Lords Sitting of 20 April 1877

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Marine Mutiny * Mutiny*; Metropolis Toll Bridges* (45); Railway Companies Servants * (46).
Second Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue (Duties on Offices and Pensions) * (35).
Report—Justices Clerks * (42).
Third Reading — Exoneration of Charges * (29); Contingent Remainders (29), and passed.

NAVY—REMOVAL AND RE-INSTATEMENT OF ADMIRAL HOBART PASHA.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTIONS.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNrose to call attention to the Correspondence respecting the removal from Her Majesty's Navy of Captain Hobart, and his subsequent re-instatement. The noble Earl said, he had, in common pro-

  1509
  bably with all their Lordships, read all the Papers on the Eastern Question with great care, and, among others, those which had reference to the removal of Admiral Hobart from the Navy List and his re-instatement on that List (Turkey, No. 10, 1877). The decision which had been finally arrived at by Her Majesty's Government with regard to that gallant officer appeared to him to be so much at variance with the course ordinarily taken by the Admiralty in such cases, and so little satisfactory explanation of what had thus been done was given in the Papers, that he felt obliged to ask for further information. In order that their Lordships might fully appreciate the circumstances of the case, he would, in the first place, ask their Lordships to consider what was the exact position of a Naval officer on half-pay. Such an officer was simply waiting for orders. He was, for the moment, on leave, and might at any time be called on by Her Majesty to resume service. He rather thought—though he was not quite certain—that when a Naval officer on half-pay went abroad he was obliged to ask for leave to do so. Certainly, however that might be, he was not allowed without permission to accept service under a foreign Government. With the permission of the Admiralty, officers had been allowed to take service under foreign Governments; but so well known was the rule, and so strongly was it held to by the Admiralty, that every Naval officer on half-pay, on applying for his half-pay, was obliged to sign a declaration that he was not in the employment of any foreign Government. Well, Admiral Hobart, when Captain Hobart, went on half-pay. Afterwards he went to Constantinople, and accepted office under the Turkish Government. Before he left London there was an idea that he intended to accept such service, and he was written to by the Admiralty, and warned that he could not do so and continue on half-pay. He did it nevertheless, and was then warned by the Admiralty that if he did not give up the foreign service he had accepted, his name would be removed from the Navy List. This latter warning was given to him with the concurrence of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) who at that time as Lord Stanley filled the office which at the present moment he again occupied. But he believed Admiral
  1510
  Hobart had continued to serve the Turkish Government from that time up to the present, his name having been removed from the Navy List immediately after he took foreign service. For some years Captain Hobart was not an officer of Her Majesty's Navy; but he made several applications to be re-instated, and after lie had been for a long period unsuccessful in his application, two years ago Admiral Hobart, by the advice of the noble Earl, was re-instated and placed on the Retired List. So that in spite of the Regulation that a British officer might not take service under a foreign Government without express permission, Admiral Hobart had obtained service and was now serving under the Turkish Government. At the time when he entered the Turkish Fleet the insurrection was reigning in Crete—a fact which would appear from the Correspondence to which he would now call the attention of their Lordships. It appeared from a letter of the Foreign Office to the Admiralty, dated December 26, 1867, the Greek Minister had stated to Lord Stanley that an officer, supposed to be named Hobart, in Her Majesty's Service, had taken service in the Turkish Navy to direct the Cretan blockade. Lord Stanley desired information on the subject from the Lords of the Admiralty. On the 7th of January, 1868, after inquiries had been made, the Secretary of the Admiralty wrote to Captain Hobart, R.N., in these terms—
  "Sir,—I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that they have been informed that you have taken service with the Turkish Navy, or under the Turkish Government, for the purpose of directing the Cretan blockade. As an officer in Her Majesty's service you cannot be allowed to take service under a foreign Government; and I am to desire you will at once report whether you have made any engagement with the Turkish Government."
  On the 13th of January Captain Hobart replied—
  "Constantinople, Jan. 13, 1868.
  "Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated January 7th, to which I beg to reply that I have not taken service with the Turkish Navy or under the Turkish Government for the purpose of directing the blockade of Crete. My visit to Crete, of which so much has been said out here, was entirely of a private nature, and only lasted ten days."
