Lords Sitting of 3 August 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Investments; East India Stock Transfer, &c.; Landlord and Tenant (Ireland); Ecclesiastical Commission, &c.
2a Superannuation Act (1859) Amendment.
3a Conjugal Rights (Scotland); Coast of Africa, &c, Act Amendment; Crown Debts and Judgments; Debtors and Creditors Act Amendment; Railways Act (Ireland) (1851) Amendment; County Coroners.

SLAVE TRADE.—PETITIONS.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he had two petitions to present on a very important subject and from very important parties—the one from the Council of the Anti-Slavery Society, complaining—and most justly complaining—of the conduct of the Spanish Government, who, having entered into a solemn engagement by treaty that they would effect the abolition of the Slave Trade, and having received compensation for pretended loss to arise from that abolition, had, in breach of that treaty and in forgetfulness of the compensation they had accepted, allowed the trade to go on, not only flourishing as before, but greatly increasing, to so enormous an extent that from 30,000 to 40,000 slaves were imported into Cuba each year. It was known to their Lordships that Spain was now, to her great disgrace, the only country which carried on the Slave Trade: and whatever pretexts might be put forward, whether the conduct of the colonial

589
Governors, or the slackness of their own cruisers, or the inefficiency of the cruisers of England and the United States on the African coast, or on the coast of Cuba—the fact was undeniable that Spain had not performed her obligations under the treaty concluded between her and the British Government, and that the Slave Trade had increased enormously instead of being put down. The other petition was from the ex-King of Bonny, on the African coast, of which for many generations his ancestors had been the Sovereigns. Until the year 1834, the King of Benny, like all African princes, had profited by that execrable traffic; he receiving £30,000 a year from the Slave Trade carried on in his dominions, and his chiefs £60,000—no less than £90,000 a year was their gain—while the traffic continued. As alleged in his petition, he was partly induced and partly threatened into making a treaty by which he was to receive 2,000 dollars a year in compensation of the loss to him and to his chiefs from the abolition of the traffic in his dominions; whereas the payment had been discontinued after the first year.
THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the noble and learned Lord was not in order in going at large, at that time, into the statements of the petition.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was quite aware of the rules of their Lordships' House. His experience on the woolsack had extended to almost as many years as that of his noble and learned Friend counted months; and he apprehended that was sufficiently long to have learned that he was in order while stating the general substance of a petition; he might properly state any grievance contained in a petition introductory to the prayer for their Lordships' interposition to remedy it—they need not grant the prayer unless they pleased.
THE LORD CHANCELLORapprehended it would be more regular to read the prayer of the petition.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the space between the meeting of the House and a quarter past five was assigned to the presentation of petitions, when the noble and learned Lord might have presented his petitions and made any statement he thought proper. That space had now elapsed, and the noble and learned Lord was occupying time which belonged to the Orders of the Day.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he should
590
have presented his petitions before a quarter past five if his noble Friend the Lord President had been in his place. [Earl GRANVILLE: I was present.] Where his noble Friend was—whether he was under the table or under the Ministerial benches or where I cannot say; but I looked in vain for a Member of the Government at the time allotted to the presenting petitions, being one quarter of an hour only. The petition stated that before the year 1834 he received £30,000 yearly, and his chiefs £60,000 yearly, as the price of their sanction of the slave trade within his dominions, and that 20,000 human beings were consequently sold into slavery every year from his ports; that on the promise of 2,000 dollars being paid to him annually he had consented to put an end to the traffic, and that he had actually exerted himself to the utmost of his power in suppressing it, and with success; but that, notwithstanding his exertions, the stipulated payment had, after the first year, been withheld from him; and the prayer of the petition was that their Lordships would he pleased to interfere in his behalf by directing an inquiry as to the wrongs he had sustained and the burdens he had endured, and affording him the means of proving his case and justifying his conduct in all respects. It was only justice to this unfortunate ex-Sovereign to state that, unlike the Spanish Government, he had most rigorously, accurately and honestly performed the obligations of the treaty, and that the slave trade by this means had been abolished on this part of the African coast, and the innocent comrneree greatly extended in the articles produced. The King of Bonny had certainly set an example to Spain of fidelity to engagements; although Spain had received £400,000 of consideration money, and this unlucky black Sovereign only £500. He (Lord Brougham) had only now to add, that in consequence of the statement made in the other House of Parliament on this subject, he would abstain from bringing forward any Motion relative to the conduct of the Spanish Government, and the injustice to our own West India colonies, which had suffered grievously from the wrongs inflicted by the breach of Treaty committed by Spain.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he was not aware that his noble and learned Friend intended to present a petition from the ex-King of Bonny on this subject, or he would have come down prepared to explain the

591
position of the matter on the part of the Foreign Office. He could not admit that, when the whole matter was inquired into the facts would he found entirely as represented in the petition presented by his noble and learned Friend.
LORD BROUGHAMwould only say that whatever foundation there might be for his complaints and grievances, the conduct of the ex-King of Bonny was an example to the Spanish Government; for he had performed his treaty engagements, whereas Spain had entirely broken through hers.

TRANSACTION OF PARLIAMENTARY

  BUSINESS.
  LORD BROUGHAMrose to move, pursuant to notice, "That the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Business, of the 14th of August. 1848, be reprinted." His noble Friend now sitting on the cross benches of their Lordships' House (Lord Eversley) was then Speaker of the House of Commons. He gave most important evidence before the Committee, and stated the various obstacles which impeded the progress of public business, and offered most valuable suggestions as to the remedy; and the Committee made several recommendations with a view to facilitating the business of Parliament. It appeared also that then, as at present, Members complained of the increasing tendency to the accumulation of business towards the end of the Session, though no one proposed a remedy for that evil. His noble Friend near him (Lord Derby) had made a full statement upon the subject; but with him he (Lord Brougham) admitted that it was, under existing circumstances, necessary that the recess should intervene before they could attempt any mature deliberation on the remedies required. He also desired, before the end of the present Session, to bring before their Lordships the Resolutions which he (Lord Brougham) had himself proposed in 1845, for the better conduct of private business in their own House. He quite agreed with what his noble Friend (Lord Eversley) stated before the Committee, that a large part of the evil complained of in the hindrance of public business arose from the great and increasing mass of private business. The Members of the other House having been occupied all the morning in Committees on private Bills, necessarily came to the House at four or five o'clock quite exhausted; and the natural conse-
  592
  quence was that they frequently left the House at seven o'clock in the evening, and did not return until perhaps ten o'clock. This often led to an unnecessary prolongation of the debates, for subjects in which they were interested having been brought on during their absence, they had lost their opportunity, and it was necessary either to find or make an opportunity of delivering their sentiments, the result was that constant Motions for Adjournment were made, and on other questions debate was forced on to the great prejudice of the progress of public business. That was the description of the state of things in 1848, and the Committee, in order to remedy the evil, recommended—a proposal which had been sanctioned—that certain restrictions on the making Motions of Adjournment should be imposed. At the present day, however, those restrictions were, so far as he could learn, ineffectual to prevent the abuse of the privilege, especially in the case of the Motion for Adjournment from Friday until Monday, when the opportunity was seized upon by Members of the other House to enter into the most desultory discussion of every variety of subject. Indeed the whole process was a series of debates, not upon the questions before the House but on everything, and the speeches were without number and almost without end. The Committee, he might add, had received the evidence of various witnesses from foreign countries as to the peculiar rules and modes of procedure adopted by their Legislative bodies. It appeared that in the United States Legislature the Motion for Adjournment was not allowed to raise any debate, and there was a form of procedure known as "the Previous Question," which amounted rather to what the French termed la cláture than that to which would come under the designation of the Previous Question in this country, its effect being instantly to put an end to the debate; and it is determined by a vote without any debate. It was asserted that the French system to which he had just alluded did not interfere unduly with freedom of discussion, and that all men believed business could not be carried on without the clôlure, while it was also contended that the one hour remedy—that was to say, the limiting of the time allotted to each speaker to one hour—worked well in the United States, and was universally popular both in the House of Representatives and out of doors. He was, however, afraid that such a remedy applied here would not so work, unless

