missionaries, to perpetrate outrages on women, to burn villages, and to murder men and women for years past; in fact, it is clear that he has been the scourge of this fruitful plain. And there has been no redress. The Turkish Authorities have been petitioned to intefere, but Moussa Bey is hand and glove with all the Powers of Bitlis, and they have constantly laughed at the orders to arrest him. Repeated complaints have been made to Constantinople, but these complaints are not infrequently disastrous to those who make them. One of the Christians who took an active part in these petitions, Ohannes, the head man of a village in the plain of Moush, was waylaid and put to death by Moussa Bey's men under circumstances of the most revolting barbarity. Anyone who reads the evidence given in the Blue Book will see that the descriptions of the way this man was burnt to death are only varied in matters of detail in a manner quite natural, seeing that they come from various sources. We see how this man is regarded in Turkey. Instead of being brought to justice, he was nominally arrested by the Local Authorities. He at once escaped, and actually threatened the Local Authorities that he should come down on them and exact the restitution of the bribes he had given them for ignoring the atrocities. He is received with honour in his own neighbourhood, and escorted by his friends to Constantinople, where he is received by Bahri Pasha, who holds high office at Constantinople and is a relative of Moussa. He has every guarantee that the Sultan absolutely disbelieves beforehand in any of the crimes charged against him. Finally, we have in the Turkish Pro-Memoria, forwarded by Sir William White to Her Majesty's Government, the very climax of outrageous and transparent mis-statement, amounting to a simple drawing of the pen through notorious facts, and stating that the Bey is an angel who is very much injured and wishes to have the charges inquired into. Consul Devey says in his Memorandum, on page 73, that the Porte has to rely only on the Reports sent to him by his own employés, and he especially comments on the invariably unsatisfactory nature of those Reports. He also draws attention to another phase of the question. It is not merely a question of these outrages, but one of deliberate political persecution which is being carried on by the Turkish Authorities in Armenia. He refers to the persecution, the arrest, and the banishment of many people for suspicions which they incurred many years back, and says that even persons who have combined to provide funds for the sick and children left orphans after the war between Turkey and Russia, have been arrested and sent into exile. The Armenians are treated as rebels and disorderly people, and the charges made against them are bolstered with such absurd reports as that of the Armenian brigands referred to the other night by the hon. Member for St. Pancras. Those young Armenians were undoubtedly patriots, and the papers on them showed their patriotic instincts. It is perfectly ridiculous to say that they were brigands and plunderers. The present Vali of Van, Halil Pasha, is described by Consul Devey as a suspicious tyrant who is carrying out the most effective policy for producing disorder in Armenia. Consul Devey says that in the neighbourhood of Bitlis, which he knows most familiarly, there is really no disaffection on the part of the Armenian population. He states that the Kurdish persecution is as bad as ever, that the sufferings of the people are really pitiable, and that if they are not looked on with suspicion by the Government, the utter contempt with which they are treated must be severely felt. He adds that the "Kurdish Sheiks ever hold that the Vilaget is under exception, and that the laws in force elsewhere do not apply." The Armenians have great reason to complain also of the land laws, under which they have been deprived of their land, owing to defects in their title, and have had it sold to Circassians and Kurds. They have also to complain of judicial and fiscal corruption and tyranny and of the practical enslavement of many of them, especially young Armenian women, who are captured and carried off by Kurdish Chiefs. Now, what I wish to know is whether we cannot make some use of our Representatives in Asia Minor and in Turkey to mitigate and bring to an end this state of things? In the first place, can we not have an end of this policy of accepting and palliating these false statements; can we not have a franker and a fairer denunciation of crime when it is clearly brought before the knowledge of Her Majesty's Representatives? I should like also to ask whether we cannot use our influence to induce the Turkish Government to send into Armenia, as Consul Devey suggests, stronger and more just and wiser men. As it is now, the Turks, instead of sending good men into Armenia, send the worst, as a disgrace. The other day it was stated that some of these evils were to be mitigated, because a new Pasha was to be sent to Bitlis. I hold in my hand a passage from a French paper, Le Temps, in which it is said— Raouf Pasha, who has only been three months Vali of Beyrout, has, owing to frequent complaints of the foreign Consuls against his proceedings, and probably also because of the frequent murders of Christians and Mussulmen which he has been unable to control, has been transferred to Bitlis, which is equivalent to disgrace. But we have a further line to take up. I venture to declare that there is a distinct obligation on the part of this country under existing treaties to exercise such form of protection as lies within our reach over these miserable Christian populations. That is a point which, I think, has been unfairly dealt with by the Prime Minister in another place. His argument has been that England would have to do this alone, and to do it with force at our back, a course which he knows the English people are not willing to sanction. The Treaty of Berlin contemplates not a warlike intervention in the affairs of Turkey, but a peaceful supervision of the Signatory Powers over the carrying out of the reforms in the Turkish dominions. I venture to say we have a right, on behalf of the suffering people of Asia Minor, to press upon her Majesty's Government the real meaning of the Treaty of Berlin. Are we to goon shutting our eyes to the outrages and miseries these unhappy people suffer, shutting our eyes to the fact that these things are attributable to the policy of the Power whose influence we wish to maintain? This is not a matter of sentiment; it is a matter of policy. In Armenia you have a people not altogether in sympathy with Russia. Russia has behaved unwisely and unjustly in her dealings with the people of Armenia and in relation to their religious institutions, and it is perfectly possible by the joint action of the Powers, under the influence of England, to create such a state of things that you would have in Armenia a buffer and a bulwark against Russian advance in the direction of Van and Erzeroum. We should insist that the Governors of these two Provinces should be Armenians and Christians, for there the Christians are in a large majority in the population. I do not wish to detain the Committee at further length. I will only add that if a Conference of the Powers would press this reform, and the institution of an armed Constabulary Force in Armenia, with English or other European officers, these two reforms alone would, if carried out, do immense good in Armenia. I must apologise for the time of the Committee I have occupied. I have endeavoured to put the question forward to the best of my ability, and I trust this discussion may result not in bringing about, as some misguided people have said, conflict between Christian and Moslem inhabitants in Armenia, but in making it clear that English opinion is alive to the necessity of a just policy in Armenia and of strengthening English influence in Constantinople, bringing back the days when Lord Stratford de Redcliffe really did produce some good by the representations he made to the Porte.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, &c., be reduced by £100, part of the Salary of the Ambassador to Turkey."—(Mr. Channing.)