  In a letter dated Constantinople, January 4, 1868, Sir Henry Elliot, then Mr. Elliot, writing to Lord Stanley, said—

  1511
  "I have seen Captain Hobart since he returned from Crete a few days ago. He assures me that a reported agreement between himself and the Turkish Government, with a view to the interception of the blockade runners is entirely without foundation, and that he is under no engagement whatever with them. Captain Hobart states himself to be fully aware of the professional risk he would run by taking employment at present under the Turkish Government, and not to be disposed to encounter it."
  Then in a despatch of the 19th of January, 1868, Mr. Elliott wrote to Lord Stanley—
  "With reference to my despatch of the 4th instant, stating that I had ascertained from Captain Hobart that he had not entered into an engagement with the Turkish Government, I have the honour to inform your Lordships that that officer has since received from them such an advantageous offer that he tells me that it is his intention to accept it. I observed to him that if he did so without the sanction of Her Majesty's Government, which he was not likely to obtain, he must not be surprised if his name were struck off the list of Her Majesty's Navy, a contingency for which he now seems prepared, although when he had spoken to me on the subject before he had expressed himself unwilling to risk it. Fuad Pasha having mentioned to me unofficially the wish of the Porte to take Captain Hobart into their service, I told him I was convinced Her Majesty's Government would not now sanction his entering it, and would very probably dismiss him from the Navy if he took such a step without leave."
  In consequence of that communication, Lord Stanley, through Mr. Hammond, wrote to the Admiralty on the 4th of February, 1868—
  "With reference to my letter of the 18th ultimo, I am directed by Lord Stanley to transmit to you a copy of a further despatch from Mr. Elliot, from which the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty will perceive that Captain Hobart has announced to Mr. Elliot his intention to take service under the Turkish Government, and I am to request that in laying the same before the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, you will state to their Lordships that Lord Stanley is of opinion that while the war in Crete lasts Captain Hobart should not be permitted to enter the Turkish service."
  On the 24th of January, in the same year, Captain Hobart wrote to the Admiralty—
  "I have the honour to inform you, for the information of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, that I have this day accepted the nomination of Member of the Board of Admiralty, and Director General of Naval Schools' in the Ottoman Empire. Under these circumstances, it is, I fear, only left to me to place my commission in Her Majesty's service at the disposal of their Lordships, which I have the honour herewith to do. May I be allowed, at the same time, to express a hope that their Lord-
  1512
  ships, should they deem it necessary to remove my name from the list of officers on active service, will be pleased to place me on the reserve list, so that, in case of war, I shall be able to serve."
  That letter was referred by the Admiralty to Lord Stanley for his remarks, and on the 10th of February the noble Lord replied in these terms—
  "I am directed by Lord Stanley to request that you will acquaint the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, with reference to your letter of the 8th instant, that looking to what passed in Parliament last year, when it was announced that the permission to Sir William Wiseman to enter into the Turkish service would remain in abeyance pending the continuance of the insurrection in Crete, his Lordship is of opinion that, as Captain Hobart has voluntarily entered that service without previously obtaining permission from the Lords of the Admiralty, their Lordships have no other course open to them than that of accepting his resignation of his Commission in Her Majesty's Naval Service."
  On the 15th of the same month the Admiralty wrote to Captain Hobart—
  "With reference to your letter of the 24th instant, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that your request to be placed on the Reserved List cannot be complied with; and should you adhere to your determination of taking service under the Ottoman Government, your name will he struck off the list of Her Majesty's Navy."
  On the 28th of February Captain Hobart wrote to the Admiralty—
  "I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th of February, in which you convey to me their Lordships' decision on my proceedings out here. I regret exceedingly having incurred their Lordships' displeasure, and have the honour to request that I may be allowed a short period to consider the line of conduct I should pursue. I am at present placed in a most difficult position, as I have already accepted the nomination of Civil Member of the administration for the management and re-organization of the Naval Schools.' French military officers are already appointed by their Government to superintend the military schools. I have already drawn out several rules and regulations for the organization of the Naval College. Moreover, I am, as it were, pledged to serve the Ottoman Government in the manner above stated for a term of five years. I have quite accidentally fallen into this position, and sincerely trust that their Lordships will reconsider their decision, the more so as my being here will in no way interfere with the appointment of Sir William Wiseman when peace is restored in the Turkish Empire."