  593
  hedged round by such safeguards as would render its operation perfectly inefficient to promote the object which those who would adopt it must have in view. The Committee having made some further recommendations for facilitating the progress of public business, wound up their Report by stating that they could not recommend the adoption of any new restrictive rule, and that the real remedy for the obstacles which had existed to that progress was to be found in the good feeling of the House itself, the forbearance of Members, their desire to conduct the proceedings with regularity and order, and their willing acquiescence in the decisions of the Speaker as well as in the enforcement by the Speaker of the established rule that everybody addressing the House should strictly confine his remarks to matters pertinent to the subject under discussion. The Committee, however, in relying upon the forbearance of the House, and the enforcement of the rule in question, placed their trust, he feared, in a broken reed; while there was, he thought, much weight in their statement that the satisfactory conduct of public business must in no small degree also depend upon the control which was exercised over it by the Government, and on the due preparation by the Government of the measures which they submitted to Parliament as well the proper distribution of those measures between the two Houses. In the expectation of the Committee that the independent Members of the House of Commons would do all in their power to assist the Government in disposing of the public business, he was not, he might add, inclined to place much faith, while he cordially concurred in the opinion that the great mass of private business lay at the root of the evil of which he complained. Therefore, he would call their Lordships' attention to the proposals he had more than once brought forward as to the mode of dealing with private business. But especially he had brought forward the matter in 1837, with the support of his illustrious Friend the late Duke of Wellington. The origin of the plan then proposed was this: In 1834, when he (Lord Brougham) presided in this House, a Bill was brought up from the Commons for dealing with boroughs accused of corrupt practices. On looking at its provisions he found them such as could never be agreed to, for the entire disfranchisement of any borough might be finally carried by a single vote obtained through surprise or inattention; and when such a vote had once passed
  594
  the Commons for disfranchising Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, in the state of their Lordship' House, and with the prevailing prejudices on the subject, no doubt the Bill was sure to pass through all its stages very easily. He spoke to the Duke on this oversight, as he considered it, of the other House, feeling quite certain that his noble Friend was greatly above availing himself and the party which he led of what must prove such an advantage; and he found, as he expected, that be had rightly judged his noble Friend. He then spoke to another noble Friend whom the Duke held in high respect (Lord Ellenborough), having with all men the greatest admiration of his talents, and the truest esteem for his manly straightforward nature, so congenial to his own. In that noble Lord he found the same fair and candid disposition, not to take advantage of what had been done in the Commons. It was, therefore, agreed that the Bill must be materially altered; and the Duke mentioned a plan that had occurred to him, on which he would write a few observations, and give them to him (Lord Brougham), asking his assistance to work it out, and to give the needful details. They considered it repeatedly, in every point of view, and the result was the proposal of a Joint Committee of the two Houses to examine the evidence in each case. When he suggested that the Commons might require a majority of the number, the Duke had no objection, and it was settled that there should be seven Commoners and five Peers. The Duke also proposed that the Committee should, if it chose, act with the assistance of a Common Law Judge, in considering questions of law and matters of evidence, to which he (Lord Brougham) did not object, though he warned his noble Friend that this part of their plan would occasion great objections in the Commons. It was proposed that this Joint Committee should examine the whole case, and report to both Houses, that the Report should only be conclusive on the facts, and that the subsequent stages of the Bill in each case should be entirely within the jurisdiction of each House. This plan was fully discussed in the Select Committee to which the House of Commons Bill was referred, and it was adopted first by the Committee, and afterwards by the House, and the Bill, as so amended, was returned to the Commons, where it met with a general approval, all being of opinion that, to whatever objections it might in some parts be

  595
  exposed, it was a very great improvement of the measure as sent up to this House; but aw it was rather a new Bill than an amended Bill, it was deemed impossible to adopt it upon the single vote of agreeing to the Lords' Amendments, and the measure therefore went no further, the Session being near its close. Next year the Government was in the hands of the noble Duke and his friends, and when he (Lord Brougham) proposed to renew this Bill, the Duke concluded that the Ministry was not in such a state as gave it a reasonable prospect of being able to carry so important a measure. In fact, they remained only a few weeks in office. Two years later he (Lord Brougham) brought forward his orders for the better conducting of private business, and he naturally consulted the noble Duke not only because he had expressed the strongest opinion upon the absolute necessity of some measure to facilitate that business, but because lie knew no one so entirely worthy of being consulted upon all subjects. He spoke from long experience of that illustrious man, and from long observation before his experience commenced; and he could assert that his wisdom in civil affairs, his sagacity, his firmness, and all the qualities which combined to make a great statesman were only less than his military superiority. With a mind that at once fixed on the object to be accomplished, his eye surveyed all the surrounding obstacles and difficulties, and descried the path by which that object was to be attained; and his firm will proceeded resolutely in the shortest path, by a straight line, to the end in view. To this great man he commended the Resolutions which he proposed for conducting private Bills. He approved of them entirely, but said, "Why not try our plan of 1834?" His answer was they could not hope to carry it. Then, said the Duke, "let us try, and if we are beaten we can retreat upon your Resolutions upon the lesser plan." Accordingly they did try it, and the Duke stoutly supported it in the Select Committee to which the Resolutions were referred. They were unable to carry it, and the lesser plan being adopted, was reported to the House, and forms the Standing Orders now in force. This was communicated to the Commons and for two or three years rejected, but afterwards adopted, and he (Lord Brougham) was bound to admit to his noble Friend (Lord Eversley) adopted with one important addition, which was a great improvement, that of the Select com-
  596
  mittee of Chairmen in the House of Commons. The Resolutions which he now proposed were founded upon the plan which the illustrious Duke and himself had endeavoured to carry in 1837, and to these Resolutions proposed then and in 1845 he had added two not confined to private Bills but applicable to all measures. To the whole he respectfully invited the attention of their Lordships, as well as to the important evidence and suggestions in the House of Commons' Report. He placed the whole subject before their Lordships, he might almost say testamentarily. He grieved to say that he was about to quit a scene in which he had long aided their Lordships, according to the humble measure of his powers, in their judicial as well as legislative capacity. Hereafter, should his health permit, and his faculties servo to make him worthy of again partaking in their labours, he might hope to revisit the same scene. Meanwhile he might say in the words of Bishop Lowth:—
  "Cara, vale, veniet felicius ævum,
  "Quando iterum tecum, sim modo dignus ero."
  He moved that the Select Committee's Report on Public Business, 14th August, 1848, be printed.
  Ordered to be printed.

RETIREMENT OF BISHOPS.—CASE OF DR. HINDS.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONrose to call Attention to the Case of Dr. Hinds, late Bishop of Norwich; and ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether it is intended in the next Session of Parliament to introduce a Bill for making Provision for Bishops who in consequence of advanced Age or Ill-health may be desirous of resigning their Sees? He believed the case of Dr. Hinds to be one of peculiar hardship. It would be remembered that on the retirement of Bishops Blomfield and Maltby from the sees of London and Durham, a special Act was passed, settling on them retiring allowances for the remainder of their lives; but Bishop Hinds who resigned his bishopric of Norwich subsequently, did so quite unconditionally, and with no promise of receiving any such consideration. He (Viscount Dungannon) had no personal acquaintance with Dr. Hinds, and had only taken his case up as a matter of justice. He believed that Dr. Hinds, in the earlier part of his life, was principal of the Codrington College at Barbadoes, he

597
then became examining chaplain to the present Archbishop of Dublin, by whom he was preferred to a living near Dublin, was afterwards raised to the Deanery of Carlisle, whence lie was removed to the See of Norwich. In consequence of ill-health, which made him quite unable to discharge the duties of his See, he unconditionally resigned it. He could not believe that either Her Majesty's Government or the Ecclesiastical Commission would suffer such a case of injustice as that of Dr. Hinds' to be overlooked. Had Dr. Hinds retired at the same time as Bishops Mai thy and Blomfield no doubt some compensation would have been afforded to him to pass the remainder of his days in ease and comfort. The retiring pensions of those two Bishops, amounting together to £11,000 a year, reverted on their death to the Ecclesiastical Commission, and it was not too much to expect that out of that sum a small allowance would be made to Dr. Hinds, Dr. Hinds had now reached the age of threescore and ten, and he had reason to believe that a very small pension would be sufficient to meet all his requirements during the remainder of his life. It had often been complained that Bishops held their Sees to an advanced period of life, when they were no longer equal to the duties they had to discharge; and lie could not but consider that it would be very desirable to introduce a measure to make provision for Bishops who wished to retire from old age or failing health. Bishops could not be expected to resign their Sees without such a provision, and bring themselves from a position—he would not say of affluence—but of competency to one of comparative indigence. The private patrimony of Bishops was in general small, for they were in most instances selected for their high office in consequence of their individual merits and their services in the cause of religion. He could state too that, as far his knowledge went, they were as a body remarkable for their liberality and their readiness to contribute to the promotion of every charitable undertaking; and it was, therefore, the more becoming and the more necessary that some provision should be made for them in the event of their finding themselves compelled by old age or ill-health to resign their high offices. Dr. Hinds, who was a conscientious and high-minded man, had unconditionally resigned his distinguished position when he found he was no longer equal to its duties; but it was quite possible for him to have made some bargain before doing
598
so; and because he had not, it was unjust to disregard his claim.
EARL GRANVILLEconcurred entirely in all that had fallen from the noble Lord with reference to the high character of Dr. Hinds. He believed he was held in the highest, estimation by all who were acquainted with him. No doubt his case was a very hard cue; but, both with regard to bin) and with regard to the general question of providing retiring allowances for Bishops, there were the greatest difficulties in the way of arriving at a satisfactory settlement. The late Earl of Harrowby had endeavoured to effect some satisfactory arrangement of the question; but notwithstanding the good-will with which he embarked in the undertaking, he unfortunately failed. The present Government had taken great pains to come to some conclusion, but unfortunately they had not been able to arrive at a satisfactory one. The great difficulty was to say out of what fund a retiring pension of this sort should come. In the case of Dr. Hinds it was impossible that tin; pension could be taken from the revenues of the See. With regard to Bishop Blomfield and Bishop Maltby, there was a large property belonging to their Sees which was available for the purpose, and which reverted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at their deaths; but in the case of Dr. Hinds there was no such property belonging to the Sec of Norwich from which a similar provision could be made. Her Majesty's Government had not been able to frame any general scheme by which the object the noble Lord had in view could be obtained.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDEKLEYthought that every one must sympathize with Dr. Hinds, who had acted so disinterestedly. No doubt there were difficulties in the way of applying a remedy to the case of Dr. Hinds, but he did not see why the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should not come forward to meet the case. It was the more incumbent on them to do so, as he understood that they had recently added £1,000 a year to the stipend of the Dean of York, out of their Common Fund, and he should like to hear what objection there was to drawing on the same fund for pensioning Dr. Hinds. Deans bad fewer duties to perform than any of the functionaries of the Church, and if the Commissioners could afford to increase their stipends at this rate, they might justly apply an equal sum to providing a pension for any Bishop who might wish to take the same course

