HL Deb 30 May 1861 vol 163 cc233-42
THE EARL OF CARNARVON

rose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the death of the Druse chief, Said Bey, in prison at Beyrout, and to inquire the decision arrived at with regard to the other Druse prisoners. About five or six weeks ago he inquired of the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs as to the intentions of the Turkish Government with regard to Said Bey and the other Druse chiefs, and, therefore, it was unnecessary for him now to allude to all the circumstances of the case; it would be sufficient merely to say that on the faith of certain assurances the Druse chiefs had surrendered themselves to the Turkish authorities at Beyrout; that Said Bey was one of those who gave themselves up as prisoners upon the assurance that justice would be done by them; and that though he had been declared innocent by Her Majesty's Commissioner in Syria, and though his innocence had been confirmed by the British Government, sentence of death had been passed upon him. So far from these assurances having been observed the proceedings had been from the first to the last unjust. When he (the Earl of Carnarvon) alluded to the matter on the former occasion Said Bey was in prison; but in consequence of a protest by Lord Dufferin, the British Commissioner, supported by Sir Henry Bulwer at Constantinople and by the British Government at home, the sentence of death was remitted. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) then endeavoured to impress upon the Government the injustice of allowing a man whom they had declared innocent to remain in prison. He had heard with great regret within the last few days that Said Bey expired a short time since in confinement, and the first inquiry he wished to make was, what was the cause of death? Under ordinary circumstances this would be an unnecessary question; but as their Lordships were aware in the East there was but one step from the prison to the grave, and there were at this moment in circulation in Beyrout reports that, both for the credit of the Turkish Government and of this country, should be investigated. It was affirmed that this chief met his death not from natural causes but by unfair means; and he (the Earl of Carnarvon) was bound to say that when he was in Beyrout some months ago there were tales of harshness and seventy practised upon the prisoner, of communication with friends from which he had been needlessly excluded, and of circumstances of such a nature as exposed the Turkish authorities at all events to very grave suspicion. He trusted that nothing but unusual restraint, deferred hope, and the languishing of a spirit under an unjust imprisonment had produced Said Bey's death. But whatever the immediate cause, the death of Said Bey was disgraceful to the Turkish authorities, and reflected little credit upon this country. Said Bey and other Druse chiefs came down from a position of impregnable security, and surrendered themselves upon a guarantee of fair and impartial treatment by the Turkish Government in the first place, and in the next place of a guarantee which, if not actually, yet by implication, was given to him by the English authorities at Beyrout. There could be no doubt as to the distinct promise of Fuad Pacha, for on the 13th of September last year Lord Dufferin, writing to Sir Henry Bulwer, mentioned the guarantee, stating that complete security was given to those who were able to clear themselves of all participation in the late atrocities, and that against those who failed to appear judgment would go by default. But the Druses knew by experience of former years that they could not place reliance upon any proclamation issued by the Turkish authorities; but Major Fraser, whose slightest word, as an English agent and officer, would have had weight, seemed to be perfectly aware that the security was upon the faith of the British Government also, for he wrote to Lord John Russell that the Druse chiefs would have no objection to have their culpability tried by Englishmen, but though they were willing to accept British authority they would submit to no other. Again, Lord Dufferin, in his instructions to the Vice Consul appointed to watch the proceedings against the Druses, reminded that official that he was placed in the court for the express purpose of affording a guarantee to Europe that the judicial investigation would be conducted in such a way as to secure that the innocent should not suffer; and that was all that the Druse chiefs asked for when they consented to give themselves up at Beyrout. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary in very strong language admitted that the faith of England was pledged to the proper treatment of the prisoners, for he said, in a despatch dated so recently as the 18th of March in the present year— It is said that the Consul-General Moore induced the Druse chiefs who surrendered at Beyrout to give themselves up upon the assurance that they should have a fair trial. If this is so, it increases our responsibility. It did appear to him that it increased our responsibility greatly, and it would tell very little for our credit hereafter that a chief attached throughout his life to English interests, and, in fact, suffering persecution on account of that attachment, who gave himself up a prisoner upon the faith of a British guarantee that he should have a fair and impartial trial, yet suffered an unjust sentence, was allowed to languish for months in prison, and to die no one knew how. In former years he had known this unfortunate chief and enjoyed a hospitality which had been freely shown to English travellers; and he had now no words to say with what pain he heard of his cruel and unmerited fate. But the wrong, such as it was, had been done, and he would not trouble their Lordships further upon that point; but there was still a door open for an act of justice to be done, and it was to this that he wished particularly to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government. The wife and family of the chief were undergoing the deepest and most unmerited suffering, and were, indeed, glad to find shelter in the meanest hovels. She was a lady of great distinction, and Said Bey himself had been possessed of considerable wealth, but the whole of his property had been confiscated, and he wanted to urge the Government to use their fair and legitimate influence with the Turkish authorities to procure its restitution to those against whom not a single charge had been made, and whose only crime in the eyes of Turkish functionaries was the possession of property. The friends and fellow-prisoners of Said Bey surrendered upon precisely the same terms as that chief, they were sentenced by the same unjust verdict, and they were exposed to the same death that he had suffered. He could not conceive a case in which it would be more natural for Her Majesty's Government, they having expressed a very decided opinion upon the case, to use their influence to obtain the liberation of these unfortunate Druses, and the restitution of their property.

VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE

My Lords, it is not without reluctance that I claim your Lordships' indulgence while I stand for a few moments between the question of my noble Friend who has just sat down and the answer to which he is entitled from this side of the House. My reason for taking this liberty is simply that, having myself to ask a question, of which the noble Baron who re-presents the Foreign Office here had notice from me this morning, I understand from him that he would find it more convenient to be put into the position of answering both questions at once. Before I proceed to put my own question I beg to express my concurrence with the noble Earl who preceded me in the feeling which prompted him to call your Lordships' attention to the case of Said Bey Joublat. I need not repeat the circumstances so fully stated in his speech; but I may be allowed to say that, the distinguished Druse chief known to us by that name having been judged worthy of release from the sentence of death passed upon him, and relieved from its execution at the instance of Her Majesty's Commissioner in Syria approved by Her Majesty's Government, I cannot but think it behoved the Turkish authorities to open his prison doors without delay or hesitation. Whether his death in confinement was truly attributable to poison or to a natural cause it may now be too late to decide; but any one who, in the course of his travels, has had occasion to visit a Turkish prison will not think it necessary to call in the aid of poison in order to account for the Bey's premature decease. What prisons were in most parts of Europe a century or two ago a Turkish prison is to this day, and I should have been glad on that account to have heard it stated that the same sense of justice and feeling of humanity which saved the condemned man from execution had also operated to deliver him from prison without any unnecessary delay. Passing to the question which I have to address to my noble Friend on this side of the House, I propose to state it in few words, and I trust that the explanation which must accompany my statement may be also given with a due regard for your Lordships' time. A daily newspaper informed the public this morning that, according to the latest intelligence received from Constantinople by telegraph, it had been settled by the representatives of the allied Powers, on the, suggestion of France, that Syria should be governed henceforward by a Christian chief. I wish to know, on official authority, whether this intelligence may be relied on? and also whether the chief in question is to be a native or a foreigner, and whether his power is to be confined to the Lebanon or extended to the whole of Syria? I beg, moreover, to to ask whether Her Majesty's Government are able to reckon upon the immediate completion of the measures intended to insure the tranquillity of Syria on the retirement of the French army? The importance of these matters can hardly be over-rated. That the present occupying force will he withdrawn by the 5th of June I cannot for a moment doubt, From the first, indeed, I never entertained any serious anxiety on that score. The honour of the French Government was pledged to the faithful execution of a measure adopted in common with their allies, and it would be painful to suspect a great and high-minded Power of seeking to evade, for any purpose of its own, and by a palpable breach of treaty, the fulfilment of an obvious international obligation. But we are exposed to danger of the same kind in another shape, and it behoves us the more to look to it in time, because we have been fairly warned of its eventual approach by the Ministers of France and Russia, by the published notes of M. Thouvenel and Prince Gortschakoff, who refuse to accept any responsibility in consequence of the withdrawal of the French troops, and hold themselves at liberty, should fresh disturbances break out in Syria, to re-occupy that province without incurring the restraint of a fresh convention. It is, therefore, of the greatest importance to know whether the arrangements for giving to the inhabitants of the country security after the withdrawal of the troops are sufficiently advanced to ensure their withdrawal within the six days yet to elapse; and those arrangements give that amount of security which will prevent embarrassment in case of disturbances arising; and whether in the event of a state of extreme insecurity arising it is intended to send a further force into that country? It cannot be denied that if France and Russia, either or both, were to act in the sense indicated. Her Majesty's Government would in all likelihood be thrown into a state of serious embarrassment, attended with danger to our peaceful relations. The temporary measure already announced of keeping a squadron on the const of Syria, with orders for a force of marines to be disembarked in case of renewed disturbances