  That letter likewise was referred by the Admiralty to Lord Stanley, with a request that he would inform that Depart-

  1513
  ment whether he was still of opinion that Captain Hobart's name should be taken off the Navy List. Mr. Hammond, in a letter of the 18th of March, answered—
  "I have laid before Lord Stanley your letter of the 16th instant, inclosing a copy of one from Captain Hon. A. C. Hobart, and I am to request that you will state to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty that his Lordship is at a loss to discover any material difference whatever, in the position to be held by Captain Hobart at Constantinople, and that which it was contemplated that Sir William Wiseman should hold, and which, on a question being raised in the House of Commons, Lord Stanley stated should not be held by him during the continuance of the Cretan insurrection. Captain Hobart, though he could hardly have been ignorant of the objection felt to the employment of Sir William Wiseman, agreed without previous leave from the Admiralty to undertake similar employment, and in announcing to the Admiralty that he had done so, he placed his commission at their disposal, and Lord Stanley, under all the circumstances of the case, sees no other course than that of accepting Captain Hobart's resignation of his commission.
  That was a full statement of the case up to the time when the name of Captain Hobart was removed from the Navy List. Removing the name of an officer from that List was a very grave step and a very serious punishment. And the higher his rank, the more grave that step, and the more serious the punishment. If he might be permitted to say so, he fully concurred in the opinions stated by Lord Stanley up to that time on the case of Captain Hobart — and their Lordships were all aware that the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary was a man who did not express any opinion without mature consideration as to all it implied. The second portion of the case commenced with the 26th of May, 1868—the name of Captain Hobart having been removed from the Navy List on the 19th March. On the 26th of May, applying for re-instatement, he said—
  "Trusting that their Lordships will consider that I have been sufficiently punished for my temerity in having accepted the tempting offer accidentally made to me by the Turkish Government without having received the sanction of their Lordships to do so, and as the Cretan revolution is now merely a chronic revolt kept up by a band of Greeks on the Sphakia mountains, I have the honour earnestly to request that their Lordships will be kind enough to reinstate me."
  That letter was sent by the Admiralty to his noble Friend the Secretary of State
  1514
  for Foreign Affairs; and on the 16th of June the following reply to the communication from the Admiralty was given by direction of his noble Friend:—
  "In reply to your letter of the 12th instant respecting the case of the Honourable A. Hobart and his application to be re-instated in Her Majesty's naval service, I am directed by Lord Stanley to request you will acquaint the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty that his Lordship considers that it would be better that the question should stand over until the final settlement of the Cretan question."
  He could not gather from the Papers why that answer was given by his noble Friend. It was one of those ambiguous and oracular replies which every person, or any person to whom it referred, might read by the light of his own interests—one of those replies which unfortunately end in causing more trouble and giving rise to more difficulty than would have been caused by any direct and positive answer. Accordingly two or three months later Captain Hobart made another application for re-instatement. In a letter written to the Admiralty, and dated November, 1868, he stated—
  "May I be allowed to have the honour of making the following statement for the favourable consideration of their Lordships, its object being that I may induce their Lordships to reinstate me in Her Majesty's Navy l It is true that I did wrong in accepting the splendid offers made to me by the Sultan, but being a poor man I could not resist the temptation, and I trust that their Lordships will consider that I have been sufficiently punished. The Cretan insurrection is now virtually at an end, the families who left are returning to their country, and a few brigands in the mountains is all that remains of the revolution."