599
as Dr. Hinds. He should be glad to hear from any member of the Ecclesiastical Commission who might be present, whether there was any truth in the statement that this increase to the stipend of the Dean of York was objected to by all the lay members of the Commission, and that it was carried entirely by the ecclesiastical members. He should also be glad to know on what ground the Commissioners justified themselves in making this increase, which was the most inexcusable he had ever heard of. When they considered that £1,000 would have increased 50 livings from £50 to £100 a year, and that every one agreed £100 a year was the minimum which a clergyman of the Church of England ought to receive, it did seem that this £1,000 a year increase to the Deanery of York was an appropriation of money which would have been more properly applied to the increase of small livings.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONregretted that the noble Earl, who was a prominent member of the Ecclesiastical Commission (the Earl of Chichester), was not present to give an answer to the question as to the Deanery of York. It was an inaccurate statement to say that the ecclesiastical members of the Commission voted on one side and the lay members on the other side, upon this question of the income of the Dean of York. According to his recollection, there had not been any division in the Ecclesiastical Commission on the subject. The case of the Deanery of York was peculiar. It was not true that the income had been raised from £1,000 to £2,000 a year. The question referred to the Commission was this,—what was tie proper salary which ought to be given to the Dean of York under the Act of Parliament? and the Commissioners had come to the conclusion that it should be £2,000 a year. The Deanery was worth nearly £3,000 a year at the time it became vacant, on the appointment of the gentleman who now so worthily held it. It was impossible to conceive anything more inaccurate or untrue than the impression that all deaneries were reduced to £1,000 a year. It was required that all above £2,000 a year should be reduced to £2,000 a year, and all below £1,000 a year should be raised to £1,000 a year, but there was no law which stated that no deanery should be above a £1,000 a year. The question referred to the Commissioners was simply what was the proper income to give to the Dean of York, and they were acting as to the law of the case
600
in accordance with the opinion of two sets of law officers of the Crown—the law officers of the late and of the present Government—when without a division, as he believed, the lay and ecclesiastical members recommended to Her Majesty in Council to give the Dean of York the income to which he was entitled under the Act of Parliament. He had great pleasure in being able to say that the statement which the noble Lord had heard was erroneous.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had heard with some surprise the statement of the right rev. Prelate. Although he had not expected the question to be raised, he had a perfect recollection of what took place when he was in office with regard to the Deanery of York. When the right rev. Prelate spoke of the question submitted to the Commissioners, he did not know by whom it was submitted; but this he knew, that a relative of the Dean assured him that the Dean had made no application or request for an augmentation of salary, and was not aware of the intention until he was informed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had come to the conclusion to raise his stipend. He was free to admit that, looking at the circumstances of the Deanery of York and some other deaneries, and considering the amount of buildings to be kept up and the general expenses those dignitaries were expected to incur, a person without a private fortune would find it difficult to hold the office and do justice to it with £1,000 a year. But, as to there having been no difference of opinion between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the contrary was represented to him when he was in office. He did not say that the difference of opinion was between lay and ecclesiastical members, but there was a considerable difference of opinion, and his right hon. Friend who informed him of the facts of the case also told him that he feared the Commissioners would come to the Resolution to raise the stipend to £2,000 a year, in opposition to the intentions of Parliament. He (the Earl of Derby) requested his right hon. Friend to state to the Commissioners that he hoped no such question would be raised, and that, if such a decision were come to, he should exercise his authority as First Lord of the Treasury to refuse the sanction of the Treasury to the arrangement until it had received the authority of Parliament. He had heard with surprise the statement that there had been no difference of opinion among the Commissioners. He said no-

601
thing as to the merits, but he thought that, after the general impression which prevailed, it was a most unfortunate circumstance that the Eclesiastical Commissioners, without the sanction of Parliament, should have taken on themselves to increase the income of the Dean of York from £1,000 to £2,000 a year.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked whether any record was kept of the votes of the Commissioners? He understood that there had been in the Ecclesiastical Commission some proceedings of such a nature that one of the members, for some reason or another, moved that henceforth divisions should be recorded so that they might be presented, if called for, to Parliament. It was clear, from the language of one of the Commissioners "in another place," that he must have opposed the proposal.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, his statement was this—that, whatever difference of opinion there might have been individually among the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who were a large body, many of whom did not often give the Commission the benefit of their presence, yet, with regard to the Dean of York, the decision of the Commissioners was adopted without any indication that their opinions were divided.
LORD OVERSTONEwished to repeat the question which had been put to the right rev. Prelate by the noble Lord near him (Lord Stanley of Alderley). Was there any record kept of the divisions of the Commissioners? He would ask, further, whether it was not true that it was in consequence of the difference of opinion which had prevailed upon this very subject that one of the Commissioners had proposed that their votes should in future be recorded?
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, such a Motion had been made, and had been unanimously adopted; but he could not say what were the motives that had induced its author to propose it. It certainly, however, had nothing to do with any division in reference to the stipend of the Dean of York, because no such division had taken place.
LORD OVERSTONEasked, whether there was any record of any proceeding upon this subject.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that there was, and that the papers were ready to be laid before Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,as an ex-
602
officio Commissioner, regretted that he was unable to give their Lordships any information on the matter, and disclaimed all responsibility in connection with it.
THE EARL OF DERBYwished to know whether the noble Earl the President of the Council had received any communicaltion on the subject from the Ecclesiastica Commission, and whether his sanction was given to the Order in Council by which the increase of salary was authorized?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had received the Order in Council unaccompanied by any other document.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD COLCHESTERexpressed his approval of the alterations which had been made in the Bill by the Select Committee. He thought the measure would be highly beneficial to the service. He was glad to see that the constitution of courts martial had been improved, that the scale of punishments had been more accurately defined, and that the provisions of the measure generally had been brought more in accordance with the spirit of the times.
  Amendments made. The Report thereof to be received on Monday next.

THE CURRAGH OF KILDARE.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEasked, Whether any Lease has been executed or is in contemplation whereby the Curragh of Kildare will be transferred from the Department of Woods and Forests to that of War; and whether it is intended to erect thereupon permanent Stone or Brick Barracks?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that some time ago there were some communications between the War Department and that of the Woods and Forests in regard to the transference of the Crown property at the Curragh from the latter to the former. Those communications, however, did not come to a satisfactory conclusion, and it was not now in contemplation either to make any such transfer, or to erect barracks of stone or brick on the Curragh. He could not say that it was intended to discontinue the occupation of the Curragh as a camp, because valuable instruction was there imparted to the troops.