on shore, would hardly suffice to guarantee the tranquillity of the interior, and if one of our allies were to effect a landing of larger proportions, we should be reduced to the alternative of either doing the same at much cost and risk, or leaving a single Power in the uncontrolled command of a most important province of the Turkish Empire. Were it felt that our interests and those of Turkey imposed upon us the duty of meeting the supposed measure by a firm resistance, the probability of our being carried into a hazardous and unfriendly position towards Franco would, beyond a doubt, be greatly increased. It is mainly for these reasons that I am anxious to ascertain what progress has been made in preparing adequate measures of security for the peace and good Government of Syria on the withdrawal of the foreign occupying army, and how far we may have reason to rely upon the efficiency of such means as may be finally, if they are not actually, adopted. I confess that I should view with doubt and anxiety the appointment of a Christian chief over the whole of Syria. Such an appointment confined to Mount Lebanon might be attended with less inconvenience and hazards, provided the power involved in it were shaped and restricted by a due regard for local considerations and existing claims. I am well aware of the difficulties attending the appointment of a viceroy; but I think it by no means impossible that arrangements may be devised whereby the security of the country may be in- sured and yet the Sultan's authority preserved. This is hardly the occasion, and certainly not the hour, for going into the particulars of this question. But I may venture to present to the House even in its present state those leading principles which, in my opinion, cannot with safety or justice be overlooked in framing a new arrangement for the protection and regular administration of Syria. The preservation of the Sultan's sovereignty, a fair administration of justice, independence of the internal administration in Lebanon, separation, as far as possible, of the tribes in that district, a special provision for the whole of Syria, in points of revenue, military force, and police, and also a general disarmment of the inhabitants throughout that mountainous region where the massacres of last year took place—these occur to me as the principles most to be kept in view, and, on the whole, best calculated to give an efficient and durable character to the pending work of settlement. It only remains for me to solicit an answer to the questions which I have already addressed to my noble Friend on the bench below me.

LORD WODEHOUSE

said, he quite agreed with his noble Friend who introduced this discussion in the deep regret expressed at the melancholy end of the Druse chief, Said Bey, and the circumstances under which he died. If his noble Friend were right in supposing that Her Majesty's Government had given Said Bey, with the other Druse chiefs, a positive guarantee of safety, or that his life would be saved on condition of surrendering to take his trial, he should certainly feel that a grave responsibility rested on Her Majesty's Government. But, so far from this being the case, his noble Friend would find by referring to the blue book that Lord Dufferin most distinctly and positively refused to give this guarantee. At page 148 Lord Dufferin wrote to Sir Henry Bulwer, under date Beyrout, Sept. 21st, 1860— I have the honour to inform jour Excellency that since the publication of the notice alluded to in my despatch of the 13th instant, summoning the Druse chiefs to appear by a certain day before his Excellency Fuad Pasha to answer for their conduct, repeated applications have been made, in an indirect manner, by Said Bey Joublat, the most important of the Druse magnates, to Mr. Moore and myself, urging us to afford him some assurance of safety should he surrender to take his trial. To all applications of this nature Mr. Moore and myself have agreed to give an absolute refusal. We have felt that the only assurance we could give would be that justice should be done, and that his safety must depend upon his innocence. It is probable, however, that if a message of this description were sent to him he would misinterpret it into a cautious intimation that he might count upon English influence to secure his acquittal. Before the fall of Zahleh Mr. Moore enjoined Said Bey, on behalf of the English Government, to interfere, and to prevent the effusion of more Christian blood. There is little doubt but that, had he chosen, he might have prevented the catastrophe. lie turned a deaf ear to all remonstrances, and the place was lost. Under these circumstances Mr. Moore and myself have agreed to refuse to have any communications with him whatever, and to leave it to his own discretion whether to surrender or to fly. He thought, therefore, his noble Friend, Lord Dufferin, who had acted with great discretion throughout, had