  He believed that a change of Government was going on at the time, and that communication was simply acknowledged by the Secretary to the Admiralty. But it was worthy of remark that in a letter to Lord Stanley, written on the 6th of December, 1868, Mr. Elliot said—
  "The fear of provoking a collision which has hitherto restrained the Turkish Government from taking effective measures for putting a stop to the running of the Cretan blockade, has at length given way before the accounts which have been received of the preparations for the conveyance of large corps of Hellenic volunteers to Crete in steamers 'Enossis,' 'Panhellenion,' and 'Crete,' the last-named being the vessel which the Minister of Finance of the Administration of M. Comoundouros lately boasted of in the Chambers as having been purchased by the Government. Admiral Hobart has consequently been despatched to Crete with a sufficient force, as is believed, to render the future operations

  1515
  of these vessels highly hazardous to them. Learning that he was about to start, I last night made a point of seeing him for the purpose of impressing upon him how much depended upon the prudence of his conduct in avoiding every act not strictly justified by international law, and I believe he is duly impressed with the responsibility that will rest upon him in this respect. In dealing with simple unarmed blockade runners, Admiral Hobart conceives himself only authorized to capture them when endeavouring to elude the cruisers, but armed vessels, not provided with papers, he believes to be liable to be treated as pirates according to the recognized law of nations. He is an energetic officer, appears determined that the blockade running shall not continue with its former impunity so long as he is intrusted with the naval command."
  It clearly appeared from that letter that Captain Hobart was employed in making effectual the blockade of Crete. Lord Clarendon succeeded Lord Stanley in the Foreign Office, and on the 19th of April, 1869, the Secretary to the Admiralty wrote to the Foreign Office in these terms, Captain Hobart having made another application, in which he stated that the Cretan insurrection was then at an end—
  "With reference to former correspondence and to the inclosed letter from the Honourable Augustus Hobart, requesting his case might be re-considered with a view to his being reinstated as a Captain in Her Majesty's Navy, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you, for the information of the Earl of Clarendon, that their Lordships are indisposed to comply with this request unless Lord Clarendon should consider that the public interests render it desirable."
  In reply, Mr. Hammond, under date April 24, wrote—
  "I have laid before the Earl of Clarendon your letter of the 19th instant, and, in reply, I am to request that you will state to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty that his Lords-ship cannot say that the re-instatement of Captain Hobart on the list of Her Majesty's naval officers is in any way required by the public interests. He thinks, however, that it is for the Board of Admiralty to judge whether the promise to re-consider Captain Hobart's case, to which he refers, gives him now any claim to their Lordships' favourable consideration."
  By letter of April 28, the Lords of the Admiralty informed Admiral Hobart that, after taking the whole of the circumstances of the case into consideration, they could not comply with his request to be re-instated. There were no further communications of any importance on the subject while the late Government remained in office. His noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) having been again appointed Secretary of State
  1516
  for Foreign Affairs, on the 16th of October, 1874, Admiral Hobart Pasha addressed him a letter, in which there were these statements—
  "With your Lordship's permission, I beg to lay before you a statement of my case, and to urge your Lordship's kind consideration thereof. Some years since I committed (I am perfectly prepared to admit) a breach of naval discipline by accepting service with the Turkish Government without permission, for which offence my name was removed from the Navy List. During seven years that have elapsed since that time I have endeavoured to maintain the character of an Englishman for zeal,. activity, and sagacity, and I have been fortunate enough to obtain a certain European reputation, of which I hope I may be justly proud. I prevented, by my conduct during a very critical period at the end of the Cretan revolution (while I was in command of a large Turkish Fleet) much bloodshed, and many people think a European war. I have organized the Turkish Navy in a way which has led to high encomiums as to its state from all the Commanders-in-Chief of the English Fleets who have lately visited Constantinople. I have established naval schools, training and gunnery ships (and here I have been ably assisted by English naval officers). While doing all this towards strengthening the Navy of our ally, I naturally have made many enemies…. All that they can find to say is (and it is bitter enough) He has been dismissed the English Service,' without, of course, explaining the cause. This is most painful to me, and is very detrimental to my already difficult position. An English officer of high rank for many years held the position I now hold. All I ask, my Lord, is that the cloud which I am under as regards my own country (a cloud that tends to paralyze my efforts at every step), may be removed, and that I may no longer remain under the ban of disgrace, which is the interpretation put by many regarding my position. I am proud to say that the English Ambassador at Constantinople gives his strong support and approval of my conduct. I have received front the Governments of France, Austria, Germany, and Italy high orders for what they are pleased to call my firm and conciliatory conduct in the Cretan affair, but they are nothing to me in comparison to the approval of my own countrymen, and I venture to suggest that such approval can only be shown by their overlooking my offence, and by their allowing me again to call myself a naval officer of England, thereby strengthening my position and preventing my enemies from sneering at me. I have not hesitated in asking your Lordship's assistance in this matter, because I feel the importance of my position politically and otherwise, while at the same moment I feel the utter falseness of it as things now are."