DISTURBANCES IN STRIA—QUESTION.
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE:—My Lords, I rise for the purpose of drawing your Lordships' attention to the question of the disturbances in Syria, which has occupied so large a portion of the public attention for some time. It will be in the recollection of the House that a few weeks ago, when I asked a question of the Government respecting their information on this subject, a noble and learned Friend of mine (Lord Brougham), in saying a few words in support of my request, expressed a hope that at some future time I would enter at large on the question. I should have acted on the suggestion of my noble and learned Friend at an earlier period, but I was in hopes that some one more able to deal with a question of such importance would take it up, and bring it under the attention of the House. There were likewise other reasons which rendered it difficult for me to fix a day on which I could bring the question before the House. Your Lordships will remember that a few-days ago I expressed the deep regret I experienced at not being able to bring it forward at an hour which, however early it might appear to some, was too late to admit of the proper consideration of an important subject of this sort. The question is indeed one the importance of which cannot be exaggerated, and I cannot express with what diffidence I now enter upon it; I trust, however, that your Lordships, with your characteristic generosity, will accord to me the indulgence of which I have witnessed so many notable examples since I have had the honour of a seat in your House. I trust that your Lordships will believe that I bring forward this question under a sense of the importance of its being considered by both Houses before Parliament breaks up—of the desirableness of its receiving your Lordships' attention as well as that of the other House, where it seems likely that it will undergo discussion; it is also to be wished that the public should have an opportunity of becoming better acquainted with the nature of a subject which is attended with so many painful circumstances and involves so many serious considerations. It shall be my endeavour, if your Lordships' indulgence is granted me, to address myself to the question with as much brevity as my inexperience of Parliamentary discussions may enable me to employ.
My Lords, I do not think it necessary to
604
enter into any details of the atrocious incidents which have taken place in Syria. They are but too vividly impressed upon every page of the papers which have been laid on our table; they have been so commented upon in every form by the public press, and they are of themselves of so I distressing a nature, that I should with difficulty persuade myself to dwell upon them now. From a similar feeling I am unwilling to enter into any inquiry as to the origin of these disturbances, and the sanguinary tumults and massacres by which they have been accompanied. I know there are many painful reports in circulation, that there are some reasons for perhaps, attaching a political importance of no ordinary kind to these occurrences; but I confess that I conceive them to be more fit for a judicial inquiry and the sober deliberation of the Government than to be brought at the present moment under the consideration of this House. It is impossible, however, entirely to overlook some of the circumstances that have taken place, and there are some leading points which the House ought to take into consideration as bearing upon the question. Nor can I refrain from remarking upon the necessity which it appears to me, and I believe to every one who has reflected upon it, exists for taking prompt and efficient measures to put an end to a state of things in Syria which is attended with so much loss of life, and which gives so great a shock to all the best feelings of humanity. Measures of that kind should be adopted with the least possible delay. I am, my Lords, by no means disinclined to give every credit to Her Majesty's Government for having taken up this subject and done what depends upon them to produce that desirable result. The circumstance of a Commissioner having—as I understand from the public newspapers—been appointed to proceed to Syria, is a proof that they hare exercised an active discretion on this question; and I can only trust that that appointment may prove of advantage. But, my Lords, it is not merely the despatch of a Commissioner, it is not merely communications with other Powers that will have the effect of putting a stop to the atrocities which have been enacted in Syria. I believe, as far as the present state of the ease is concerned, that there is much reason to hope that, as a probable consequence of the exhaustion of the two contending parties, some kind of arrangement has been made so as to arrest

605
the immediate effusion of blood. But it is impossible to lose sight of what has already taken place—of the enormous sacrifice of human life and the dreadful incidents connected with it. And after all, even it be true that there is a cessation of actual hostilities, I fear it is more attributable to the triumph of one party over the other than to any other cause.
My Lords, I really feel myself embarrassed in attempting first to state the most prominent circumstances which give importance to the affairs of that part of the world. It may become necessary—and I understand that some arrangements for that object are in progress—to exercise interference on the part of the European Powers, or some of those Powers; and it appears that the landing of a considerable force in Syria may be expected, if it has not already occurred. If there be a necessity of that kind—if the Turkish Government is of itself too weak to suppress these disturbances and to give that security to Europe which Europe has a right to look for against their renewal, I, for one, should not object to see, under proper safeguards, and when the necessity for it is well and clearly established, measures of an active nature adopted on the part of Europe, or even on the part of any particular Power, under the sanction of treaty. But there is no doubt that considerable danger would arise on that point. We never can forget of what importance Syria is. That, above all, it is the key to Egypt, and is a country in regard to which, if any mistake were to take place, if any extension of the interference beyond what was strictly required were to occur, it might be difficult for the maritime powers of Europe to interfere without involving themselves in hostilities and all the consequences of a long and hazardous war. There are other points of the greatest interest and importance appertaining to this subject. There is no question but that the Turkish Government have always lamented that that part of their empire which is well known to us under the name of the Lebanon has never yet been brought fully under subjection. There have been many indications at a period anterior to these recent occurrences, of a constant desire on the part of the Turkish Government to obtain a more complete authority over this portion of their territory. It is well known that from the earliest times the principal tribes of the Lebanon have enjoyed an independent administration; that the Ottoman
606
armies, in their attempts to reduce them, were always foiled; that it was not until the Egyptians entered the country that these races tasted the effects of dependence upon a distant authority; and that on that occasion they were rescued from this dependence mainly by the assistance of British arms, employed at sea in concurrence with the Turkish forces on land. And, if I am rightly informed—and, indeed, I believe there is no doubt upon the subject-promises were given to these tribes that their independence should be secured, and that a Turkish military force should not lie established within the confines of their territories. These circumstances have of course rendered it difficult to deal with the affairs of the Lebanon. On the one hand you have to provide for the fulfilment of the promises so made, and also to display a just distrust with regard to the entrance of foreign troops into the country; but at the same time there is a paramount consideration, and one which it is difficult to set aside, namely, that such atrocities as have lately been perpetrated there should not be liable to repetition. I wish, my Lords, that it were in my power, from the experience I have had of that country, to say that we can entirely rely upon the Turkish Government and authorities for giving us that security. It is impossible to read the Correspondence now on your Lordships' table without perceiving that there are strong reasons to suspect at least the officers called upon to execute the commands of the Porte of an unpardonable remissness, and sometimes of even more than that—and in some cases even of an appearance of connivance at these atrocities. And on more than one occasion—if we are to believe the reports of the Consuls, which there is no reason to doubt—even when those officers had the force necessary to check the contending parties, they exhibited the most marked partiality towards one of them, persuading those who were exposed to danger to give up their arms, and, when those arms had been given up, opening the gates of their town and delivering up those unfortunate persons to indiscriminate massacre. I do hope, my Lords, that among the measures which will be taken there will be one of a judicial character, one that will carry with it that spirit of punishment which, more than anything else, is calculated to repress the tendency to forget what is due to humanity, and due to the engagements of the Porte with foreign Powers. I see that

607
one officer in particular is mentioned—Osman Bey—who seems to have not merely connived at what took place, but to have himself led the way to the massacre, not only of persons who had a short time before been in arms, but also of their wives and children. For Europe to stand still and witness such atrocities without endeavouring to put them down, without seeking to obtain some guarantee against their recurrence, without calling upon the Turkish Government to control its officers, and give to Europe that security which we have a right to expect is, my Lords, a state of things which cannot he contemplated. It is impossible to imagine for one moment that such a state of things can be permitted to continue, or that this country will be slow to take its part in suppressing proceedings so contrary to every sentiment of justice, good faith, and common humanity.
My Lords, among the other difficulties incident to this question, not the least, perhaps, is that of ascertaining the exact cause of these calamities. It may be said that one of those causes—if we are to give credit in any degree to the Sultan for not willingly conniving at the perpetration of crimes of this kind—is the weakness of his power. But I take the liberty, my Lords, of asking whence does that weakness arise? Is it a mere excuse or a state of things that might have been prevented? It appears that the number of troops in the disturbed parts of Syria was very small; and we likewise find that the Turkish Government were not prepared with the means of sending a large force to that country at the time when they first heard of these disturbances. It would, moreover, seem that their attention had been called to a distant portion of their empire on the other side of the water—to that part of their territory in the more immediate vicinity of which there exist Russian interests. Every one knows that the Turkish Government is always exposed to dangers of that kind, if not on one side on another—that the state of the country is such, in consequence of the inefficient administration of the Porte, as to be exposed at every moment to insurrection; and that, though the Porte has generally the good fortune and sufficient authority to put it down, yet every exercise of its authority is accompanied by an increased degree of weakness and danger of bringing about that catastrophe which it has been the object of statesmen for so many years to avoid. But true it is, from
608
my own knowledge, that this weakness is by no means necessary. It arises from particular circumstances; and among others from the state of the finances of Turkey being so reduced that the Court finds difficulty in keeping up the army to its usual strength; and the troops, I understand, are so much in arrear with their pay that their spirit may have been affected by the hard position in which they have thus been placed. But my own belief is that this state of things at the Porte is by no means a necessary one. The Porte has for many years been warned of the consequences of allowing the old system of financial administration to go on to its natural result; it has been so warned by many friendly Powers, and more particularly by Her Majesty's Government; but I am sorry to say, from my own experience, that no attention—no fixed or followed-up attention—has been paid to hat advice; and the consequence is that the Turkish Governments have gone on step by step into a state of still greater difficulty; and thus it is their own fault that they have been unable to keep up the force that may be necessary to prevent the occurrence of such atrocities as humanity itself must deplore. When such is the case how can we look back with any degree of satisfaction to the exertions we made in favour of the Porte some few years ago, when menaced by Russia. Great sacrifices were made by this country in its behalf, and made also, I am bound to add, by our powerful neighbour—and with a degree of success which ought to have left a permanent feeling of gratitude on the Turkish Government. It is true the Sultan has accepted, and has even proclaimed to his people, a system of reform which, if it had been properly carried out, might have prevented these disasters, and probably would have done so, and placed the Empire on a totally different footing from what it is now on. Indeed, I may say with confidence that, had this been so, the empire would have been in a much better condition than at the present moment, and have placed at a proportionate distance those dangers, massacres, and insurrections, of which the events which have occurred in Syria exhibit so prominent and striking an example.
My Lords, it must occur to your Lordships as well as to myself that a heavy responsibility rests upon Parliament in consequence of this state of things. If we look into the question of Syria it is impossible not to observe in immediate connec-

