Lords Sitting of 15 June 1876

MINUTES.
Public Bills—First Reading—Small Testate Estates (Scotland)* (115); Burghs (Division into Wards) (Scotland) Amendment* (116); Smithfield Prison (Dublin)* (117), and referred to the Examiners; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Irvine and Dundonald)* (118), and referred to the Examiners; Metropolitan Commons (Barnes)* (119), and referred to the Examiners; Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) Improvement Scheme Confirmation * (120), and referred to the Examiners.
Committee—Tramways Orders Confirmation (Bristol, &c.)* (60).

NEW PEER.
Thomas George Lord Northbrook, G.C.S.I., having been created Viscount Baring of Lee in the county of Kent and Earl of Northbrook in the county of Southampton—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
SWEDEN—EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT STOCKHOLM.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD (Lord STRAFFORD)wished to put Questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon a subject in which the English Protestant residents at Stockholm were much interested. About a century ago British and French Protestants obtained permission from the then King of Sweden, Gustavus III., to meet for Divine worship; but it was not until 1855 that a permanent Consular Chaplain was appointed. The maintenance of the chaplain was defrayed in the usual manner—namely, by an allowance from Her Majesty's Government equal to what British subjects contributed. Until 1866 Divine service was regularly performed in the Moravian Church lent for that purpose. In 1866 the present Episcopal Church of St. Peter and St. Sigfrid was consecrated by authority and opened for Divine worship. What was the cost of building and maintenance? The total amount spent from 1855 to 1875 for the building, maintenance, and administration of the church amounted to £10,859, of which the British Government contributed £5,134, British subjects, £5,498, and non-British subjects, £227. The annual Consular certificates required by and sent to the
  1886
  Foreign Office would, he believed, prove the accuracy of these figures. Up to May, 1875, there was no doubt as to the proprietary rights of the British Government and of British subjects in the church property; but in May, 1875, Her Majesty's Consul announced that as the Government had discontinued the annual grants in aid of Consular chaplaincies, he would no longer interfere in the management of the church affairs, and the Consul then retired. A Committee of Management was thereupon elected for a year, with power to fill up the then vacant chaplaincy. The Rev. J. Taylor, D.D., was nominated chaplain for the year. This was in July. On the 8th of December Dr. Taylor, in writing, gave notice of his intention to retire from the chaplaincy at the expiration of his term. This was accepted by the Committee. Subsequently, Dr. Taylor wished to withdraw his resignation, and asked for the help of Her Majesty's Minister at Stockholm in the matter. The Consul at first used his good offices with the Committee, but subsequently retired from any further interference; and the matter was considered as finally settled, and the Committee began to look out for a successor to Dr. Taylor. But now commenced the difficulties of the case, for Dr. Taylor's friends dissolved the legally appointed Committee, appointed a new one, and on the 14th of February last re-elected him as chaplain. They requested the former Committee to give up the keys of the church, the books, and other church property, which request was refused. The church was closed, various demands and counter demands were made by both of these Committees; and after sundry legal proceedings had been taken, on the 31st of March the Governor of Stockholm demanded from the British Committee the keys of the church; and on these being refused the doors of the church were on the 1st of last April forced, and Dr. Taylor and his friends were now in full possession. The matter had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown in England, and he now wished to know whether the Secretary of State could give any information on the subject. He thought it right to add that the remarks he had made were founded upon a printed statement forwarded to him from Stockholm and signed by five gentlemen, one of whom was a personal acquaintance of