  It would appear, from a letter which his noble Friend caused to be written to the Admiralty on receipt of Admiral Hobart Pasha's letter, that the views of his noble Friend on this case had undergone a complete change since the time when he

  1517
  was before in office. A letter from the Foreign Office to the Admiralty, dated November 3, 1874, was in these words—
  "Sir,—I am directed by the Earl of Derby to transmit to you the accompanying copy of a letter which his Lordship has received from Admiral Hobart Pasha, soliciting to be recommended to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty for re-instatement in the British Navy; and I am to request that, in laying the same before the Board of Admiralty, you will state to their Lordships that, in Lord Derby's opinion, the re-instatement of Admiral Hobart Pasha would be of material advantage in supporting him in the position which lie occupies at the Porte, and might properly be accorded as a matter of Imperial policy without affording a precedent detrimental to the discipline of the Service."
  He (the Earl of Camperdown) submitted that it was just as expedient in 1874 as it had been in 1868 that discipline should be maintained in the Navy; and he was at a loss to see what matter of Imperial policy made it desirable that Admiral Hobart, who had been removed from the Navy List in the former year, should have been re-instated in the latter year. His noble Friend seemed to regard this breach of discipline as an exceptional case. He (the Earl of Camperdown) could not in the Papers find any circumstances to render it such. The only sense in which it was exceptional was one which made the re-instatement all the more extraordinary. Captain Hobart had been specially warned. Consequently, there was the danger that this case might be cited as a precedent to show that the more direct the orders the officer received against entering a foreign service and the more open was his disobedience, the more likely was his offence to be condoned. In consequence of the letter of his noble Friend, Captain Hobart was re-instated on the Navy List and became an Admiral.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: He was placed on the Retired List.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he ought to have stated that he was re-instated as a captain in the Royal Navy and placed on the Retired List; but he was liable to be called on to serve Her Majesty afloat; he became an Admiral with seniority from a certain date. In reviewing the facts of the case, it was self-evident that Admiral Hobart had had his own way. He was placed on the Retired List, the officers on which in time of war were obliged to serve Her Majesty—he was at this moment drawing
  1518
  retired pay — and as an officer of the Navy was liable to be called upon for active service at any moment — at the same time he was allowed to serve in the Turkish Navy. He believed that the step taken by the present Government was an unwise and unprecedented one. In the present state of Europe it was embarrassing. He could hardly think that if Hobart Pasha was still in the Turkish service, he was so with the permission of his noble Friend and the Admiralty. In conclusion, he begged to ask the Secretary of the State for Foreign Affairs, To state the reasons connected with Imperial policy referred to in No. 39, which induced him in 1874 to recommend the reversal of the course advised by him in 1868: And to ask the noble Baron representing the Admiralty, Whether there is any precedent for replacing upon the Navy List the name of an officer removed for having accepted employment under a foreign Government in defiance of orders from the Admiralty; and, whether Admiral Hobart has now permission from the Admiralty to serve under the Turkish Government?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am quite ready to answer the Questions put to me by noble Friend; but in doing so I shall not deem it necessary, and I think your Lordships will not deem it necessary, that I should follow him with the same detail as that which characterized the statement of facts which ho has addressed to your Lordships. All the explanation I have to give in reply to my noble Friend's Questions, so far as the facts are concerned, is contained in the Papers which are in your Lordships' hands; and the explanations I have to offer in reference to my noble Friend's comments on those facts will be of an extremely simple kind. My noble Friend commenced by laying down, with some care, a proposition which probably none of your Lordships will be inclined to doubt—namely, that for an officer on the Navy List to take service under a foreign Government without the permission of the Admiralty is a serious breach of discipline, and one which deserves the punishment of removal from that List. When this case of Hobart Pasha's came before me officially nine years ago I took that view, and I see no reason now to change or modify the opinions I then expressed. Captain Ho-hart, notwithstanding the warning he

  1519