609
tion with it that the great Eastern Question—the great Question of the Russian and the Ottoman Empires—is involved, and I do not hesitate to say that that question is at this moment absolutely brought home to our doors by what has occurred in Syria, You will in vain put down what has taken place there; in vain you will staunch the blood which has flowed; in vain you will take measures to prevent the renewal of those atrocities, unless you find the means of engaging the Turkish Government to redeem their pledges, and give effectual execution to those reforms which have been so often urged upon them. Unless that is done, it is my firm conviction that you will only patch up the difficulty for the moment, and you will leave the seeds of fresh disturbances and fresh difficulties of a still more disastrous and dangerous character. If the question wore now for the first time to be considered what should be done in order to give a greater degree of strength and stability to the Turkish Government, so as to enable it to cope with the difficulties presented by parts of the Empire circumstanced like Syria, we might consider the subject on a much narrower ground, and accept the assurances of the Turkish Government that measures will be taken, with or without the concurrence of Europe, in order to prevent the recurrence of such atrocities. But there are many circumstances that must occur to your minds to show that this is only part and parcel of the weakness of the Turkish Empire, and, unless more be done—unless the Turkish Government be made to redeem the pledges it has given—we shall be every moment liable to be involved in a new European complexity which it has been so much the object of European policy to avoid, or at least to place at a distance.
I should be sorry to take up your Lordships' time at any unnecessary length, but, after having made these general observations with regard to the Turkish Empire at large, I cannot leave the subject without offering some further explanations of the reasons which I have for the Motion of which I gave notice. I must confess the impression which is on my mind is, that the papers presented by Her Majesty's Government to Parliament on this subject are not of a very comprehensive nature. I have read them with the impression that more might have been produced for the satisfaction of Parliament and the very natural interest which the public at large have taken in this subject. There are
610
some points on which I would offer a few words of comment. In the first place, the Correspondence laid on the table is nothing more than a statement from the different Consuls since these disasters arose. It appears from a memorial presented by the merchants to the Consuls on the 20th of May, that apprehensions had been entertained for a long time previously, and that there were antecedents to the disturbances that have taken place that called for a close attention to them. This warning one might have supposed would have arrested attention. I see no trace however of such attention having been paid to the subject. I observe that the Consul General at Beyrout describes himself as having been called upon to make a representation to Kurschid Pasha on the subject, in conjunction with the Consuls of France, Austria, and Prussia—that he accepted the request and arranged the meeting, notwithstanding that the Pasha had already proceeded to the mountain with an armed force, I observe, also, that Consul General Moore intimates that in assenting to the proposition of the other Consuls he rather sought to limit the declaration they were inclined to make to the local Turkish Government. I therefore feel a very natural curiosity to know under what instructions the Consul General was then acting. Were they of a general character, which restrained the action of the Consuls? Was he in that respect carrying out the views of his Government and of the Embassy at Constantinople? I think it right that Parliament should have some information on that subject. Among the circumstances that are mentioned is one of a transaction, the first that had taken place, no less than a year before on a part of the mountain not far from Beyrout—an affray of very considerable consequence, one of the first effects of the long-established animosity between the hostile parties, broke out, and there was a considerable loss of life. Surely here was time, as it would certainly be she duty of the Consul General, to report such a fact both at home and at Constantinople. It was only natural that those having interest in the maintenance of tranquillity should have sought some instructions or directions on the subject. It is to be presumed that they did so. I want to know whether that was so, and in what terms these instructions were conveyed. This is a matter that Parliament ought to know. There are other points in these papers well worthy of attention, but on

611
which I should he unwilling to press, from respect to your Lordships' time, not wishing to enter more deeply into the subject than necessity requires. The Foreign Office is totally silent on the subject. We have no information in the papers communicated that any notice has been taken of these transactions. It is possible there may be diplomatic delicacies which prevent such a communication being made; but I must say I think it desirable that Parliament should be informed of the motives which caused that silence—whether it is a real silence towards the objects of official correspondence, or whether it is silence of another character. I think upon these points we are entitled to information.
My Lords, these subjects to my mind assume even a still greater importance than as they affect the Turkish Empire. I think it impossible to have followed the course of events for some years past without perceiving that there has been a strong-tendency towards the exhaustion of those palliatives that have been employed on all sides to avoid an open rupture on matters of principle which might bring on a serious conflict between one Government and another. We have not entirely escaped these conflicts; but hitherto a great war of principle, so much apprehended for many causes, has upon the whole been kept at a distance. I must say, however, that the present seems bordering on a different state of things, which it will require all the judgment and all the vigour of those w-ho are officially responsible properly to deal with. In proof of what I say, let your Lordships look at various parts of Europe and judge whether the indications of what I have asserted are not sufficiently strong? If we look to France we see there principles advanced, on which the Government of that country is based, which from their very nature are totally opposed to that which has hitherto been regarded as constituting the foundation of European institutions. If we look to Austria we find that she also is exposed to the action of principles which tend to shake her empire to its very foundations. If we cast our regard still further we may, I think, find evidence of the same thing in our own Indian possessions, as well as in that country against which the combined forces of England and France have been lately directed. I am not, indeed, sure that we have not some indications of a similar nature at home. I therefore come hack to my first assertion, that the period for pal-
612
liatives is passing away, and that, in spite of all that we may have done, we are being brought rapidly in presence of that tremendous war which to many has seemed to be for so long a time impending. Now, for my part, I see, I must confess, in such a state of affairs, additional reasons for paying due attention to those measures which may be required for the purpose of keeping too-other the remains of the Turkish Empire, and, above all—to narrow the point—of putting a stop to these disputes in Syria in a manner that may furnish us with a guarantee against their recurrence in future. It is not, of course, for me to take upon myself to dictate to Her Majesty's Government the course of policy which, in order to secure these objects, they ought to pursue. My own personal inclination leads me to trust, that they will adopt adequate and judicious measures with that end; but I nevertheless deem it to be of the utmost consequence that under all the circumstances of the case the attention of Parliament should be directed to this important subject. It is in my opinion extremely desirable that we should not confine our whole attention to the consideration of homo affairs, or to the adoption of merely temporary expedients, but that we should be awake to the position of public affairs in their most comprehensive aspect, and that we should prepare—as I am happy to perceive we are already to some extent doing—for that which may prove a great European crisis. Entertaining these views, it was, I must confess, with great satisfaction that I became aware of the result of the debate which took place last night in the other House of Parliament on the subject of our fortifications, and of the fact that, notwithstanding the honest common sense of the nation may for a time have been misled by circumstances, and notwithstanding the eloquent delusions presented to its view to increase the effect of those circumstances, the measure under discussion was passed through one of its principle stages by so large a majority. But the same circumstances which explain, justify and render necessary the decision at which the other branch of the Legislature arrived on this important question—a decision which, I trust, will receive the support of your Lordships' House—likewise recommended that a policy in close connection with it should not be lost sight of, and that, if it should appear in the midst of many apprehensions and many objections that we do recognize the exist-