  1887
  his own. Without wishing to offer any opinion on the points at issue, he still felt that the question was one of much interest and importance to the English Protestant community at Stockholm. The Question he desired to ask of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary was, Whether he could give any information respecting the case of the British Church Committee who are resisting before the Swedish Courts an attempt to deprive the British Government and British subjects of their proprietary rights in the Church property at Stockholm?
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the question which his noble Friend had brought under the notice of their Lordships was one which had attracted a good deal of local interest, and therefore he thought that his noble Friend was right in calling attention to it. At the same time, he did not know whether he could give the noble Viscount much information in addition to that of which he had shown himself to be in possession. To the best of his recollection, the details stated by the noble Viscount were an accurate account of the transaction, and resolved themselves into this:—In consequence of a decision come to by the late Government with respect to Consular grants to such chaplaincies, the grant to the chaplain at Stockholm was withdrawn. The question now at issue was this—the old Church Committee, composed of British residents, claimed the church as the property of British subjects; while the party represented by the rival Committee claimed it as the property of the whole of that community at Stockholm which professed the religion of the Church of England, whatever might be the nationalities of the persons composing that community. Her Majesty's Government had consulted the Law Officers, and the Law Officers had advised against any interference by the Government:—they regarded the case as one which ought to be dealt with by the Swedish Tribunals before which it now was. There was some ambiguity in the wording of the title deeds of the land on which the church was erected, and the construction which should be put upon those deeds was the question which the Swedish Courts would have to determine. The old Committee was willing that the church should be vested in the Bishop of London; but the other Committee, without whose consent that
  1888
  proposed arrangement could not be carried out, would not accede to such a settlement. Her Majesty's Government had been asked more than once to make a representation on the subject to the Swedish Government, but they had declined to do so, because in its present stage the dispute was of a purely legal character, and he presumed that the Swedish Government neither would desire, nor would have the right, to take it out of the hands of the Swedish Tribunals.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that the difficulty that had arisen at Stockholm was only one out of several that had arisen from the hasty and inconsiderate manner in which the British Government had withdrawn our support from the Consular chaplaincies abroad. When the Government determined on that step some arrangements should have been made by which the present difficulties might have been avoided.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY,without entering into the question raised by the right rev. Prelate, desired to express his opinion that the decision carried out by the Foreign Office when his noble Friend (Earl Granville) was at the head of that Department was a right one. It was only reasonable that British subjects who lived abroad should maintain the churches in which they worshipped. The only exception to that rule ought to be that of churches attended by British seamen who were only temporarily resident in the places where those churches stood.

TURKEY—THE TREATY OF PARIS, 1856.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARRrose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any objection to state in what position this country stands with regard to the Treaty signed at Paris on the 15th of April, 1856, between Great Britain, Austria, and France, guaranteeing the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire; and, whether the Suzerainty exercised by Turkey over the Tributary States of Servia and Roumania is included in that guarantee? The noble Earl said, he thought it would materially assist to enlighten the public mind on a subject which at the present time, owing to its great importance, much engrossed public attention, if,

  1889
  without inconvenience to Her Majesty's Government, it could be stated how far—to what extent—this country is pledged by Treaty to maintain the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire. The Question which he proposed to put to the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office he had endeavoured to separate as far as possible from collateral questions of great interest at the present moment, believing that their Lordships would be put in possession of all information as to the state of affairs in the East at the earliest possible time; but it seemed to him important to know—more especially as regarded the future—what the exact position of this country was with reference to guarantees by Treaties of the integrity and independence of Turkey. This was the more necessary as since the Treaty of Paris, which was, perhaps, sufficiently distinct, other Treaties had been entered into; and, as would be in their Lordships' remembrance, one important part of the Treaty of Paris relating to Russian ships of war in the Black Sea had been abrogated by the Treaty signed at London in 1871. He was not aware, however, that anything had been done to weaken the force of the Treaty of Paris or of the Treaty which almost immediately followed it with reference to the Question which he had put to his noble Friend; but events had occurred, and might occur again, which might make it incumbent upon the Government of this country to consider further what course they should pursue. In order to make clear what he wished to bring under the notice of the noble Earl he must ask their Lordships to allow him to refer for a moment to the Treaties which bore upon this subject. By the Treaty of Paris, signed March 30, 1856, Art. 7, it was recited that—
  "Their Majesties engage, each on his part, to respect the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire; guarantee in common the strict observance of that engagement, and will, in consequence, consider any act tending to its violation as a question of general interest."
  Then, as regarded the tributary States, there was Art. 22, which recited that—
  "The Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia shall continue to enjoy under the suzerainty of the Porte and under the guarantee of the Contracting Powers the privileges and immunities of which they are in possession."
  1890
  Next, with reference to Servia, it was recited by Art. 28, that—
  "The Principality of Servia shall continue to hold of the Sublime Porte in conformity with the Imperial Hatts which fix and determine its rights and immunities, placed henceforward under the collective guarantee of the Contracting Powers. In consequence the said Principality shall preserve its independent and national administration as well as full liberty of worship, of legislation, of commerce, and of navigation."
  Now, the Treaty of Paris was followed very shortly by another Treaty between England, Austria, and France, reiterating the guarantee of the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire, and in stronger terms, by Art. 1—
  "The High Contracting Parties guarantee jointly and severally the independence and the integrity of the Ottoman Empire recorded in the Treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th of March, 1856."
  Again, Art. 2 recited that—
  "Any infraction of the said Treaty will be considered by the Powers signing the present Treaty as casus belli. They will come to an understanding with the Sublime Porte as to the measures which have become necessary, and will without delay determine among themselves as to the employment of their military and naval forces."
  Their Lordships would observe that in the first Treaty any violation of the engagement entered into was to be made a question of "general interest," while in the second Treaty the violation of the guarantee was made a "casus belli." It would seem, therefore, that this country was bound to consider as a casus belli any violation of the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire recorded in the Treaty of Paris. There remained the further Question which he wished to put to his noble Friend, Did this guarantee of the integrity of Turkey include the Suzerainty of that country over the tributary States of Servia and Roumania? Was this country bound by Treaty to keep them in a state of vassalage, and had this Treaty any bearing upon the recent armaments in Besika Bay? It was impossible to suppose that this country would long look with indifference upon the struggles which had so often disturbed those countries—little known and little cared for—which lie to the eastward of the eastern shores of the Adriatic. One, Montenegro, had fought for and maintained its liberty and independence; another, like Herzegovina,