  had received, and without the permission of the Admiralty, took service under a foreign Government. He committed a breach of discipline in having done so, and therefore I suggested to the Naval authorities that his name should be removed from the Navy List. They decided to remove it, and I have not the slightest doubt that the decision was a right one. I may just mention that at the time there was one reason rather of a political, than a professional character, which made the breach of discipline more serious than it would have been in ordinary circumstances, and which made it even more than usually necessary that we should mark our sense of it. The Cretan insurrection was going on; discussions with reference to that insurrection were raised in the House of Commons, and I was naturally called on to state what would be the attitude of the British Government in regard to that insurrection. I stated, what I suppose any Minister in my position would have stated, that our attitude would be one of strict neutrality. Obviously, then, when a British Naval officer took service under the Government that was engaged in putting down that insurrection, there was a political, as well as a professional, reason which made it necessary to mark our displeasure at any officer having taken that step without our sanction and contrary to our Regulations. But as to what my noble Friend calls the oracular and ambiguous answer of mine contained in the Papers of 1868, that oracular and ambiguous answer consisted in the statement that I could not re-consider the question of Captain Hobart's re-instatement while the Cretan insurrection continued; and lest it may be supposed that my statement was calculated to give a false impression to Captain Hobart, or to raise unfounded expectations as to what might be done when the insurrection had ceased, I may mention that it was not addressed to him by me as representing the decision of the Foreign Office on his case, but to the Naval authorities for their information. What I meant to convey was that, however indulgent the view which I might be disposed to take of the matter viewed as a breach of discipline only, it was impossible even to consider the question of his re-instatement so long as thee hostilities in which Captain Hobart
  1520
  was engaged continued, and so long therefore as the political reason which had led to his name being struck off the List remained in force. Having explained my oracular and ambiguous statements, I now come to the second part of this transaction, when officially addressing myself to the Naval authorities I recommended the re-instatement of Captain Hobart. I corrected my noble Friend when his words seemed to imply that Captain Hobart was re-instated on the Active List. His name was placed on the Retired List, which, as I understand the Naval Rules, simply gives him an honorary, and not an active position. But my noble Friend takes the view—in which some of your Lordships seem to concur—that when in 1874 I recommended the re-instatement of Hobart Pasha, I must have adopted an opinion different from that which I held in 1868, and that if we were right in the one case we must necessarily be wrong in the other. I entirely deny it. Is the contention of my noble Friend this—that when a judicial sentence has been passed and been approved, in no case can there be a remission of some part of that sentence without a change of mind on the part of the person who originally approved it, or without some reflection being cast on the justice of that sentence? Hobart Pasha undoubtedly committed a breach of discipline and was punished—and, as I conceive, justly punished—for it; but the reason why he was punished by the removal of his name from the Navy List was partly a political one, and, remembering that removal from the Navy List is an exceedingly severe punishment, I certainly thought in 1874 that the time had come when sufficient atonement might have been made by him for his breach of discipline, and when a part of his sentence might reasonably be remitted. His name was off the Navy List for seven years. During that time he was ably and indifatigably occupied in the service of the Turkish Government. Of late years—and I may say more especially during the last 12 months—there has been a considerable amount of talk about the necessity of re-organizing Turkish administration. No doubt a re-organization of that administration was, and is, required in many branches, and the Turkish Navy is not the least important of them. It was in the lowest state of

  1521
  inefficiency and weakness, and I believe Hobart Pasha has put it in a position of at least comparative efficiency. Partly on that ground, and partly on the ground that he had been punished for his breach of discipline by being removed from the Navy List for seven years—which in itself is a considerable punishment—I thought in 1874 that the time had come when the offence of which he had been guilty had been sufficiently atoned for. But my noble Friend asks what will be the effect of this in the future? Well, I do not suppose that any such sentence as that passed on Captain Hobart is irrevocable, and if any officer, whose name has been removed from the Navy List for a similar breach of discipline, shall do, after his removal, as much good and useful service as Hobart Pasha, I think there need be no objection in principle to a consideration of his case with a view to the remission of a part of that sentence. But my noble Friend appears to think that what I did was without precedent—at least he asks whether there is any precedent for replacing on the Navy List the name of an officer removed for having accepted employment under a foreign Government in defiance of the Orders of the Admiralty? The case is one which from the nature of things does not often occur; and if I thought that what has been done in this case was a right thing to do, I should not greatly trouble myself as to whether it had been done before. As a matter of fact, however, there are three precedents of a very similar character which have been supplied to me by the Admiralty? Those are the cases of Sir George Sartorius, then a Captain, who was removed from the Navy List in February, 1832, and re-instated on it in October, 1837; of Sir Charles Napier, also a Captain, who was removed in January, 1833, and re-instated in March, 1836; and of Lieutenant South, who was re moved in September, 1825, and reinstated in November, 1827.