Lords Sitting of 22 March 1877

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Justices Clerks (28).
Select Committee—Public Record Office (21), nominated.
Second Reading — Committee negatived — Third Reading—(£700,000) Exchequer Bills and Bonds, and passed.

TURKEY—THE CHRISTIAN SUBJECTS OF THE PORTE—TREATIES WITH GREAT BRITAIN.

  POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had given Notice for that evening to move—
  "For Copies of all the Imperial decrees capitulations, and conventions of any kind which entitle Great Britain to intervene against abuses in the government of the Porte and. in favour of the races subject to it, without reference to the Treaties formed after the Crimean war for

  307
  upholding the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire."
  He understood that the negotiations between this country and Russia were still going on, and that while they were pending there could not be a discussion on his Motion without the greatest inconvenience. He therefore begged to postpone his Motion till the first day on which the House met after the Easter Recess.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE PROTOCOL—SIR HENRY ELLIOT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I have given private Notice to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that I would make a Motion for Papers relative to Eastern Affairs. As the noble Lord (Lord Campbell), who had given Notice that he would this evening move for the production of Papers relating to the Christian subjects of the Porte, has postponed that Motion, I will now make a formal Motion that there be laid on the Table of the House certain Papers showing what has transpired with reference to the Eastern Question since the presentation of the last Blue Books. Having given Notice to the noble Earl, I may be permitted to address to the House a few words on the general subject. I cannot but feel that with regard to the Eastern Question certain Papers which would tell us what has taken place since the meeting of the Conference should be at the disposal of your Lordships. If we may trust public information, something like an understanding has been come to; and if that is the case, I should like very much to know what it is. We are led to conclude that what the Government primarily desires is the peace of Europe, and not the protection of the Christian subjects of the Porte. I, for one, would not stand a single moment in the way of peace; but I believe that the feeling of this country would be entirely against the signing of a Protocol of this kind if the main question is entirely forgotten. The peace of Europe, so far as this country is concerned, is regarded as a secondary consideration; the first and main one is that the Christian subjects of the Porte should be more fairly governed, and that the undertaking which has been given should not be allowed to pass on the bare promise that reforms will be carried out. The signing of the
  308
  Protocol might bring about peace, but would leave Turkey perfectly free to act towards the Christian population just in the same manner as she has hitherto done. I believe myself that the Government have been perfectly consistent up to the present time in the policy they have adopted, and have refused to put their hands to anything that means coercion either now or in the future: but the result of that will be that there will be no change in the shameful treatment of the Christians in Turkey. The Government have contented themselves with giving advice couched in the strongest terms as the only pressure to be brought upon Turkey. I believe that pressure—moral pressure, or moral persuasion, call it what you will—brought to bear on the Ottoman Government, will have no effect in securing for those Provinces what the Great Powers at the Conference declared to be necessary, and the effect of such a Protocol as it is understood the Government are about to agree to will be to let all the efforts of the Conference fall to the ground without issue. Whatever else may happen, I cannot believe that this should be the only outcome of the expression of public opinion in this country during last October—for little has been said comparatively with regard to the subject since. The heart of the people is still sound on this particular point. I do not believe that England will consent to put herself into such a ridiculous position as that, after having at thousands of meetings denounced in the strongest language the Turkish oppression of these Provinces to have been such as to justify us in putting all our Treaties with Turkey on one side so soon as this Protocol is signed, no more should be heard of the justice of the case. Even if it be true that since the time this question was discussed the requirements of the commerce and trade of this country and throughout the world have taken possession of the mind of the people, I do not think that what appears to me a matter of such moment should be allowed to pass without some protest, even if it be from a single voice. So much for the English view of the Protocol. I must take it that the Protocol has been approved and signed by Russia; but I cannot conceive that such a document will be satisfactory to the Russian people. If it has any meaning at all, a strong change must have been

