Lords Sitting of 11 June 1880

MINUTES.
— TOOK THE OATH — The Lord Oriel.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Glebe Loan Acts (Ireland) Amendment* (84).
Second Reading —Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order* (77).

TREATY OF BERLIN, ARTICLE 61—ARMENIA.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, on rising to put a Question of which he had given Notice, reminded the House that in previous Sessions he had several times called attention to the state of Armenia. He trusted, however, he need offer no apology for again directing at-

  1723
  tention to the subject—a subject which in itself was worthy of the best consideration of Parliament and of Her Majesty's Government. He had not the slightest wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government in this matter, or to say anything that could injuriously fetter their action or interfere with the solution of the question; but we had now arrived in this matter, as in regard to some other points of our foreign policy, at a very serious crisis, when there was the alternative before us either of a new life for that nation, or of anarchy or annihilation. He would not go into the question as to what actually constituted Armenia; he had simply to deal with that numerous race which was scattered over large tracts of the Ottoman Empire, and to which guarantees had been accorded by the Treaty of Berlin. It was certain that we and other European Powers had undertaken obligations towards those people, and he hoped it was equally certain that both the great political Parties in this country were earnestly desirous to do everything in their power to mitigate the hard lot they had so long endured. With regard to the condition of Armenia, he might almost repeat what he had said before, and the accuracy of which no one had challenged. During the last six months two Blue Books had been issued, and it was almost impossible to turn to any one page of them and not find in it a record of oppression, of broken engagements, unfulfilled promises, and disappointed expectations. Since the war was brought to a conclusion the condition of things in Armenia had been materially worse than before. The people had suffered from pestilence and famine; the high roads of commerce had been broken up; villages had been abandoned; and the Kurds had been making their ravaging incursions on all sides. It was said that no less than 80,000 breech-loaders were in the hands of these miscreants. There was no properly constituted authority in the country. Commission after Commission —Executive, deliberative, and inquisitive—had all been issued with, comparatively speaking, no result. There had been many Reports, but there had been no measures. Baker Pasha had been sent round through several of the Turkish provinces, armed, it was supposed, with very great and extensive
  1724
  powers; but the officers sent with him from Constantinople had rather thwarted him in the task he had undertaken. Under the existing misrule, forced labour went on to a very great extent. Oppression and extortions were carried on under the eyes of the Pashas. The police force was venial, and in league with the robbers; and though some of the Law Courts and Councils of Judges were upright, in the great majority of cases they were simply corrupt. He did not mean to say that these miseries were exclusively borne by the Christians. He believed the Mahomedans suffered greatly also. But while the Christians were in a state of abject terror, the Mahomedans were simply ground down by excessive taxation. He had travelled in Armenia, and his own experience bore out the character given to the people, that they were industrious and honest, with vast capacities in them for all that should constitute the happiness and welfare of nations. One of the records in the Blue Books touched him deeply, for it recorded that 144 villages in the small district where he travelled had been absolutely swept away, and the inhabitants slaughtered or destroyed by the Kurds or famished by starvation. It was stated in the last of those Blue Books that 2,000 families had emigrated in sheer despair to Russia, and that about the same number had joined the Greek Communion, in order thereby to obtain some relief from oppression; and the same Blue Book stated that the Armenian peasantry were so ground down that they were glad to escape anywhere across the Frontier. Nothing could be done in the present state of things by the Local Government, and, with regard to the Central Government, the same story was repeated by every traveller who now came home. He believed that the Central Government was almost impotent at the present moment to do anything, and that its action, so far as it went, tended to mischief rather than to good. Those who composed it seemed to be perfectly bewildered, and it had alienated from it those who had given it the best advice. There was no heavier indictment against the Central Government than that which was framed by Sir Henry Layard in the last Blue Book, where it was said that they were without money, that the troops and civil functionaries were unpaid, and