613
ence of a state of things with which our interests arc intimately bound up, and which is of a character at once most serious and comprehensive, we should prepare ourselves for the adoption of a course by means of which we might be able to use our influence in a way which would be as little as possible dangerous to Europe, while, at the same time, it would lead to adequate and satisfactory results.
In making these observations I bear in mind, my Lords, what took place in the case of the Treaty of Paris, when arrangements were made to bring under the cognizance of the great Powers questions by which at the time the public mind of Europe was agitated, and I should, I confess, be glad to see something of the same kind carried out at the present day on a more extensive scale, and with the view more especially, if possible, to procuring a considerable diminution of the forces of the great Powers of Europe, so that we may be enabled to follow in the same path, and thus render unnecessary those heavy expenses which the policy of the great continental nations and the general state of the world—partly in connection with the principles to which I have adverted—oblige us to incur.
My Lords, I have already said I could in no better way show my sense of your Lordships' indulgence than by confining my remarks on this occasion within as narrow a compass as my sense of public duty would permit. I have referred in the course of these observations to points of detail as well as to matters of a more extensive nature. My object in doing so was not to endeavour to impose my own impressions on the House, or to ask you to ascribe to them an importance which I do not attach to them myself. But I have felt that it was desirable this subject should, before the close of the Session, be brought under your notice, and that, whether you should be pleased to take the narrower or the more comprehensive view of it, your Lordships authority, and that of the other House of Parliament, should accompany the action of the Government—supposing their measures to be judicious, as I trust they may, and that by that means we might be enabled to produce a salutary effect on other countries, showing our readiness to concur with them, and to co-operate whenever we can do so with consistency and honour; while we give them to understand that we are at the same time prepared to maintain in every way in our
614
power our own principles and our own great position in the midst of these conflicting: elements of which I have been speaking. I can, my Lords, conceive no greater calamity which could happen to the world than that England, which has I hitherto held the foremost place in the I career of civilization and humanity, should find her efforts in that direction neutralized or diminished by the want of the power necessary to give effect to her councils and I her policy, or by a degree of weakness which must prove not only injurious to the world at large, but dishonourable to ourselves; out of which we are, I trust, now gradually emerging, and our emancipation from which I should be sorry to give expression to a single syllable to check. The noble Lord concluded by moving—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies or Extracts of any Despatches addressed by Her Majesty's Ambassador at the Porte to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or to Her Majesty's Consul General at Beyrout, or to the British Consuls at Damascus, Aleppo, and Jerusalem, respecting the Apprehension of Disturbances in Syria, during the Three Months which preceded the 9th of June this Year, being the Date of Sir Henry Bulwer's telegraphic Message to Lord John Russell, No. 2. in the Papers lately presented to Parliament by Her Majesty's Command; together with those of any Reports addressed during the same Period by the above-mentioned Consuls to their respective superior Authorities on the same subject; and also Copies or Extracts of any Instructions relative to the same Matters addressed by the Foreign Department to His Excellency Sir Henry Bulwer, or to Mr. Consul-General Moore, or to the other above-named Consuls between the 6th of June last and the present Time."
LORD WODEHOUSE: My Lords, there certainly is no reason why the noble Lord should apologize to the House for addressing it upon this subject, for whether we regard the experience which he has had of those affairs to which his Motion more immediately relates—an experience probably greater than that which any other Member of your Lordships' House possesses—or the extreme importance of the subject itself, we must feel glad that my noble Friend has thought proper to bring it under our notice. My noble Friend has moved for certain papers; but, before I go into the various topics to which he has alluded in doing so, I must state the reasons why Her Majesty's Government find it impossible to assent to the production of those documents. The papers which have already been laid upon the table with respect to the disturbances in Syria, consist of mere despatches setting forth the actual

615
events which have recently there taken place, the object of the Government in producing them having been to afford Parliament and the public the most accurate narration of the facts of the case of which they happened to be in possession. Papers have also been moved for in the other House, embracing the Correspondence with our Consul in Syria during the years 1857-8-9; that Correspondence is in the course of preparation; it will be laid before both Houses, and will, I believe, show very fully what has been the progress of events in Syria for the last few years. The Correspondence, however, for which my noble Friend now moves is one of a very recent date, which relates to matters of the utmost consequence and delicacy, at the present moment being treated of between the various powers of Europe and the Porte, and the effect of producing which would be so to embarrass the Government as to render it in some degree impossible that they could conduct negotiations with that advantage which would otherwise be the case. I am therefore confident that my noble Friend with his experience will at once perceive that the Government, in declining to accede to his Motion, are actuated only by a desire to pay due regard to the requirements of the public service, which I have the authority of my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department for saying would be injuriously affected by the publication of these despatches at the present moment. Despatches on the subject there are, however, not few in number, whether written to or by Sir Henry Bulwer, with whom it was but natural that the Government should correspond in relation to events by which the present were preceded, and which attracted our attention to Syria. With respect to Sir Henry Bulwer himself I will simply say that he has shown in connection with these transactions—as he has done on all former occasions—the utmost energy and activity, and has not failed to impress upon the Porte the expediency of providing a remedy for the existing state of things. My noble Friend who made the present Motion alluded in the course of his observations to the peculiar position of the population of the Lebanon; and he, who has taken so leading a part in the affairs of that part of the world for the last ten years, may detect some inaccuracy of detail in the remarks which I am about to offer on the subject to the House; but I cannot help saying that the peculiar posi-
616
tion of the population in Lebanon appears to me to be, to a great extent, independent of Turkish authority. And after the events of 1840 which led to the retirement or expulsion of the Egyptian troops it became necessary for the European nations to consider with the Porte the most desirable mode of effecting a settlement of the inhabitants of that country. My noble Friend from the part which he took in them must well remember these negotiations, which resulted in 1845 in an agreement between the Druses and the Maronites, under which the two populations were to be governed by separate Kaimakans, who were in no way Turkish officers, except in so far as they represented the Turkish Government with those populations.
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE: The agreement was not between the Druses and the Maronites, but between the representatives of the European Governments and the Porte.
LORD WODEHOUSE: My noble Friend is quite right. The arrangement was accepted by the Druses and Maronites, but it was conducted under the mediation of the European Powers with the Porte. That agreement, more or less strictly acted upon, has endured to the present time. It is not easy to say what has led to the present disturbances; but the more one reads of the atrocities to which my noble Friend alluded the more one's mind is struck with horror. We have this very day received recent despatches giving an account of what took place at Damascus. At the time the Consul wrote the massacres were going on, and nothing can be more calamitous than the description of the state of the town. A fact having a very serious bearing on these transactions has come under the notice of the Government in these despatches, as well as from other evidence, and it appears more especially from the events which have taken place at Damascus, namely, that the bad feeling is unfortunately not confined to the quarrel between the Druses and the Maronites. The origin of the outbreak at Damascus is distinctly stated by Mr. Brant to have been the insults offered to the Christian population by the Mahomedans in the streets. The authors of these insults were punished by being ordered to sweep the streets in chains—a measure which was certainly imprudent, though well meant on the part of the authorities. When this took place the Mahomedan population became furious, and the occurrence resulted in the dread-

617
ful scene of which we have received information by telegraph and otherwise. Thus it is perfectly clear that, although these events commenced in a strife such as has before been carried on between the Druses and he Maronites, they have unfortunately been accompanied by a display of feeling between the Christian and Mahomedan population which cannot be too much regretted, and which is unquestionably fraught with danger to the Turkish Empire greater and more serious than any arising solely from feuds between the Druses and Maronites. My noble Friend has said we ought, for a time, to turn our eyes from these atrocities, and look at the superior political considerations which this question involves. But my noble Friend, when he came to speak of that part of the subject, admitted that it was impossible for the Christian Powers to stand by and sec these atrocities committed without making any attempt to redress such a state of things. I entirely agree with him that these superior and very serious considerations are very necessary to be looked to, because, whilst on the one band no one who sees these events passing, or who is called on to take any active part in reference to them, can fail to he influenced, almost in spite of himself, by a feeling of! sympathy with the population which has suffered such dreadful horrors, and which we must desire to rescue from the repetition of them on the other hand, as my noble Friend has justly said the position of the Turkish empire requires the utmost caution and the utmost delicacy in dealing with all questions that relate to it. That has been felt by the different Powers of Europe on the present occasion, and they have acted, not separately, but in conjunction, in the determination at which they have arrived with respect to the measures to be taken to pacify Syria. The result of the consultations which have taken place at Paris has been, as I am informed, that a protocol has been actually signed, defining the conditions under which the intervention of an European force ought to take place. I We have not received the protocol in its final state; and therefore it is possible that I may not be exactly correct in the account which I am about to give your Lordships of its contents; but in all its leading features I am certain that it will be found to be accurate. This instrument has taken the form of a protocol, and not of a convention, because had a convention been resorted to it would have been necessary for full powers
618
to be sent to the different Ambassadors, which would have caused a considerable delay. There were precedents for the signature of a protocol—one very recent one in 1840, and also at the time of the Conference on the Belgian Question—which were sufficient to authorize the adoption of such a form of instrument on this occasion. The protocol is signed by the Ambassadors of the five Great Powers and by the representative of the Porte, and it states that the Great Powers of Europe having offered the Sultan their assistance to put an end to these disturbances in Syria, and the Sultan having accepted their assistance, an agreement was made to this effect—namely, that a force of European troops shall be sent to Syria not exceeding in number ultimately 12,000; that of this force the Emperor of the French agrees to furnish immediately 6,000 men, who are to proceed to the scene of the disturbances without delay; that the other 6,000 men, in case they arc required, shall be furnished by such one of the Powers as on further consultation shall appear to be expedient. It also provides that the continuance of the European troops in Syria shall be limited to a period of six months. There are other provisions as to matters of detail; and an additional protocol has been signed in which the Great Powers, after expressing their anxious desire that the assurances given by the Sultan in 1856 as to the improvement of the condition of all his subjects shall be carried out, declare, as they did in 1840, their entire disinterestedness in concluding the arrangement for intervention in Syria, and they pledge their determination nut to seek for any exclusive advantages, exclusive influence, or territorial additions for themselves, or for any stipulations peculiarly favourable in reference to commerce. My Lords, that is the instrument which, as I state, has been actually signed. The measures which the Porte has taken are as follows:—Troops were immediately sent in considerable numbers to Syria, and a special Commissioner of the Porte has been despatched with very full powers. The assurances which the Sultan himself and all the Ministers of the Porte at Constantinople have given of their determination to inflict immediate and condign punishment on the guilty parties are all that can be wished; and if these assurances are fully carried out the result cannot fail to be most salutary. The different Powers have determined to send a Commission to Syria, and my noble