  309
  wrought in the feeling of the people of Russia, which has been so stirred in behalf of the Slav cause. I am one of those who, up to this time, have had faith in what was declared to be the Imperial policy at Moscow It is seldom, indeed, that promises of that sort are made by the head of a great nation; but those promises having been made, I cannot believe that the present policy of Russia is only to retire from the position she has placed herself in, nor that, after the strong expression of feeling manifested throughout the whole of Russia, the mere acceptance of a Protocol by the guaranteeing Powers can be considered satisfactory to that country. I understand that the question has been asked already whether Sir Henry Elliot, our late Ambassador at Constantinople, will return to his post; and, although the Government have stated that it is intended a temporary arrangement shall be made, it has not been definitely stated that Sir Henry Elliot is not to go back; and I cannot conceive anything more disastrous to the high standing of this country, or more in opposition to the general feeling of the people, than that such an official should find himself the trusted Ambassador of this country again. He has manifested on more occasions than one a strong feeling in favour of the Turks. It was at his advice, we are told, that the fleet was sent to Besika Bay for the protection of the Christians at the time the revolution broke out; but, in my opinion, if a few companies of infantry had been sent to the scene of action, that would have had much more effect than all the ironclads put together. I am far from speaking in any sense hostile to the Government; but, in my opinion, the fleet was sent to Besika Bay for the moral support of the Turks, and not for the protection of any portion of the Christian population. Subsequently, the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary has informed the Porte, in the most decisive language, that in consequence of the atrocities committed in Bulgaria, the Turkish Government can no longer look to the moral support of England. But, notwithstanding that declaration, and the strong language used by our special Ambassador at the breaking up of the Conference, Sir Henry Elliot, when taking his leave at Constantinople, expressed his hopes that when he came back, as he expected very
  310
  soon to do, he should find Turkey prosperous. He could not understand how, after the language of our Plenipotentiary at the Conference, the Government could think of sending back Sir Henry Elliot to Constantinople, and thus placing England in so false a position in the face of Europe. With the Constitution just proclaimed the position of the Porte at the present moment is such that any interference in her affairs would be most justly resented by her. The only thing she has offered in return for your Conference, for your advice, and for the protection you have extended to her, is this: she has declined them altogether, and decided to stand upon her own footing; and with that Europe is bound to be content. If that is the case, the whole sufferings of the Christian Provinces are forgotten, and Turkey is in the same position she was before. She can let loose her passions as before, she has nothing to restrain her. She cares nothing for the public opinion of Europe, and, as a matter of fact, she has never enjoyed greater independence than she possesses at the present moment. There is little hope for Turkey, and I trust that the Government will not again enter into negotiations with her unless this question is settled in a satisfactory manner. If the Plenipotentiary and Ambassador came away diplomatic relations must have been broken off, and why they should have been renewed since I cannot understand. Turkey is faithless and bankrupt, and no relation should be held with her until the wrongs of her Christian population have been redressed.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he must express his opinion that the course adopted by the noble Earl was not a right one. He could not think it regular, convenient, or just to attack a man without Notice. He was not himself acquainted with Sir Henry Elliot; but he had no doubt there were noble Lords who would have come down prepared to defend him had Notice been given of the attack just made on him. Again, he protested against what the noble Earl had done as inconvenient and most unfair and unjust; and he ventured to express a hope that such mode of procedure would find no favour in their Lordships' House.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, that there was a Notice on the Paper relative to Eastern Affairs.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: Yes—but not by the noble Earl who has just spoken.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEYsaid, that having given private Notice that he would move for these Papers, he did not think he was out of Order in making a few remarks. If there had been the slightest expression of opinion on the part of the House he would have desisted; but he believed that the observations he made were couched in such general terms that they could not be construed into a personal attack upon the Ambassador.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I must say, notwithstanding the disclaimer of the noble Earl, I feel with the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) that the course adopted by the noble Earl is one, to say the least of it, singularly inconvenient as regards the transaction of Public Business, not warranted by the forms or customs of the House, and, under the circumstances existing in this case, is of great unfairness to an individual. It is perfectly true that the noble Earl (the Earl of Dudley) gave private Notice to me of his intention to move for Papers—which, by the way, he has not moved for—in connection with the Eastern Question. Of course, I could not and did not object to his doing so; but it must be obvious to all your Lordships that for a noble Lord to give Notice of a Motion which is not on the Paper, and the terms of which do not appear on the face of the Notice, and thereon to enter upon a discussion of a subject of great magnitude and importance, must be highly inconvenient. The only person who had Notice of the noble Earl's Motion is myself, and certainly I did not know, and could not suppose, that he was about to enter into a general discussion of the whole Eastern Question. My Lords, we have discussed this question on three occasions within the last six weeks, and I think, therefore, it is all the more unreasonable and inconvenient that the noble Earl should, under the form of a formal Motion for Papers, come down and enter into the subject of the negotiations between this country and Russia and call upon those who represent the Executive of the country to give explanations on matters of Imperial policy. I shall not ramble over the wide field traversed by the noble Earl, but I must say that I think he has not been very accurate in his
  312
  language. He wants to know why our diplomatic relations with Turkey, if they were broken off, should be renewed, and if we were right in breaking them off, how we are justified in renewing them? If the noble Earl had taken the trouble to read the Papers, he would have found that diplomatic relations never have been broken off with Turkey. So far from that, when we agreed with the other Powers to withdraw our Ambassador we almost went out of our way to make it clear to all concerned that we did so merely as an expression of our feeling at the failure of the Conference, and that no rupture of diplomatic relations with the Porte was intended or implied. The noble Earl then went on to express opinions in which I do not think he will find any one to agree with him, either in or out of this House. He protested against the understanding come to, or about to be come to, between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia. How can the noble Earl know what that understanding is? That, I think, is a question which only he himself can answer. No result has yet been arrived at in the negotiations, on which we are still engaged, and if the noble Earl is acquainted with the result at which we are to arrive I can only say that he knows a great deal more than I do or than any other Member of the Cabinet. The noble Earl next says that the peace of Europe is only a secondary consideration, the primary one being the good government of the Christian Provinces of Turkey. I think the noble Earl can scarcely have reflected before he used that language. I hope I do not undervalue the importance of good government in the Christian Provinces of Turkey; but it must be obvious to any one that a single month—I might almost say a single week—of a European war would bring in its train far greater horrors than any which have occurred in the Turkish Provinces. I will not enter into a discussion, which I am certain your Lordships would feel premature and out of place, on the nature of the Protocol we have been invited to take part in. Its wording and the conditions on which, if signed, it will be signed are still under the consideration of the Cabinet; and in this, as in all similar cases, we act with the responsibility which attaches to the advisers of the Crown. Any steps which may be taken