  1725
  that it was in a state of distress and utter bewilderment. It was only a few weeks ago that the troops in one garrison were not only unpaid, but were absolutely without food, and, after they had fasted for many hours, the unfortunate men were compelled to take their copper utensils into the bazaar and sell them for what they could get. During Easter week, there was no corn in the Government mills, and had it not been for an advance made at his own risk by a single individual the troops would have been without a biscuit. He was told on excellent authority that a meat bill of the Palace, amounting to little short of £100,000, still remained unpaid. The situation at Constantinople was one of despair. They had received no help during the war, and they had got no money since. That feeling of despair was a dangerous one, for, while it made them in one sense more ready to take advice, it made them, on the other, more prone to rush into evils they would otherwise avoid. He believed that on the part of the subjects of the Porte there was a feeling of confidence in and affection towards this country; but he feared that in Armenia the people might be on the verge of a great catastrophe which would end in the extermination of the whole race. There might come a state of chaos in which society would be reduced to its original elements. A stage had been reached at which reforms which might have been introduced some time ago were no longer practicable. There was a want of honest intention to carry them out, and there was a still greater want of money. However, he thought something might be done to avert a catastrophe, and there were two measures which he would strongly urge on the attention of Her Majesty's Government. The first was the appointment of a Christian Governor General for a limited period-—say, of five or six years. This was an object which his noble Friend near him (the Marquess of Salisbury) had constantly had in view. The second was that such officer should have the control of the whole of the local revenue, or a great portion of it, for the exclusive use of the province he governed. Such an appointment would certainly be a great protection to the Christians, and safeguard against the intrigues of the Palace of Constantinople. There would be enough found by the Armenians scat-
  1726
  tered all over the world for the maintenance of their own government. It was not probable that the Mahomedans would object to the appointment of a Christian, for there had been a Petition from a Mahomedan town of 3,000 inhabitants praying for annexation to the Christian Government of the Lebanon. It might be impossible to save the ship, but it might be possible to secure some planks with which to construct a raft on which, at least, some of the people might be preserved from destruction. In conclusion, he begged to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government can state what steps the Turkish Government are taking to restore order and relieve distress in Armenia?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the noble Earl had in his speech answered the Question which he had put. It would not be true to say of the Porte that the Government were taking no steps whatever in the matter referred to; but it was, at the same time, impossible to pretend that anything effectual had been done. With regard to the distress—he was afraid the noble Earl had not exaggerated it; but he had omitted to state that it was due to several causes. It was the result of—1, the late war; 2, the bad harvest; 3, the unsettled state of the country and raids of the Kurds; 4, the call for the arrears of taxes; 5, depreciation of the currency; 6, the arrival of destitute Lazis and Circassians; 7, the mismanagement of the grain stores by the authorities. All reports were to the effect that the famine continued, and that the prospects for the future were very gloomy. The Turks had distributed grain; but there appeared to have been no organized system, and had it not been for the assistance in food and grain supplied by our Consular offices from the funds provided by private charity in this country, the mortality must have been enormous. The famine was beyond the scope of any means which the Turkish Government had at its disposal, under the present corrupt and disorganized administration of the Turkish provinces. Any effectual remedy for the permanent relief of the country could only be found in a thorough reform of the Provincial Government. For that purpose very little had been done, although the Turks had been active in issuing Commissions of Inquiry. In

  1727
  February, 1879, the Porte appointed two Commissions to proceed into the Eastern part of Asia Minor and Kurdistan to in-quire into the condition of the country and the grievances of the Christians. Major Trotter accompanied the Commission in Northern Armenia, and Lieutenant Chermside that in Southern Armenia. Major Trotter characterized the proceedings of the Erzeroum Commission as most unsatisfactory, but stated that the Commission which had proceeded to Diarbekir had afforded a strong and favourable contrast. That was under Abedin Pasha, who, he was glad to learn, had been appointed Secretary of Foreign Affairs, after having distinguished himself by energetic reforms in those posts which he had lately occupied. A local consultative Commission was assembled at Aleppo. Little was expected from it at first; but Lieutenant Chermside, a very intelligent officer, reported favourably of it. These Commissions had been satisfactory in eliciting a fair expression of the wants of the populations, and showing that it was possible for Mussulmans and Christians to work together, at all events up to a certain point, for the benefit of the provinces. Some of the reform Commissions had done good in redressing local grievances. Abedin Pasha, when Governor of Sivas, succeeded in checking the mountain Kurds. Baker Pasha was sent to Anatolia. Her Majesty's Government had not been made acquainted with any of the reports of the reform Commissions, and no action whatever seemed to have been taken upon them by the Porte. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had proposed certain reforms to which objections were made by the Porte. The noble Marquess accepted the promise of these in a modified form from the Porte. But none of these promises had been carried out. The European Finance Inspectors had been unable to do anything practical. Some of them had resigned. The appointment of the Judicial Inspectors had been worse than a failure. The organisation of an efficient Gendarmerie still remained without progress. In short, there had been promises, but no performances. The Asiatic provinces were in a lamentable state of disorder and distress, which the steps taken by the Turkish Government were quite insufficient to redress and
  1728
  to relieve. It was this state of things which induced Her Majesty's Government to invite the Powers to act in concert in demanding from the Porte the fulfilment of the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin, to make known the steps which it had taken as required by that Article, and to enable the Powers to superintend their application.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I fear there can be little doubt that the darkest colour in which my noble Friend behind me could paint the condition of Asia Minor would fall even short of the actual truth. It would be difficult to exaggerate the responsibility, both to their own subjects and to their own individual interests, which belongs to the Turkish Government for their utter negligence and incapacity. But when we have made that admission, I do not know that we are very much further towards the remedy. It is said, in English law, there is no wrong without a remedy; but I am afraid this is not the case in international affairs. No doubt, the step which the noble Earl opposite says he has taken is in itself perfectly regular and proper, and one which will be followed by the sympathy and good-will of all persons who desire the happiness of these miserable populations of the Ottoman Empire; but whether it will prove a highly effective step remains for the future to reveal. In the first place, I need not advert to the question of how far all the Powers, if they nominally act together, are sincere in desiring the amelioration of the Turkish Empire. But, leaving that point entirely aside, the question still remains before you, What power have you of putting such pressure upon the Turkish Government as shall produce a reform of the state of things in Asia Minor? Has the Turkish Government—even if it had the best will in the world—the means of producing those reforms? Has it men, has it money, or has it political experience? Is there anything in the past conduct of the Sultan, with whom it is evident that all power, in the minutest details, practically rests—upon whom, therefore, before history and before the world, the responsibility for all neglects and all abuses must be placed—is there anything in his past conduct to induce you to believe that true reform in the condition of his Asiatic subjects is a matter to which he will