  1891
  was under the dominion of the Turks; another, like Servia, was in a state of vassalage to Turkey. It was a grave question, what was to be the future of these countries? Should their desire for independence be repressed by foreign interference? Should progress in civilization be checked? Should commerce be impeded by ports and harbours being kept in the hands of a foreign Power? He believed this country would watch the progress of events with the deepest interest, and, while earnestly desiring a peaceful issue, would look with sympathy for lasting and enduring results which had long been desired but never realized.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: The best answer I can give to my noble Friend is to read the words of the Treaty, or at least of the material parts of the Treaty itself. The Treaty I refer to is that of the 15th of April, 1856, by which, in the First Article, Great Britain, Austria, and France—
  "Guarantee jointly and severally the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire, in accordance with the Treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th of March, 1856."
  The Second Article of this Treaty of the 15th of April, 1856, recites that—
  "Any infraction of the said Treaty will be considered by the Powers signing the present Treaty as casus belli. They will come to an understanding with the Sublime Porte as to the measures which have become necessary, and will, without delay, determine among themselves as to the employment of their military and naval forces."
  These are the words of the Treaty; and as far as I know that Treaty has not been invalidated or modified by any subsequent Treaty or any diplomatic document whatever. I do not understand that my noble Friend has asked me, and I do not think your Lordships will ask me, to do what would be hardly possible, and which if it were possible would be inconvenient and dangerous—namely, to enter on a purely hypothetical discussion as to the circumstances under which guarantees of that kind are to be held absolutely binding on the countries which have joined in them. No doubt they give us a right of interference, and no doubt, under certain circumstances, they might constitute on our part a duty to interfere; but what are the precise circumstances under which this right of interference ought to be exercised is a question which I think
  1892
  no one ought to be called upon to determine, and which no one can determine till the case actually arises. I am bound to point out that my noble Friend is under a misapprehension as to the drift and purport of the Second Article of the Treaty. There is no doubt that Roumania and Servia as States under the suzerainty of the Porte are included in that general guarantee of the integrity and the independence of the Ottoman Empire; but I submit that my noble Friend misapprehends the meaning of the Treaty when he asks whether it constitutes an engagement on our part or that of either of the other Powers who are parties to it to interfere in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire and interpose between the Turkish Government and States tributary to that Government. Evidently that was not contemplated by the Treaty, whatever may be its scope and meaning. The guarantee is one of the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire against external aggression; but it never was contemplated, and, indeed, it would be quite impossible, that we should be bound to take part on the one side or the other in internal quarrels arising between the authorities at Constantinople and the populations within the limits of the Turkish Provinces or Dependencies.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (IRVINE AND DUNDONALD) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 118.)
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made under the "Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," relating to the burgh of Irvine and parish of Dundonald in the county of Ayr: And
  METROPOLITAN COMMONS (BARNES) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 119.)
  A Bill to confirm a Scheme under the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, and the Metropolitan Commons Amendment Act, 1869, relating to Barnes Common: Were presented by The Lord Steward; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

  METROPOLIS (WHITECHAPEL AND LIME- HOUSE) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME CONFIRMA- TION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for the Improvement of an unhealthy area in the Whitechapel District, and an unhealthy area in the Limehouse District within the Metropolis—Was presented by The Lord Steward; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 120.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.