  313
  shall not be kept secret one hour from this House and the country; and upon them, when they are taken, we shall be quite prepared to invite the opinion of Parliament. I really do not know what is the standard or measure of policy or impolicy in the mind of any one who regards the maintenance of European peace as a secondary affair; but I think that whatever opinion I might entertain of the Turkish Government, if I were addressing the House as an independent Member, I should think twice before I used language so likely to have the effect—if it should have any effect at all—of irritating and exasperating the Russian people against the pacific policy which, to its honour, the Russian Government is showing itself willing to adopt, and so calculated to increase the difficulties of friendly Governments, and to postpone, if not to defeat, that solution of the question which we all desire. I have only one other remark to make, and it is as to what the noble Earl said in regard to Sir Henry Elliot. He was well answered on that point by the noble Duke who spoke opposite (the Duke of Somerset). I do not think that—at any rate in this manner—Sir Henry Elliot ought to have been attacked. It is not just that an able public servant, disabled temporarily from the performance of his duties by the very efforts he has made during the last 12 months, in spite of ill-health, to perform those duties efficiently, should be attacked without the warning which would have enabled him to meet the charges made against him, and without notice to those who would have been ready to defend him. For my part, I do not know in all the diplomatic service of this country one public servant more assiduous, more industrious, or more public-spirited than Sir Henry Elliot. If there is such a feeling abroad as to his disqualification for a high diplomatic position as appears to be present in the mind of the noble Earl, I can only say I heartily wish that those who hold that opinion would have the courage to assert it, and to assert it in a form in which it could be submitted to the judgment of Parliament. I do not think I need trouble the House further. In regard to the Papers which the noble Earl announced his intention of moving for, I may say some further documents are preparing for publication, and we shall be ready to lay them
  314
  on the Table at the earliest convenient moment.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: I do not think the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has any cause to complain of this question being brought forward, as the noble Baron (Lord Campbell) opposite had a Notice referring to the subject on the Paper for to-night, and that Notice was only withdrawn at the last moment. On the contrary, I think the noble Earl (the Earl of Dudley) was perfectly justified in bringing this important question before the House. The noble Earl the Foreign Secretary has told us that the withdrawal of the Ambassadors from Constantinople was not to be understood as a breaking off of diplomatic relations, but as an expression of opinion on the part of the Governments at the failure of the Conference. Well, if it was necessary that the opinion of this country in regard to the failure of the Conference should be expressed by the withdrawal of our Ambassador, has the opinion of the Government in regard to the failure of the Conference changed, that they should now send their Ambassador back to Constantinople? If there was any meaning in his withdrawal at that moment there must also be a meaning—but a contradictory one—in sending him back at the present time—especially if it is done without concert with the other Powers. A proceeding of that description appears to lay the Government of England open to the charge of not acting in a straight-forward manner towards those Powers with whom, during the Conference, they expressed their desire and anxiety to act. I think the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary has also done great injustice to the noble Earl opposite. That noble Earl said that he wished here to make his protest against any agreement being come to by which the wrongs of the Turkish Christians should be left unredressed. I do not wish to dilate now upon that point; but the Foreign Secretary seemed to wish to turn what the noble Earl opposite had said into an expression of indifference on his part to the maintenance of the peace of Europe. Now, if peace can only be secured by leaving the Christian populations of Turkey under that horrible government and in that wretched condition in which we know they are at present, I doubt much whether peace is worth preserving at that price. The real fact is—and the noble