  1729
  heartily address himself, or for which he will sacrifice that individual power in deference to which hitherto every other object has been postponed? My Lords, I believe the stern truth to be that, in the first place, six Powers, with different objects and with conflicting interests, never have yet succeeded, and never can succeed, in governing the country, even if the six Powers were animated by one will. I doubt whether they possess the means to press upon the Turkish Government the adoption of reforms which, in the eyes of many a true Turk, mean suicide. Even if they did possess the power of pressing those reforms on the Turkish Government, as it is constituted, the experience we have gathered slowly and painfully of the character of the present Administration in Turkey forbids us to look with very sanguine hopes upon the probability of the proposals of the European Powers—whatever their will and influence—meeting with a hearty and honest support. I do not absolutely despair for the future, but I have rather dwelt upon this point in order to countervail, as far as I could, the tendency which appeared to prevail in the minds of my noble Friend on this side, and the noble Earl opposite, to attach to the pressure at the centre an undue and excessive value. The Turkish Government is not so well organized, it is not so strong, as to be able to transmit with any force to the extremities the impulse which applies to the centre. If you desire to effect any substantial amelioration in the condition of these miserable populations of Asia Minor, you must push from your minds this exaggerated notion of what can be done by importunity at Constantinople. You must rather look to what can be done by supervision, superintendence, and active exertion in the very localities where the misgovernment takes place, and whence the oppression has to be removed. It is difficult to exaggerate the merit of the exertions made by our Consuls in Asia Minor in the cause of humanity during this terrible time. They are most able servants of the Crown, and I believe they have been able to confer great benefits on the population. It is rather to action of that kind that I look for the amelioration of these populations. The local authorities are subject to the same influences, the same passions, and the same terrors as other men, and if there is an Eng-
  1730
  lish man at their side perpetually pressing upon them the reform of abuses, and the adoption of salutary measures, pointing out to them, and to his superiors at home, all gross cases of oppression, bringing the evils which gnaw at the vitality of the Province fully and clearly, not only to the knowledge of the Governments on the spot, not only to the Government and the Embassy at Constantinople, but also, through the Foreign Office and the Blue Books, to the knowledge of the whole civilized world, bringing out clearly the atrocities that are committed and the abuses that are permitted to exist, I believe that in time and with patience a very great and real amelioration will be accomplished in the condition of the people. I do not mean to say that these oppressors are very sensitive to the emotion of shame; but they are sensitive to their own interests, and they know—the best of those in authority—that their power is precarious, that the ways of Constantinople are inscrutable, and they never can tell whether the outcry that comes from England and Europe echoing at Constantinople may not shake their power. The knowledge we already have from the sources I have mentioned is beginning to have its effect, and these oppressors are beginning to feel that the representations of the British Consul are not to be treated wholly with contempt. It is a slow process; you cannot mark its steps, you cannot specify in formulas the precise manner in which it operates; but if you let in the light, and allow what these men are doing to be seen, not only by the people around them but to all the world, you will produce a substantial and beneficent effect, and that at an early date. I think I heard the noble Earl opposite say that the time is a very long one. I feel the genuineness of the sentiment, and how difficult it is for us, with all these horrors passing before our eyes, still to recognize the truth that for all remedial processes applied to long standing evils time must be allowed and patience is necessary. But, remember, if you do not listen to this stern law of nature, there is before you a terrible alternative. My noble Friend mentioned one tremendous word, which I have sometimes thought may, after all, be the solution to which the Eastern Question is etnding. He said the populations are in danger of extermination,