* MR. SAMUEL SMITH (Flintshire)

I rise to support the Motion of my hon. Friend and to express my entire concurrence in the views he has so clearly put before the Committee. I think the attention of the House should be specially called to the Correspondence on the affairs of Asiatic Turkey which has been laid on the Table within the last few days—this account of what I may call the Armenian atrocities. Not since the days of the Bulgarian atrocities have we been presented with accounts of more horrible misgovernment and cruelty, and if Members had had the time to read through this Correspondence, I am sure that the feelings of indignation aroused would have found vent in a very warm discussion indeed. But such has been the preoccupation of the minds of Members with other matters in the last few days that few have had time to master this Correspondence. Never, I say, since the time of the Bulgarian atrocities have I read accounts of more shocking misgovernment and greater cruelty perpetrated upon a helpless Christian population. We could have nothing more fitted to arouse the feelings of the country, and I believe if the people at large come fully to understand the conditions under which the Armenians live and the dreadful cruelties to which they are exposed at the hands of the Mussulmans, we shall see such a feeling excited that it will be necessary for the Government to take up a stronger attitude on this matter than they have hitherto done. Now, the point especially brought out in these Papers is not only the fact that the Christian population have suffered abominable treatment, but that this treatment has been connived at by the Turkish Governors. This cannot be denied or ignored, the evidence of independent travellers fully confirms the very worst accounts we have in these papers. No person who reads through these papers can doubt that had it not been for the presence of an English clergymen, the Rev. W. H. Browne, there would have been a massacre of Christians greater than any that took place during the Bulgarian atrocities period. The evidence is undoubted that there was a conspiracy among the Kurdish Tribes, the most turbulent of the Turkish subjects to extirpate the whole Christian population of Tiari, consisting of many thousand persons. But for the fact of the Rev. Mr. Browne living in the district, and being able at personal risk to bring pressure to bear at Constantinople, and from Constantinople on the Kurds, we in this country should have heard some fine morning that 10,000 or 20,000 Armenians had been massacred in cold blood. This statement rests on undoubted testimony. My hon. Friend has referred to two English travellers who were passing through the district, and who have supplied authoritative accounts of what was taking place. I will ask the Committee to listen while I give one or two quotations from a report sent by one of these gentlemen, Mr. A. Riley, to the Prime Minister. Writing his memorandum in London on December 1st, he in the course of it says:— This summer the sheep of Astritha, the largest village of Tiari, were being fed in a 'zoma,' or mountain pasture outside Tiari, in charge of between 200 and 300 women and girls and two men. MR. Riley explains that the Ashirets or tribal Assyrians have such a small area of land available for cultivation in their valleys that they are obliged to pasture their flocks outside the valleys— On July 31st the encampment was suddenly surrounded by a large body of Kurds, the two men were killed, all the women and girls violated, five were killed, one pregnant woman being ripped open, the child protruded, and one slowly put to death by 25 dagger wounds (I saw the husband of this woman, Rais Yakhanis), four others wounded, and the rest stripped entirely naked, and left in that state to make their way back to Ashitha. So terrible an outrage has not occurred since the massacres of Bedr Khan Beg in 1843. The object of the outrage was clearly to draw on the Tiari Tribe to attack the Kurds, and this happened; the men of Tiari prepared to avenge the honour of their women. MR. Riley goes on to describe how the Kurds assembled in overwhelming numbers, evidently prepared for a massacre Of the whole Christian population, and the Turkish Authorities did not interfere until the energetic efforts of Mr. Browne induced them to send troops, and the Kurds dispersed. I might quote a number of statements of the atrocious outrages perpetrated on these Armenian Christians. Mr. Browne, since he took up his residence at Kochannes as the guest of the Armenian Patriarch, has been subjected to every species of annoyance by the Turkish Authorities in the hope of driving him out of the country, and but for his presence there is little doubt the Kurds would have extirpated the Armenian people in that part of Asia Minor. In consequence of his representations the Turkish Government were unwillingly forced to send troops into the district, but I am sorry to state that there is the clearest evidence in the despatches to show that the outrages are again reviving against the Christians, of women being carried off, of the burning alive of old men, the destruction of villages, and the stealing of sheep, and, in fact, the Armenian Christians are subjected to treatment under which life is hardly worth living. A person who has largely figured in connection with these proceedings is Moussa Bey, who appears to me to be a kind of