HC Deb 04 August 1897 vol 52 cc366-71
MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)

said that in proposing to submit a few observations to the House upon the Græco-Turkish question, he felt that he laid himself open to the charge alluded to by the Secretary for the Colonies—that he was labouring under the pain of going about with a prepared but undelivered speech. [Laughter.] He would like in one word to repudiate that possible charge. He had, he hoped, a salubrious capacity for consuming his own smoke—[laughter]—and no doubt it would very soon appear that even if he had prepared a speech it was a very imperfectly and badly prepared one. [Laughter.] Further he thought he had some right to intrude upon the House, notwithstanding the somewhat practical discussion of yesterday; because there were phases of the question upon which he felt deeply, which was not very clearly brought out in that Debate, confined as it was chiefly to the question of Crete. There were other and more important phases of the Eastern Question which he thought might have been brought before the House by persons of far more influence and command on the Opposition side of the House than himself. But as that had not been done, and as he felt strongly on the matter, he would take it upon himself—humble as he might be, and small as his influence might be—to speak his mind as far as the House would permit. But first of all he should like to make one remark upon a matter alluded to yesterday, viz., the policy of the Government as regarded the nature of the present blockade in Crete, which, as everybody knew, was a blockade of arms as against the insurgents but in favour of the Turks and Mussulmans. He contended that it was an unfair and a one-sided policy. It was unnecessary to go into the matter very fully, and it was successfully treated yesterday by the late Attorney General and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. But he should like to add to their authority another authority which might have greater weight on the Government side—the authority of Lord Salisbury himself. Lord Salisbury, in a Dispatch of July 27, last year, speaking of the proposed blockade of Crete so as to keep out volunteers and ammunition from the insurgents, said that such a blockade as was proposed would in effect place Great Britain in the position of an ally of the Sultan in the task of repressing an insurrection of his Christian subjects. And in another Dispatch of nearly the same date he said:— They had always declined to intervene in cases of civil strife between a Government and its subjects, and their objection would be accentuated by the fact that they would be intervening in opposition to Christian insurgents who had very solid grievances to complain of. Lord Salisbury went on to say,— There might be an exception in the case of Greece making any attack on the territorial integrity or independence of Turkey. As long as the Greek troops were in Crete with an offensive intention, that exception possibly existed. But, as was shown yesterday, that exceptional case was entirely cancelled. There was no longer any attack upon the territorial integrity or the independence of the Turkish Empire; and it appeared to him that Lord Salisbury's language of twelve months ago applied with precisely the same force to the present situation, and that at this moment Great Britain was in the position of an ally of the Sultan against the insurgent Christians in Crete. If the Admirals were able to keep the peace between the contending parties, they might be able to put weapons into the hands of the Turks on the plea that they were professional soldiers and the insurgents were not—though, for his part, he claimed that the insurgents were belligerents with all the rights of belligerents. But it was vain to contend that the Admirals could maintain complete order. They did not profess to do it, and admittedly had not the means to do it. Accordingly, as the hon. Member for Ecclesall had told them, regular warlike operations were going on in Crete at the present moment; the island was in a state of civil war, some of the towns being besieged by Mussulmans and others being besieged by the insurgents.

* SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

The hon. Gentleman has referred to me, and I must say that his statement is quite incorrect. There is no town in Crete besieged by Mussulmans.

MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)

