Lords Sitting of 17 July 1822

GREEK HOSTAGES AT CONSTANTINOPLE.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, that the House had been occupied during the present session in inquiring into the distresses of agriculture in this country, into those of nearly the whole population of Ireland, and into the state of that most disgraceful traffic, the Slave-trade, which, to its immortal honour, parliament had abolished, and which England was endeavouring to prevail upon other nations to abolish also. He trusted, therefore, that their lordships would not think it unworthy of their dignity to consider the state of unfortunate Christian slaves, on whom cruelties had been committed, which had excited the greatest horror throughout the country. He should not enter into the causes of the war between Turkey and Greece, and should not examine whether it had arisen from the voluntary impulse of the latter, or from the intrigues and treachery of Russia. All that it was necessary to know was, that such an horrible warfare existed; and all that it was important to ascertain was, whether by adopting a different system his majesty's ministers might not put an end to it. However this might be, no sooner did it appear that Russia was not going to war, than that moment had been chosen by the Turks to massacre or lead into captivity the whole population of Scio, and to murder the hostages from that island at Constantinople. It was said that a pledge had been obtained from the Divan by the British ambassador, that these anticipated cruelties should not be committed, and this assertion had not been contradicted. That pledge, however, if it had really been given, had been set at nought, and all the apprehended atrocities had taken place. He did not mean to say, that that Should be a cause of war; but it would justify this country and all others in withdrawing from any connexion with such detestable barbarians, and drawing a cordon sanitaire round Turkey. But, if ministers would not break off all communication with Turkey, they ought at least not to show it any favour. They professed that they had not done so; but strong suspicions to the contrary prevailed. Let their lordships look at the Turkish frigate which was now arming in the Thames. If it were true that ministers had furnished it with arms and am-
1666
munition, or had connived at the employment of a single Englishman on board, let them recollect that they were amenable to their own Enlistment act, and might fall into the snare which they had spread for others. He should be told that whatever cruelties the Turks had committed, the Greeks had also been guilty of some. Tripolitza, however, was the only place where that charge could be maintained against the Greeks: and even there the most horrible atrocities had been committed by the Turks upon numerous Greek hostages, before the capture of that city. So that cruelty had provoked cruelty. There was no part of England where the people did not feel anxious for the success of the Greek cause. He attributed the extraordinary conduct of his majesty's ministers to their apprehensions of the increasing strength of Russia. No doubt she might be endeavouring to extend her dominions towards the West, and to assume a power on the sea, to which it would be lowering the dignity of England to submit. But, whatever fear of her might be entertained with respect to Poland and other parts, none could be excited by Greece. On the contrary, if all nations united in making Greece an independent state, it would become a barrier against which the gigantic power of Russia would be broken. But even if this were not the case, he would rather risk any thing than allow the Turks to accomplish the subjugation of the Greeks. The noble earl concluded by moving, for "copies or extracts of all dispatches received from his majesty's ambassador at Constantinople, relative to the execution of the hostages there and at Scio."
The Earl of Liverpoolcould scarcely believe that there was a precedent for such a motion. The question was, an act of cruelty committed by the government of Turkey—on whom?—on its own, subjects. What right had this country to interfere with the conduct of another government towards its own subjects? How far might not such a principle be carried? Let it be supposed that an insurrection in this country had rendered the employment of a military force necessary to put it down, and that it had been done under circumstances which appeared highly cruel to foreign nations. What would their lordships say, if the ministers of France or of Spain interfered in a case between the government of England and its own subjects? There were cases in

1667
which a nation might interfere with the internal concerns of another; but that was only when her own safety was at stake. But did he mean to say, that if a great act of cruelty were on the eve of being committed, and that it was in the power of a British ambassador, through the personal influence with which circumstances might have invested him to prevent it, he should not use that influence for such a purpose? Far from it. And there was no one who knew lord Strangford, who would not believe that he would exert all his personal influence to prevent enormities of that kind; but not on the ground of right. Indeed, he was persuaded, that by adapting the motion of the noble earl, instead of facilitating such interference in future cases, the House would prevent it from having any effect; as it was not on public right that it ought to be founded. He should not enter into the nature of the contest between the Turks and the Greeks. It was true that most horrible scenes had taken place; but the noble earl was mistaken if he believed they were all on one side, and that with respect to the transactions at Scio; the first horrors had been committed by the Turks. This, he would admit was no palliation of the conduct of the latter, and still less of the flagitious act perpetrated at Constantinople. With respect to the charge of partiality on the part of his majesty's government, it was unfounded. They had observed the strictest neutrality. There was undoubtedly a vessel here, but it was a Turkish frigate Sent by the Paella or Egypt antecedent to the insurrection of the Morea, partly laden with merchandize, and partly with curiosities for the British Museum. She had come in the character of a merchant vessel, and having brought those articles to this country, had undergone the necessary repairs. She had afterwards applied to be armed, but arms stores, and all kinds of ammunition had been positively refused. Such was the real state of the case on which a charge of partiality had been grounded.
Lord Rollandconceived that the noble earl must have misunderstood the words of the motion, when he had taken it for one of interference in the concerns of ether nations, and had said that it had no precedent. It was nothing more than what the noble earl had done himself last year previous to discussing the affairs of Naples, when he had moved for the cor-
1668
respondence of sir W. A'Court, giving an account of the events in that country. His noble friend had asked whether it was true that the government of this country had guaranteed the safety of the hostages massacred by Turkey; and to this the noble earl had made no answer. There was no man of common feeling who was not interested in the success of the Greeks. He did not wish to interfere with the policy and conduct of this country, which must be regulated by circuit-stances; but if such an aspersion had been thrown on the character of Great Britain as that she assisted the horrible tyranny of the Turks, it became parliament to Vindicate her and ministers themselves from a species of calumny most disgraceful to any country. He did not charge the noble earl with such a partiality but if such a suspicion existed in Europe, it was his duty to justify the country by producing the correspondence of the British minister at Constantinople. If he could give as satisfactory an explanation on that point as he had done with respect to the Turkish frigate, why should the noble earl withhold it?
The Earl of Liverpoolhad not understood that any question had been put to him, whether the British ambassador at Constantinople had guaranteed the safety of the hostages from Scio. Now that he understood such a question to have been put, he had no difficulty in saying, that no such guarantee ever could be, or was given.
The motion was then negatived.