Chefket Pasha of Bulgarian atrocity fame. The correspondence is full of accounts of the abominations committed by this man; and yet after many years of this kind of work he visited Constantinople and was treated with honour by the Authorities, notwithstanding that Her Majesty's Government had sent to the Turkish Government full proof of the complicity of Moussa Bey in the atrocities. I complain that the Government have not taken a sufficiently earnest stand in this matter. I do not say that they lack sympathy, no British Government could fail to sympathise with an oppressed people like these Armenians. I freely admit they have done something, indeed they have done a good deal to help these poor people, but I do complain of a want of firmness in their representations to the Turkish Government; they are a great deal too feeble; they are too considerate to the feelings of those scoundrels in Constantinople who connive at these outrages. They have not used language that will make an impression on the Porte, not the language that gave Lord Stratford de Redcliffe such an influence in Turkish affairs. Everybody knows that the Turkish Government are only amenable to the strongest representations, amounting almost to threats. Let me read to the Committee a line or two from Lord Salisbury's despatch to Rustem Pasha, written, be it remembered, after the receipt of Mr. Riley's Report on the attrocious outrages committed by the Kurds on the Nestorians, to which I have alluded, and I ask, is it language sufficiently strong to make any impression upon the Porte. The concluding paragraph of Lord Salisbury's Despatch was thus:—"Under these circumstances I cannot help thinking that your Government has been misinformed"—remember Rustem Pasha, the Turkish Ambassador, had been instructed to deny the ill-treatment and the danger, undoubted facts corroborated by undoubted witnesses— I shall be happy—continues Lord Salisbury—to obtain a further Report from our Consular Officers in the neighbourhood of the spot, but I do not feel that I should be justified, in the present state of my information, in further pressing upon the Archbishop of Canterbury the wish of the Porte, that Mr. Browne should withdraw from Kochannes. Well, I hardly think Lord Salisbury could press the withdrawal of the man whose presence alone prevented the consummation of an atrocious massacre, that I think is the least Lord Salisbury could do. But surely this is feeble to a degree and not the sort of language to make any impression upon the Porte; something much more decided is required to secure the fulfilment of the duties the Turkish Government undertook towards their Christian subjects? This country, above all others, has undertaken engagements towards the Christian population of Turkey. It is in the recollection of the Committee that not many years ago this country gave a guarantee to Turkey for her Asiatic possessions against all foreign Powers on condition that she should carry out her engagements to protect her Christian subjects; most of us thought it was a wild obligation to undertake, but we did guarantee the Turkish possessions in Asia Minor on condition that certain specified reforms were carried out. Has Turkey carried out one of those promised reforms? Has she even begun to do so? He would be a bold man who would assert that she has, or that the Government of Asiatic Turkey is better now than it always has been—that is to say, the most abominable Government there can well be. One of the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin was that the rights of these unfortunate people should be duly guarded. But the Powers of Europe have taken no pains whatever to enforce the observance of that portion of the Treaty. Surely it is the part of this country to take the lead. Turkey has been saved from extinction by this country; and we ought to call upon the Powers to undertake these solemn obligations. I hope the House will insist upon laying the case of this oppressed nationality before the Signatory Powers. We have to deal with a Government amendable to no moral influence or advice, nothing but threats, nothing but bringing home to them the sense of indignation aroused in this country will induce the Turkish Government to adopt a policy for carrying out the fulfilment of the solemn obligations they undertook towards their Christian subjects. Whatever view Her Majesty's Government take, nothing but good can come of the declaration in the face of the world that the British people cannot regard with indifference these atrocities recorded in this correspondence. Long has this House been the Court of Appeal for all oppressed nationalities, and when this House speaks in a decided tone its influence is felt all over the world. I trust we shall not be lukewarm in fulfilling the obligations we incurred in the Treaty of Berlin, and that we shall make our voice heard on behalf of these downtrodden Christiana of Asiatic Turkey. Their sufferings appeal to the feelings of every humane man; they are fellow Christians, they belong to one of the oldest Christian Churches that has stood firm through persecution and trial for seventeen centuries, and surely it is our duty as a powerful Christian people to use our influence on behalf of fellow Christians suffering terrible grinding oppression. I hope the Government will give assurances that stronger action shall be taken than has been taken hitherto.