619
Friend (Lord Dufferin) has been selected by the Government to represent this country. It will be the duty of the Commission to inquire into the occurrences which have taken place, and to see, as I cannot doubt will be the case, that the offenders are brought to justice. At the head of these must unquestionably be placed the Pasha of Damascus; and I am glad to inform your Lordships that this officer is already in custody, and the Turkish authorities are determined that he shall be put upon his trial without delay. If it be conducted, as there is no doubt it will, with impartiality, it cannot fail to produce a good effect. We have received intelligence by telegraph that tranquillity has been restored in Damascus, that the new governor has arrived, and that the manner in which he has entered on his new duties is calculated to inspire confidence, and to fill us with the hope that we have heard the end of the massacres in that quarter. The state of things in Syria, however, is such as requires the strong hand; and it cannot be denied that the Porte, with good intentions, is feeble and unable to carry out to the full extent the intentions and wishes of the Sultan and his Ministers. My noble Friend has alluded to the reasons why there were not more troops in Syria at the time when these disturbances broke out. These reasons show at once the difficulties the Porte has to contend with, and the delicacy with which it is necessary to treat all matters concerning the Turkish Empire. It was known that a great ferment existed among the inhabitants of a considerable portion of Northern Turkey, and the Porte was requested by the European Powers to lose no time in sending troops to maintain order in that portion of the Sultan's dominions. A great force was despatched, and the Grand Vizier also set off to inquire into the state of things existing in that part of the country. The reasons are therefore obvious for having to so great an extent denuded the other portions of the Empire of troops. My noble Friend has stated that former events in Syria necessitated on the part of Her Majesty's Government the greatest caution in dealing with this question. Her Majesty's Government felt that the greatest caution was required; but at the same time they could not conceal from themselves that immediate, effective, and vigorous measures on the part of the great Powers of Europe should be taken. We cannot tell, if such disturbances continued, how far they might ex-
620
tend; and my noble Friend most justly said that, when once the grave questions which agitate the Turkish Empire have reached such a point as to bring about a forcible solution of what is called the great Eastern Question, a state of things must arise which will task the energies and skill of the wisest heads. My noble Friend said the time had passed for half measures. But at the same time he justly added that it was necessary to take every means to prevent the Turkish empire from falling to pieces; and that can only be accomplished by palliatives such as have constantly been applied by the policy of this country for many years. I have omitted to refer to an allusion of my noble Friend to the want of intimation of any steps having been taken by Sir Henry Bulwer when the outbreak took place, or to his having given any intimation to the Consuls. If I were not unwilling to occupy more of your Lordships' time I could point out to him the despatch which will be found in these papers, showing that the moment Sir Henry Bulwer received intelligence by telegraph that the conflict had broken out, he forwarded a despatch to the Consul General at Beyrout, enjoining him to take the most active measures for the restoration of tranquillity and confidence. I do not think it necessary that I should enter into the general question to which my noble Friend at the conclusion of his speech alluded. It is sufficient that I should, on the present occasion, deal with this particular question, in itself one of the most difficult kind. Her Majesty's Government have had their attention most earnestly directed to it. There has been among the different Powers of Europe a general concurrence of opinion as to the steps which ought to be taken. The Porte has admitted the necessity of this intervention; and I cannot but hope that the disinterestedness shown by the great Powers, the prudence with which they have treated this difficulty without evincing the slightest desire to neglect it or to avoid looking it fairly in the face, will enable us to bring to a satisfactory conclusion a question which all who are acquainted with Eastern affairs must admit is one of the most dangerous which have lately arisen with regard to the Turkish Empire; and dangerous as it may be to the stability of that Empire, still more dangerous as my noble Friend has said, in its possible effects to the peace of Europe and the good understanding of the different Powers; for so close is the con-

621
nection between what is called the Eastern Question and the general policy of Europe, that it is impossible that any great catastrophe could occur in the Turkish Empire without involving us in calamities of which no man can see the end.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I do not wish to say one word with reference to the question so ably introduced by the noble Lord opposite, because I feel that it is one of such enormous difficulty and such immense delicacy that I am quite certain it is the duty of all persons in this country who feel an interest in Eastern affairs to abstain as far as possible from any discussions which may have the tendency of embarrassing Her Majesty's Government. In the great uncertainty which surrounds the matter, it is quite impossible that we can be of any use in assisting them to arrive at a decision, and we shall best perform our duty by leaving to them the discretion and responsibility of dealing with it. I merely rise now for the purpose of asking the Government whether there is any truth in the statement which I have seen in the newspapers, and which, if true, reflects the greatest credit on the gentleman concerned—that, on the port of Tyre being threatened by a body of armed men, the inhabitants of the town implored the assistance of an English gentleman—named Harvey, I think—who happened to be accidentally present in his yacht (which was taken on shore for a man-of-war), and he, without the smallest hesitation, landed his men and some small pieces, which he had on board merely to fire salutes:—the effect of which vigour and energy was that the town was rescued from the threatened danger. I am quite sure your Lordships will concur with me that, if that statement be true, it reflects the greatest credit on that gentleman; and I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have transmitted to him the expression of their approval of his conduct?
LORD WODEHOUSE: The facts are as the noble Earl has stated, and they will be found stated in these papers. Nothing could be more creditable to Mr. Harvey than his conduct on this occasion; nothing could be more timely for the inhabitants of the threatened town; nothing could show more decisively what respect is felt for the English name in that quarter of the world. I believe he did not land his men and guns, as the noble Earl has stated; but he placed his vessel and her guns in such a position that she was
622
supposed ashore to be a British man-of-war; and the bare supposition was sufficient for the purpose. I cannot state to the noble Earl that we have sent to Mr. Harvey any intimation of our approval of his conduct; but I am sure that if my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office has an opportunity of expressing to him his high admiration of his conduct he will not fail to do so. I cannot forbear mentioning that in the midst of these horrible events there has been a bright example of humanity on the part of a Mahomedan lady which deserves the highest praise. We are informed that this lady, whose name I do not now remember, the sister of a Mahomedan of great influence near Hasbeya, took into her house some 300 Christian women at the time of the massacre there; and when the armed crowd tried to force its way into the harem she told them she had taken the women under her protection, and threatened them with the consequences of violating the sanctity of a Mussulman's house.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, there was another Mahomedan whose conduct in this affair—as reported in the newspapers—deserved to be mentioned with praise—Abd-el-Kader, who had no particular reason to be fond of Christians or of the European Powers. He fully acknowledged the delicacy of this question, but he did not think that delicacy ought to be carried to such an extent as to become insincerity. If anything was really to be done in the matter, some stronger remedy must be applied than the mere palliatives which had been resorted to hitherto. He found no fault with the action which the Government had taken so far. The noble Lord the Under Secretary had not told them much, however. He could not believe that the protocol spoke the truth when it recited that this intervention was to take place with the consent and "at the desire" of the Porte, for the Turkish Agents in all the different Courts of Europe were going about stating that the Turkish Government had force enough to put down the disturbances, and that the massacre was at an end. If it was at an end, it was because there was no one left to murder. It was not to be tolerated that this feeble, effete Government was to have a right to hold in a state of barbarism some of the finest districts in the world. All diplomatic conventionalities were broken through in the case of Greece; the Governments of that day interfered on the ground of the