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: For what were they removed?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I am just going to state that. In all three cases the offence committed by the officers was precisely the same as that committed by Hobart Pasha—namely, that of taking service under a foreign Power without the permission of their own Government. The third Question of my noble Friend
  1522
  is, whether Admiral Hobart Pasha has now permission to serve under the Turkish Government? In reply I must express my opinion that while his reinstatement to the Navy List was not, perhaps, an express and formal authorization to him so to serve, undoubtedly a permission would be inferred from it. Whether such an indirect permission would apply equally in war is a point which the Question of my noble Friend does not raise, and to which I am not now in a position to give an answer; but I apprehend that as he was reinstated on the Navy List while serving under the Porte, he must be held to have permission to continue in that service while Turkey remains at peace.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I do not wish this conversation to close without remarking that your Lordships are not unanimous in thinking that, on the whole, this has been a wise proceeding. I gather, from what the noble Earl said towards the close of his remarks, he is of opinion that in recommending the reinstatement of Admiral Hobart he was acting in accordance with the precedent of the three cases which he has mentioned to your Lordships. As I understand the noble Earl, in those cases also the Naval officers took service under a foreign Government without the permission of the Admiralty; but I do not learn whether they took it not only without that permission, but after having been warned not to do so—because the latter circumstance would make the case very different. Such a breach of discipline as that committed by Captain Hobart might give rise to difficulties of a very serious character, and the step taken in removing his name from the Navy List required no justification from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. There were high political reasons why this gallant gentleman should not have taken a command under the Turkish Government, having regard to the position which the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had assumed with regard to the Cretan insurrection; independent of the warning given to the officer himself not to enter this service. When the warning was first given to Captain Hobart lie said he had no intention of taking service under the Porte; but soon after Sir Henry, then Mr. Elliot, wrote that the offer was so tempting that Captain Hobart had accepted it. I do not wish to say a word

  1523
  against Admiral Hobart. I have no doubt he is an able and energetic officer, and that there will be far greater pleasure to him in fighting the foreign enemies of Turkey than in assisting her to put down disturbances among her own subjects. In the Papers read by my noble Friend who brought this subject forward it is stated that Captain Hobart was sent to blockade Crete, and there are other statements as to the services he did to Europe in preventing war; but I must express my opinion that it is exceedingly inconvenient to have an English officer undertaking an important command under a Foreign Power without the consent of his own Government. Here is the case of a gallant officer who, wishing for active service, was tempted by elevated rank and high pay to seek that under a foreign Government, not only without the consent, but in the face of warning given him by his own Government; but after a few years not the slightest notice is taken of the fault he has committed, and he is re-instated in a manner which I really think has not been quite correctly stated by the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary. The noble Earl says that Hobart Pasha, when reinstated, was put in an honorary and not an active position. Is not the noble Earl aware that the officer in question receives half-pay amounting, I believe, to £400 a-year, which, if I mistake not, he could sell to the public for a sum of money to be paid down, while still holding his command under the Turkish Government? I am afraid that what has been done in the case will be an encouragement to other gallant officers to disobey their own Government, to accept elevated rank and high pay, with great opportunities of distinction under foreign Governments, with the prospect of being, after a short time, re-placed in as good a position in the service of their own Government as if they had never left it.
  LORD DUNSANYwas understood to say that, in his opinion, discipline had been sufficiently vindicated in the case of Hobart Pasha.