* SIR ROBERT FOWLER

I hope that the eloquent speeches to which we have just listened will produce a good effect throughout the world. At the same time, let me point out that the proposition before the House is of a very unsatisfactory character. What good can be done by making a small reduction in the salary of our able and experienced Ambassador, Sir William White? It ought to be remembered that our position at Constantinople is not what it was in the days of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. In the earlier part of that distinguished man's tenure of office it was known that England was prepared to go to war on behalf of Turkey; and, in fact, we spared neither blood nor treasure in the Crimean War. Are we prepared to do that now? I have no right to speak for hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I very much doubt if any of them would advocate going to war if the Turkish Empire were threatened. The Turks have a feeling that we should do nothing of the sort. It is, therefore, impossible that the illustrious man who now represents this country at Constantinople should assume the rôle of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. I fully sympathise with the reprobation expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite at the horrors which are being perpetrated against the Christian sub- jects of Turkey. But what can be done? Fault has been found with. Lord Salisbury's despatch. For my part I think that despatch is a strong one; and it must not be forgotten that a despatch is widely different from a speech in Parliament by a private Member, or even by a Member of the Government. A Secretary of State in Downing Street must in writing a despatch to a friendly Power adopt measured language, and it seems to me there is no want of decision in this despatch couched as it is in a diplomatic tone. I wish to express my full sympathy with the views put forward by the hon. Members opposite. We must all join in reprobation of the horrors committed, and regret that these occurrences are not regarded at Constantinople as we view them. But what we have to ask ourselves is this—If this country is not prepared to go to war on behalf of Turkey, which seems to be the id ea of the Turks, how can we hope to have such an influence at Constantinople as we had 40 years ago? As regards Sir William White, he is an eminent servant of the Queen and the country, and we must all feel it is of great advantage to have such a man in his position. Though I have sympathy with the principles enunciated by the two hon. Members opposite, I am unable to express it by voting for a reduction of the salary of this most distinguished man. Still, I hope that the burning words in which those hon. Members have expressed their sentiments as to these atrocities will have a good effect. The proceedings in this House are reported through the papers in different parts of Europe, and I hope this Debate will teach those who are responsible for the Government of Armenia that the feeling of the people of this country is strongly opposed to the barbarities which we have heard described.

MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)

As I am one of the very few in the House who have read through the Blue Book, I feel I must say a word or two as to the remarks which have fallen from the two hon. Members opposite. They have depicted the quarrel between the Nestorians and the Kurds as if it were entirely the fault of the Kurdish population, and the Nestorians were not in any way to blame. Of course, our fullest sympathy must be extended to the Nestorians in the troubles they have suffered, but after reading the Blue Book very carefully, the impression left on my mind is that the country is a very wild one, that the whole state of civilisation in that part of the world is very backward, and that there seems to be a sort of vendetta existing between the Nestorians and the Kurds. The Nestorians, far from being the lambs the two hon. Gentlemen opposite have depicted them, seem to be rather a turbulent race. They refuse to pay any taxes, constantly engage in tribal warfare, and appear to be often plotting against the Government of Turkey. This view cannot but present itself to anybody who has studied the Blue Book carefully, including the report of Colonel Chermside. On page 71, Colonel Chermside says there is no doubt there has been a considerable amount of revolutionary work going on, and that there is a tendency to form secret societies. It is plain that the Nestorian population are constantly plotting against the Turkish Government—at all events, that is the idea the Turkish Government have derived from some of the proceedings which have become public, and I must say that the Turkish Government seem to have treated the Armenians with very much less severity than would have been meted out to them by the Russian Government. I must protest against one sentence used by the hon. Member for Flintshire, in which he said that these proceedings in Armenia were connived at by the Turkish Government. I do not find in the Blue Book one syllable to support that contention. I would guard myself by saying that I deplore the terrible sufferings which these people have gone through; but it is only fair to point out that they themselves are not altogether blameless.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I am not quite able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire. I have no doubt that a great many atrocitios are committed—I dare say there are atrocities committed on both sides, and that the Armenians get the worst of it. I will even assume, for the purpose of argument, that the atrocities are committed by the Turks upon the Armenians, and that the Ar- menians are the best and purest of human beings; still I cannot but ask myself, "What earthly business is it of ours?" I protest against the doctrine that we are to roam all over the world redressing grievances and establishing good government. I am constantly reading about riots being put down in the most atrocious fashion in China, and yet I never hear it proposed that we should go to China and interfere in the matter. Mr. Courtney, surely you will agree with me that there are atrocities requiring remedy far nearer home than Armenia. There are Pashas called Resident Magistrates, and an unfortunate race, composed of fellow-citizens, whose position may not unreasonably be compared with that of the Armenians. How can we call upon the Turk to take the beam out of his eye when we leave the mote in our own? But I have a special reason why we should not interfere in this case. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire says the English people are in favour of a just policy being carried out in Armenia. Well, I am in favour of a just policy everywhere; but I am not willing that a farthing of English money should be spent, or a drop of English blood shed, for the purpose of establishing the best of governments for the Armenians.