623
broad rights of humanity; and in this case we must do a good deal more than merely sign protocols and send Commissioners and a body of troops to remain there six months. What security had we that after those troops were withdrawn the same scenes would not occur again? The question must be met by an union among the Great Powers, to take upon themselves to Bee that the country was better governed in future. Whether that would be best done by giving certain powers to resident European Agents, or by still stronger measures, it was not his duty now to determine. The crisis, however, could only be avoided by dealing with the danger boldly. He rejoiced that we were acting in this matter in sincere concord with the French Government, who, he believed, had acted with the utmost sincerity in this matter. He believed the French Government was anxious to keep close the alliance with England, and also to keep the peace of Europe and of the world. He thought that Parliament should know what the Commissioners were to do. His noble Friend said that he hoped the interference of Europe would lead to salutary results, and there was no doubt that it would prevent a great loss of life. Many persons were to lose their lives judicially; but was that sufficient to ensure safety? The French Government had lost not a moment in acting with that vigour which every Christian man must think so necessary. He believed also that our Foreign Office lost no time in seconding the efforts of the French Government. He should be glad if there was an expression of the feeling on the part of this country that the time had come when the Christian Powers would not allow the recurrence of these scenes. The great danger which had been alluded to would not be lessened by postponement. They had much better make up their minds to discuss and deal with the case, because palliatives would not suffice, and it did not become this country to withdraw her hand from the work until some security for the future had been obtained.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rather regret that the discussion was not left where it was when the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) finished his speech, because it certainly is a very difficult and a very delicate question. On the one hand, horror is inspired by the accounts of the atrocities which have been perpetrated, and indignation at the weakness which the Turkish Government has shown. On the
624
other hand, I think we should not allow those feelings to carry us away to declare a total change of policy with regard to the desirability of maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Up to the present moment that has been the policy of England and the policy of Europe. If it were not a worthy object of policy those who supported the war with Russia would have very little excuse to give for the money and blood which were expended. It was not from mere love of the Turks or of the Mussulman religion that the Turkish Government was supported at that crisis; but on the broad principle that it was difficult otherwise to maintain the Turkish Empire as it at present exists. When noble Lords talk of palliatives being no longer of any use, is it meant to proceed at once to break up the territories of the Turkish Empire? If so, then there comes the grave consideration in whose hands those territories shall be placed. No doubt, with regard to the expedition now being planned on the part of France in conjunction with the other Powers of Europe it is an exceptional measure; but if it will put an end to these occurrences and resettle Syria in a more satisfactory manner I shall greatly rejoice; for I cannot concur with the noble Marquess that all danger of further massacre is at an end, because all the Christians that could be massacred have been killed. I feel that an awful responsibility rests with the Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Paris to prevent the spread of that fanatical spirit in Turkey which may be excited still further against the Christians. The whole House must agree with what fell from the noble Earl opposite, that there are two sides to this question. It is one of the greatest importance, and of the most delicate and difficult nature, and we should not, because our feelings are roused by what has occurred, rashly and entirely change the policy which has hitherto been considered to contribute to the peace of Europe and to the balance of power in the world.
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, that he wished before the debate closed to offer a few words in explanation. His noble Friend who had just sat down seemed very naturally apprehensive that if they took a strong view of the question it would lead to a departure from the policy which had hitherto been pursued. What he meant to say was this—that we had pursued a course of palliatives for the last twenty-five or thirty years, that the

625
Turks had not shown any practical attention to the advice of their best friends, that the Sultan had not taken—or at least had not seen that his servants had taken—the measures which were necessary to carry into execution the Proclamation which comprised all the Reforms necessary for the salvation of the empire; and that the Turkish Government had shown remissness and apathy, which had tended to continue its weakness, and had led in a great measure to the fatal occurrences which had taken place. What he maintained was, that what had occurred in Syria should be a warning to Her Majesty's Government to exert the right and to perform the paramount duty which belonged to them, after the positive compromising guarantee of the integrity of the Turkish Empire which was, for the first time, given by the Treaty of 1856—to insist that the Turkish Government should carry into execution the scheme of Reform which had been proclaimed, without creating any disturbance from one end of the Turkish Empire to the other. It might have been supposed that the Proclamation would have caused serious opposition; but it did not, and one reason was that care was taken to provide a better administration of the law in favour of the Mussulman as well as in favour of the Christian population. What he maintained was this,—that Her Majesty's Government ought to take advantage of the present occasion in order to prevent future complications, to press upon the Porte, and not only to press upon the Porte, but to secure its acquiescence in carrying into immediate though gradual effect, the reforms to which it was pledged. He had with his own ears heard the Grand Vizier, who was one of the most effective of the Turkish officers and honoured with the confidence of the Sovereign, state that he considered the reforms which were subsequently introduced into the Imperial proclamation absolutely indispensable to the existence of the Turkish Empire. With the pledges of the Sovereign, the opinion of the Minister, the Proclamation recorded in the treaty of peace and accompanied by a solemn guarantee which might one day involve this country in most serious sacrifices, he thought it was not only the true policy but the indispensable duty of the European Powers, and particularly of Her Majesty's Government, to make the Turkish Government understand that to carry out those reforms was the only chance—for, so help him God, he believed it was—of keeping
626
the empire together and staving off the great catastrophe which all wished to avoid. The case of Greece had been referred to. He knew that the effort to give independence to Greece was considered by some to he a fatal blow to the Turkish Empire; but no view was more utterly unfounded. Greece would have been a continual sore to Turkey, and the cause of constant interference on the part of Russia. There was another consideration likewise—that it was impossible to establish the independence of Greece without forcing upon Turkey a better civil administration for those Greeks who remained under the Sultan's sceptre, and it was impossible to introduce a more humane system for the Greeks without benefiting the Mussulman subjects of Turkey. Nothing was further from his intention than to encourage a violation of the law of nations. He never recommended that they should go with an armed force and insist upon the Sultan giving up the administration of his country to Foreign Powers. But he did say that, while a system of comprehensive amendment was accepted by the Turkish Government and recorded in a great public treaty, and since many times confirmed, they should look to the Turkish Government to take the measures which were necessary to give it effect; and among those measures, in his humble opinion, however inconvenient, should be a conference established at Stamboul to see that the proclamation was carried into effect. He was glad to receive the assurance of his noble Friend that the Foreign Office and their agents were paying so much attention to this subject. At the same time he did not quite understand why there should be any objection to produce the evidence of the activity of their Minister at Constantinople in regard to those events which happened more than a year ago, and of the attention which was paid to the warnings of what was coming on in Syria. The noble Under Secretary for War had urged reasons for not acceding to the Motion; but he (Lord Stratford) thought a distinction might be made between one part of a Correspondence proceeding from the Foreign Office and another. He presumed there might be correspondence referring to this particular question and not to anything else; and he hoped his noble Friend would consent to modify the refusal he had given to his request, and in that case would be happy to alter the Motion so as to meet his views.
LORD WODEHOUSEwas sorry he could not make any other answer to the noble Lord than that he had already given. Their Lordships might rest assured that they would receive full information on the subject as soon as possible; but it would be highly inconvenient to produce the papers asked for at the present moment.
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEwas unwilling to press his Motion to the embarrassment of the Government, and would therefore withdraw it.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

SENIOR MEMBER OF COUNCIL (INDIA) BILL.

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY.—SECOND READING.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved,
  "That as regards the Senior Member of Council (India) Bill, inasmuch as doubts as to the authority of the Senior Member of the Council of the Governor General of India in the absence of the President appointed by the Governor General have recently arisen, and unless at once set at rest might embarrass the Proceedings of the Council and produce serious public inconvenience; the circumstances which require Legislation on this subject appear to this House to be of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEremarked that although the principle had been frequently proclaimed and applauded in Parliament, that India ought to be governed in India, the only steps which had been taken had been in a contrary direction. He hoped that the Council at home would not be allowed to encroach upon the powers and influence of the Government in India.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION (INDIA) BILL.

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY.—SECOND READING.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved,
  "That as regards the Admiralty Jurisdiction (India) Bill, inasmuch as certain piratical Acts recently committed on the Coast of Tenasscrim having been found not to be punishable owing to there being no Tribunal competent to try the Culprits, it is to be feared that similar Acts may occur in consequence of such Impunity; the Circumstances which require Legisiation on this Subject appear to this House to be of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

SUPERANNUATION ACT (1859) AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved to resolve,
  "That as regards the Superannuation Act (1859) Amendment Bill, inasmuch as in the Organization of certain Departments connected with the Establishment of the Secretary of State for India it may be necessary for the public Service to transfer to those Departments Persons holding Situations in the Civil Service of the United Kingdom, and as such Transfers cannot be made without Injustice to the Rights of the Parties thus transferred under the existing Superannuation Act, the Circumstances which require Legislation on the Subject Matter of the said Bill are of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order) and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.