Well, perhaps he was wrong in imputing that amount of knowledge to the hon. Member. But that did not alter the circumstances under which he was making the statement. [Laughter from Sir ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT.] His point was this—that the position of the Government was only arguable on the understanding that the Admirals were able from their position and the force of troops at their command to compel order in Crete, and that they were able to repress any attempt on the part of the Turkish authorities—any such, attempt as might presumably be made by Djevad Pasha, who, if the telegraphic news of that day were correct, was going to be reinforced by ten Turkish ironclads and such contents as they might bring with them. [A laugh.] His contention was that the Government were not able to protect the insurgents against a possible attack by Djevad Pasha and the Turkish troops, and that, therefore, the Government ought not to interfere to prevent the insurgents from providing themselves with arms. He wished to know whether the Powers were going themselves to appoint a governor in Crete, or whether they intended to acknowledge in any way the right of the Cretan people to select their own governor. If the wishes of the Cretans were to be ignored in this matter, any settlement that might be arrived at could hardly be described as autonomy. To impose a governor upon a people was not to give them autonomy. One point to which the Government seemed hardly to have given sufficient consideration was the enormous delay that was taking place. Six months had now elapsed since the Admirals of Europe first established a quasi protectorate over Crete, and the acceptance of the proposal of autonomy by the Turkish Government had been accompanied by qualifications which pointed in his opinion to an almost indefinite postponement of that autonomy. In the meantime, what were the Cretan people to do? Human patience had its limits, and there would almost certainly be other disturbances as the months were on. The gravity of the outlook would be to a certain extent diminished it the refusal of the Powers to allow the insurgents to have arms for self-defence were withdrawn. The proceedings of the Concert of Europe appeared to him to be quite reactionary. They were fitted to strengthen Turkey and to weaken Greece, in other words, to strengthen what made for tyranny and barbarism, and to weaken what made for liberty and civilisation. What necessity was there for granting to Turkey a strategic rectification of the frontier between her and Greece? He regarded this as an attempt to strengthen Turkey by giving to that evil, that anti-human Power, a stronger grip upon the throat of a prospective victim which, at all events, had right and progress upon its side. Then why was this crushing indemnity imposed upon Greece? Why was any indemnity to be exacted from her? That question depended upon another—namely, who began this strife?

MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)

, who thought that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh was addressing his remarks to him, rose and asked whether it was in order for the hon. Member to direct at him specially these fierce attacks and denunciations. [Laughter.]

MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)

said he did not know who the hon. Member was—[laughter]—and he should endeavour to exclude him from his visual range. [Laughter.] The hon. Member had never been present to his thoughts. Answering the question who began the war, he asserted that Turkey did, for it was the cruel and incurable misgovernment of Crete by Turkey that put Greece in the position of not being able any longer to resist the pressure that was put upon her to interfere. The Austrian Ambassador had said that the blame for the present situation lay entirely with the Turks. Technically, too, the Turks began the war, for they had declared war.

* MR. SPEAKER

said that the hon. Member was now going in great detail into the origin of the quarrel between Turkey and Greece. That he was not entitled to do.

MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)

said he would not pursue that line, and proceeded to contend that if any one ought to pay an indemnity it was the Great Powers themselves because they could have prevented the war. It was an insult to the Powers to say that they could not have done so had they chosen. They had been led to believe from statements made by the Foreign Secretary and others connected officially with him that there was to be a complete retrocession of territory to Greece. Now it seemed there was to be a modification of that. The claims of the German bondholders were to be imported, and Turkey was to retain strategic positions in Thessaly until the indemnity was paid. That simply meant the retention of Thessaly by Turkey. All this seemed to be a rehabilitation of Turkey on the old lines of the Treaty of Paris. That was not so a year ago, when Lord Salisbury with great industry and skill prevailed on the Powers to interfere, if necessary, coercing Turkey into giving reforms throughout the Empire. That was done in defiance of the Treaty of Paris which proceeded on the understanding that the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire should be regarded; but now that policy was to be reversed. The Treaty of Paris was to come into force again and Turkey was going to be put in a very much higher position than she occupied this time last year. Why was that to be so? Simply because Turkey had been successful in her military operations. ["Hear, hear!"] in other words, the wrong horse had turned out to be a tiger, and instead of putting more money upon him, he should be turned off the course altogether. Turkey would now be a greater power for mischief and barbarism than ever. Simply because she had been successful in the war Turkey was now regarded by a great many people who took somewhat superficial views of things, as a Power that was to be encouraged, and to be put in a position of power she ought never to have occupied in the history of the civilised world. He was sorry to say that, in his opinion, that view of the matter had had some effect on the Gentlemen he sometimes saw sitting in front of him. If they had taken up a strong position, it would have been very welcome to those sitting behind them, and the fact that they had not done so was a great disappointment to the Liberal Party. ["Hear, hear!"]