* MR. CHANNING

My suggestion was that this country should carry out the principle of the Treaty of Berlin—namely, induce the Powers of Europe jointly to insist upon the carrying out of reforms in the Turkish Provinces.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I generally find that when the Powers of Europe combine to interfere in the internal affairs of a particular country, they end by falling out and fighting with each other, and the last state of the unfortunate people in whom they have interested themselves is worse than the first. With regard to the Treaty of Berlin, it must be borne in mind that we entered into a special agreement when we took Cyprus. We took Cyprus, and obtained an assurance that there would be good government in Asia Minor, and, as a quid pro quo, we guaranteed to the Turks the possession of Asia Minor. It is nonsense to hope for good government in Asia Minor, whilst we maintain the Turkish supremacy in that part of the world. You might just as well look for good government in Ireland under the Resident Magistrates. We have spent hundreds of millions in maintaining the power of the Sultan; and now we are asked to interfere in Armenia, because of the right we have acquired through our guarantee to Turkey. I regret that these unfortunate Armenians are ill-treated, but I think they are likely to continue to be so long as they are under the dominion of Turkey. My panacea for all this would be to leave the Turks absolutely alone, and make it clear to them that if there is a revolution Great Britain will hope for its success; and that if any nation—Russia, or anyone else—less barbarous than the Turks interferes on behalf of the Christians the sympathy of this country will be with it. I object to our putting our hands into our pockets on behalf of these races, and to our meddling and muddling in that part of the world in the future as we have done in the past.

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

I am not surprised that the Papers which have been presented to Parliament, and which have been in the hands of Members two or three days, have moved those who take an interest in the Christian populations of the East to comment on the sad history which those Papers contain. In this country there has always been, as has been said to-night, great sympathy for suffering populations. There are records in the Papers lately placed before Parliament of such a character as to evoke deep commiseration with some of the people in Armenia, who are placed in circumstances so different to our own or to those of any people over whom we exercise protection—whose families are subjected to danger and outrage, and whose existences are so embittered by persecution that it may be said that life, under the circumstances, is not worth having. These are feelings which must be widely shared. But when hon. Members, after contemplating the sad condition of some of the Turkish Provinces, come to the remedies which they would have this country attempt, their conclusions are somewhat hastily drawn, and the course on which they would impel the Government is very rash. Perhaps it is not worth while to question the verbal accuracy of some of the statements made by the hon. Members for Flintshire and Northamptonshire; but I would point out that in the reference made by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire to a speech of the Prime Minister, the hon. Member reported Lord Salisbury to have given absolute denials to certain statements concerning the ill-treatment of Armenians, whereas Lord Salisbury distinctly quoted the Turkish Ambassador as his authority, and in no way gave the denials on his own responsibility. Again, even in the despatch which the hon. Member for Flintshire quoted, and in which, as he said, the Prime Minister used words very inadequate to the occasion, Lord Salisbury declined, as then informed, to accept absolutely the disclaimers of the Turkish Ambassador as to some of the painful events alleged to have occurred. As has been said, diplomatic language is necessarily somewhat more guarded than that which hon. Members think themselves justified in using in the House; and it is manifest that if the language of those who are not charged with the affairs of the country were employed in diplomacy the influence of Great Britain with Foreign Powers and Ministers would be greatly diminished. Undoubtedly, as the Member for the City has said, the influence of Great Britain at Constantinople is not such as it was in the days of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. It is not to be wondered at that when this country has stood by without helping Turkey in the time of her greatest need, in 1877 and 1878, her influence should be somewhat weaker in Constantinople than it was immediately after the Crimean War. In making this remark I do not, of course, intend to comment unfavourably on the Government of 1878; but it cannot surprise any one that we do not possess that commanding influence in Turkey which we possessed in the days of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. But, nevertheless, I utterly deny that Her Majesty's Government and its Representatives at Constantinople have not done all they could to bring to the notice of the Turkish Authorities the occurrences which have given so much pain to humane people all over the world; and that they have not used the language which is best calculated to give effect to this country's influence. Of course, those who take an extreme view of the matter think that British influence ought to be used in a very strong and startling manner, and the hon. Member for Northamptonshire has declared that the whole Armenian population in one district would have been massacred but for the resolute attitude of a British clergyman. All honour to him.

* MR. CHANNING

No; I spoke of Consul Abbott.