taken abundant means to secure himself against being supposed to have undertaken any responsibility in this matter. At the same time, it was quite certain that his noble Friend had omitted nothing he could do both to secure a fair trial to all the Druse chiefs, and also to save the life of Said Bey. His noble Friend had asked him as to the cause of Said Bey's death. Undoubtedly, the rumours he had mentioned had come to the ears of Her Majesty's Government, that Said Bey had died by foul means: but he was glad to assure him that there was the most positive and satisfactory evidence that he had died a natural death from pulmonary consumption—a disease under which for some time he had been labouring, and which was, no doubt, aggravated by his confinement. This fact was positively certified by medical men who had attended him; and although, as had been observed by his noble Friend behind him, a Turkish prison was not generally supposed to be a place in which a prisoner had a very large share of accommodation, Said Bey was placed in confinement in a room which, both for size and accommodation, afforded all the comfort which a prisoner could expect. There was, therefore, no reason to blame the Turkish authorities on that ground. He might further state that as soon as Her Majesty's Government learned that Said Bey was ill they did not lose a moment in sending by telegraph to Sir Henry Bulwer an order to interfere for his release, but before orders could be sent from Constantinople unfortunately Said Bey bad died. It did not reflect any credit on the Turkish Government that no decision had yet been arrived at with respect to the other Druse prisoners. The matter had been left for the decision of the Sultan. There was ever reason to suppose that decision would be fair one, and show the clemency of the Sultan, but at the same time he must add that he thought it extremely unfair that that decision should have been so long delayed. With regard to the property which had been confiscated, he was happy to be able to state positively, on the assurance of Fuad Pasha, that the property which belonged to the Druse chiefs would not be confiscated, and he might also mention, that Lord Dufferin stated that Fuad Pasha intended to reinstate the wife and children of Said Bey in his possessions. It was only fair to Fuad Pasha to add he had promised that the moveable property which had been laid hands on by the Turkish authorities would also be restored, or full reparation be given to those from whom it had been taken. As regarded the question put to him by his noble Friend behind (Lord Stratford de Redcliffe), whether it was true that the Government had consented to the proposal of the French Government that there should be one Christian Governor of the Lebanon, he must point out to him that in one respect that was a misdescription of the proposal. His noble Friend would find in the blue book laid on the table many despatches relating to the question of the government of the Lebanon, and he would observe, no doubt, that the first plan put forward by Lord Dufferin was one by which the whole of Syria should be placed under one Mahommedan Governor, with a Christian Governor to rule specially over the district of the Lebanon. That plan, however, which inferred a reconstruction of the whole government of Syria, was subsequently abandoned. Afterwards the Commissioners took into consideration the plan of a single governor for the Lebanon. That plan was recommended by the Commissioners. There was, however, a difference of opinion as to whether the Christian Governor of the Lebanon should be a native of the Lebanon or not; but it was not the fact that the proposition that there should be a Christian Governor emanated exclusively from the French; it had been recommended generally by the Commissioners. He would now only add that the proposal was under consideration at this moment—a conference was being held between the representatives of the different great Powers at Constantinople—that proposal, with many other details to which he would not now allude, would be discussed by the Commission, and some determina- tion must be come to by them and be reported to their various Governments. As negotiations were now actually going on, he could not give his noble Friend any detailed information with respect to the opinions entertained by Her Majesty's Government on the different points involved; all he could state was that the question of having a single Governor for the Lebanon was now under the consideration of the Representatives of the Powers at Constantinople. As to whether the arrangements for the evacuation of the country were complete, it was obvious that that question was answered by the other, for since the Conference would deliver its opinion upon the whole question he could not say how soon the arrangements would be carried into effect.

House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'Clock.