  315
  Earl must know it—that whatever agreement you may come to, and whatever I terms you may make that do not ensure the real pacification of the Christian Provinces, you will fail to secure the permanent peace of Europe. To think that, with Montenegro discontented and Bosnia and the Herzegovina in insurrection, you can now sign a Protocol which can be—I will not say a panacea for all the evils under which they are suffering—but which will prevent further disturbances in that country, or connected with it, is a belief that I do not think the Government can be blind enough to hold. I must say—anxious as I should be to support the Foreign Secretary, and regretting, as I do, to have to say anything in criticism of his policy—I cannot help thinking that if last year, when what was called the Berlin Memorandum was presented to this country for signature, the noble Earl had looked at the whole importance of the questions involved; if he had grasped in his mind all the interests that were affected by it; if he had then adopted a different policy, and sought to secure the peace of Europe by insisting on that of Turkey, we should not now be discussing, as we are, this question, not knowing from day to day what may happen, and hardly knowing what we ourselves are wishing.
  LORD DENMANrose to speak, when—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would point out to your Lordships that there is no question before the House.
  LORD DENMANsaid, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack seemed to think that he had the same power as the Speaker of the House of Commons, but he had no power over "an independent Member," and he would move the adjournment of the debate. With respect to Sir Henry Elliot, an irregular Question was asked by the noble Earl on the front Opposition Bench (Earl Granville), and answered by the noble Earl Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as to that Ambassador. It bad been stated that he would have returned to his post, as requested, if his health had permitted, but that no temporary successor had been appointed. He (Lord Denman) ventured to think that during his temporary absence a man like Sir William Mure, who had been 40 years on excellent terms with Mahomedans in India, whilst not indifferent to the truths of Christianity, as
  316
  the report of a recent meeting in Edinburgh would show, might do good service at Constantinople. With regard to Sir Henry Elliot, he (Lord Denman) thought that distinguished diplomatist might say of himself—
  "Ille potens sui
  Lætusque deget cui licet in diem
  Dixisse, Vixi eras vel âtra
  Nube polum Pater occupato,
  Vel sole puro: non tamen irritum
  Quodcunque retro est, efficiet; neque
  Diffinget infectumque reddet
  Quod fugiens semel hora vexit."
  Moved that the House do now adjourn. —(The Lord Denman.)
  On Question, agreed to.

  PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE BILL [H.L.]
  Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  Ld. Chancellor.

  E. Sydney.

  D. Somerset.

  E. Redesdale.

  D. Bedford.

  L. Brodrick.

  M. Bath.

  L. Rayleigh.

  M. Ripon.

  L. Rosebery.

  E. Devon.

  L. Houghton.

  E. Shaftesbury.

  L. Hartismere.

  E. Malmesbury.

  L. Hatherley.

  E. Powis.

  L. Selborne.

  E. Harrowby.

  EXCHEQUER BILLS AND BONDS (£700,000) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order); Committee negatived; then Standing Orders Nos. XXXVII. and XXXVIII. considered (according to order), and dispensed with; Bill read 3a, and passed.
  House adjourned accordingly at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.