* SIR J. FERGUSSON

I thought it was the Reverend Mr. Browne. I am glad the Consul's conduct has the approbation of the hon. Member; but I think it is perhaps too much to say that the efforts of any Englishman, however firm and resolute he may have been, can have preserved a whole district from massacre. The fact is that hon. Members are apt to make two great mistakes in considering this subject. They are apt to view these Eastern countries, peopled by different races, holding different religions, and bearing hereditary hostilities and hatreds, in the same light as they do their own country, or those Eastern countries which Great Britain has long administered. And, again, they think that Great Britain has only to express her wishes to have them obeyed. These are two extreme errors. Any one acquainted with the conditions obtaining in Eastern countries which are not under a thoroughly civilised Government must know that there is a great absence of that settled law and order which enables persons of different religions and races to live together in peace and harmony. Hon. Members forget that the majority is apt to oppress the minority in these countries. When the Government of a country is irresolute, factions break out and occurrences take place which are deplored by all who compassionate the sufferings of others. In Armenia the Mussulmans are the stronger, but in Crete it is the other way, and the late disturbances certainly commenced by the Christians quarrelling among themselves and then turning their attentions to the Mussulmans. The feebleness of the Government of Turkey is not altogether her fault. She has had jealous neighbours, and she has been placed by external differences in a position little calculated to enable her to exercise control over her troublesome subjects. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire has said that I have stated that the Porte was sending more vigorous and capable officers to administer her Provinces. Raoul Pasha, the late Vali of Jerusalem, has, I believe, been sent to Bitlis, and he is an officer known to be honest, firm, and capable. And that, like the appointment in Crete, justifies the statement I made to the House that the Government of Turkey are endeavouring to send capable officers to establish greater confidence and to put down the disgraceful scenes that have occurred—which have occurred as much from the weakness of the central Power as from the hereditary hatreds of some portion of the population. I do not believe that the Government of the Sultan looks on these occurrences with indifference, and when it is said that the person who is regarded as most guilty—namely, Moussa Bey—has been received with every honour at Constantinople, hon. Members must not take for granted all they see in the newspapers. Moussa Bey went voluntarily to Constantinople, and will submit his conduct to a competent tribunal, and all persons who have complaints to make against him will have every opportunity of stating their grievances. Moussa Bey lives in a very different region from ours, and his actions must be regarded in the light of his surroundings. At the same time, if he is guilty of the crimes of which he is accused, we hope he will be brought to condign punishment. The Ottoman Government has declared that all persons who have complaints to make against him shall be safely passed to and from Constantinople. I hope the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, as well as the observations I have been able to make in the few minutes at my disposal, have shown the Committee that the Government has not been supine, but that, on the contrary, they have done that which, according to their judgment and responsibility, is most likely to afford relief to a suffering population and to protect them from cruelty. I trust the Committee will not agree to a reduction of the Vote.

DR. CLARK

I beg to move to report Progress, with a view to getting from the Government some idea of what they intend to do to-morrow (Saturday). Are we to take this Vote again to-morrow, or is it to be postponed for 10 days till after the Irish and the other Estimates? It seems to me a good method of wasting time to jump about from one set of Estimates to another. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House should take the Votes in their order on the Paper, instead of taking them in this higgledy-piggledy fashion. The right hon. Gentleman should not give way to every hon. Member who urges him to postpone business, but should go on with the business as it is set down on the Paper. I hope we shall be able to finish this Vote tomorrow. I should prefer that we should go on with Class V.; but the right hon. Gentleman was pressed at 5 o'clock this evening not to do that, and he consented to postpone the Class, so that, now, goodness knows when it will come on.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I hope the hon. Member will not move to report Progress. He is as well aware as other hon. Gentlemen that I am under an engagement with the House not to take Class V. to-morrow. I would venture to suggest that the present Vote might be taken after the three hours' discussion we have had. I trust the hon. Gentleman will allow the Vote to be taken. Any question that hon. Members may desire to raise in connection with it can be taken on Report.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

There are some most important questions still to be raised on the Vote.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! There is a Motion before the Committee, which must be withdrawn, before discussion can take place upon other questions.

* MR. CHANNING

I withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I hope the Government will consent to report Progress now. I move it. The Government is pledged not to go on with Class V.; but it seems to me it would lead to much greater difficulty to take Classes for which hon. Members are not prepared.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

Before the Motion is put I desire to appeal to the Committee as to whether it is not better to take the Vote and then to discuss any question that may arise on Report?

DR. CLARK

again rose to speak.

It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.