  VISCOUNT BURYthought it right that the friends of Hobart Pasha should leave the matter in the hands of the Foreign Secretary; and he was sure that those noble Lords who knew Hobart Pasha would look with satisfaction at the course taken by the noble Earl. Considering
  1524
  the distinction and gallantry of Admiral Hobart, it was certainly to the advantage of the English Government and the English people that he should continue to occupy the position he now held. Hobart Pasha had reminded the Admiralty at the time that if he did not accept the appointment offered, the whole organization of the Turkish fleet and the instruction of their officers would fall into the hands of the French. It could not be a matter of indifference, in these circumstances, that Turkish naval affairs should be directed by an officer who was, above all things, English to the backbone, and whose influence would always be exercised for the interests of his own country. If under any deplorable circumstance, there was any prospect of a collision between the naval and military Forces of this country and of Turkey, it was quite certain what Admiral Hobart's decision would be, and that he would at once resign his position. For himself, he could not but think that much of the indignation which appeared to be felt on the opposite side of the House was due to the circumstance that Hobart Pasha's aid had been given to Turkey rather than to another country. He denied that Hobart Pasha was now receiving British pay as an Admiral. The pay that he received was for services performed before he entered the Turkish service, and he was as much retired as any Indian officer at Cheltenham.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEreferred to the Rules of the Service in force of the Admiralty, and said that this case was very similar to the three cases which had been referred to.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXasked, if there was any precedent for an officer taking service under a foreign Government against the distinct Order of his own Government and being afterwards restored to the Service?
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, that the same Order was in existence when the cases which had been referred to occurred as was now in force. An officer could not depart from this country, except by leave of the Government, and still less could he accept service under a foreign Government without that leave.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that though it was not his good fortune always to agree with the observations of the Foreign Secretary, yet he could not help expressing his great satisfaction with

  1525
  those he had just made in reference to his decision on the proceedings which had been impugned. He concurred in thinking that Admiral Hobart had been engaged in promoting the interests of the Ottoman Government, of this country, and of Europe generally, in the meritorious duty of re-organizing the Turkish Navy. He thought that those who had raised this question at this inconvenient time might have raised it in 1874, and then put an end to it; and he felt that it would be considered out-of-doors that the question had been brought forward now with the view of paralyzing the efforts of the Government and increasing the difficulties of those with whom it was our duty to co-operate.

CRIMINAL LAW—EXECUTION AT LEEDS.—QUESTION.
LORD ST. LEONARDSasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether Askern, who acted as the executioner of Johnson at Leeds on the 2nd instant had ever officiated in the capacity of executioner before; whether the choice of the rope is entirely left to the executioner, and whether it is tested in any way by the prison authorities previously to being used; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have any objection to state the number of executions and reprieves, since private were substituted for public executions, and also during an equal number of years previous to that change?
EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that what bad occurred at Leeds was purely by accident, and not from the neglect of proper precautions. With regard to the man Askern, there had been four executions at Leeds since it had been made an Assize town, and on these occasions Askern had officiated as executioner. He was informed that Askern had been an executioner in Yorkshire and elsewhere for about 20 years—so that he had the qualifications which experience could give. The choice of the rope was not left absolutely to the executioner, and it did happen in this particular case that there was some consultation between him and the prison authorities as to the size of the rope to be used. The rope was subjected to a rigid test in order to ascertain whether it was suitable or not. As far as the accident could be traced to
1526
anything, it seemed to have resulted from over precautions having been taken in testing the rope—it was considerably strained, and consequently was unable to sustain such a sudden jerk as the circumstances required. Their Lordships would see that precautions were taken, and that it was in consequence of over care that the accident occurred. As to the number of executions and reprieves since the date when private were substituted for public executions, he could give no information beyond what was contained in the Judicial Statistics for each year. He could not quite gather the meaning of the word "reprieve" as it was used in the Question of the noble Lord. As regards the executions, however, it appeared that there were 10 in 1869, when private executions commenced in consequence of an Act passed in 1868; there were 6 executions in 1870, 4 in 1871, 13 in 1872, 10 in 1873, 16 in 1874, and 18 in 1875. In the six years before the introduction of private executions the numbers were as follows:—12 in 1868, 10 in 1867, 12 in 1866, 7 in 1865, 9 in 1864, and 22 in 1863. He did not think these figures afforded a basis for any theory with regard to the increase or diminution of the deterrent effects of private as compared with public executions.

RAILWAY COMPANIES SERVANTS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to regulate the employment of servants of Railway Companies—Was presented by The DUKE OF ST. ALBANS; read 1a. (No. 46.)
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.