  1731
  That is the terrible alternative, if no remedy, quick or slow, can be devised. At all events, we have seen what is the result of attempting to apply those impatient remedies which did certainly commend themselves two years ago to the minds of many people. What are called heroic remedies have lamentably failed. I believe the Russian Government—I will not discuss their motives —but, as I have before stated, I believe the Russian Emperor was sincere in his desire to raise the condition of the populations by going to war; but the whole of this misery, described by my noble Friend, is primarily due to that war. Has the population been diminished, and is the land untilled in consequence? It is because that numbers have been drawn by conscription from the field, in order to assist the Turkish Government in its battles. Have taxes been levied twice or thrice over? It is because the war has brought to the Turkish Government desperate embarrassments. It is upon the Russian Government and the Russian War that the main responsibility of the calamities which have happened must rest. My Lords, I only refer to this for the purpose of deprecating the heroic remedies. Any attempt to remedy this evil by force will only aggravate those evils which it is sought to get rid of; and the only result of any further attempt to secure the ends of philanthropy by the shedding of blood will be to produce that terrible result to which my noble Friend has referred—the mutual extermination of the rival creeds and rival races of which this unhappy population is made up.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, it is much more easy at this particular moment for a Member of the Opposition to discuss these questions than for a Member of the Government, because it is always possible in the hurry of debate to say something which might interfere with the active operations of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. But I confess I am somewhat surprised at the language of the noble Marquess opposite, who has just had the responsible charge of the foreign affairs of this country for nearly two years. I confess I could have wished that the noble Marquess, in speaking here to-night, could have said something which would not have given the impression to the inhabitants of Asiatic Turkey
  1732
  that, admitting, as he does to the full, their miserable condition—a condition which he himself has told us holds out to Europe and the world the danger of their extermination—I could have wished that he had not left the impression that there is, in his opinion, absolutely no remedy for this state of things. The noble Marquess, as I understand him, deprecates the supposition that any good can be done by putting pressure upon the Central Government in Constantinople, and he said that the only hope was to leave it to the Consular Agents to make representations to the local Governments and to report to the Government at home. My Lords, this is exactly the process which has been going on for the last 35 or 40 years, and which has been utterly and entirely useless, and has gone on concurrently with a great increase of the evils complained of. The noble Marquess, therefore, has no remedy whatever, and has no hope to hold out to these unfortunate populations. Now, my Lords, this being the opinion of the noble Marquess, I cannot help referring this House to the engagements and the stipulations for which he is responsible. The House may probably not recollect the exact words of the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin. That Article runs as follows—
  "The Sublime Porte undertakes to carry out, without further delay, the ameliorations and reforms demanded by local requirements in the Provinces inhabited by the Armenians"
  —that is, not Armenia only, but all the Provinces of Asiatic Turkey that are inhabited by Armenians, and Armenians are scattered over the whole of Asiatic Turkey—"and to guarantee their security against the Circassians and Kurds." Now, my Lords, these words were taken by the noble Marquess literatim et verbatim from the Treaty of San Stefano. Whatever hopes, therefore, the Eastern Christians have for the protection of their interests come from the adoption of the Treaty of San Stefano. Here there were inserted these words—
  "The Porte will periodically make known the stops taken to this effect to the Powers who will superintend their application."
  Now, my Lords, the noble Marquess is responsible for those words, yet he could throw no light upon them. He seemed to repudiate all interference with Turkey, wishing it to be left absolutely

  1733
  alone, and told us that all the evils that have happened, and all the miseries that have come upon the population, resulted from the interference of other Powers.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said from the Russian War.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: That was one form of interference. Does the noble Marquess think that no obligation lay on the European Powers in consequence of the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin? The Porte promised to introduce reforms, and the Powers undertook to superintend them. Has the noble Marquess no suggestion to make as to the united action of Europe with a view to the superintendence of these reforms? My Lords, the noble Marquess never opens his lips in this House on this question without deprecating any interference on the part of Europe in the affairs of Turkey. Nothing can be done by Europe. If nothing can be done by Europe, nothing can be done for these people at all. I say that Europe, having undertaken this obligation, is bound to fulfil it. I have another observation to make upon the speech of the noble Marquess. The Treaty of Paris provided that whatever was done with regard to the Porte should be carried out by the conjoint action of the Powers, no one of them interfering before the rest had been consulted. There was no such stipulation in the Treaty of Berlin. My Lords, remember this, that every one of the Powers has a right to act separately upon the Treaty of Berlin. Therefore, if Europe does not interfere as United Europe, you have the risk and the danger that one or other of the Powers will interfere; and let me say that this is a danger — an imminent danger—which has been brought upon us by the exertions, the active exertions, of the noble Marquess at Berlin. On the 10th of July, 1878, the Russians brought forward a proposal that a clause should be added to the Treaty of Berlin binding the Powers to see to the fulfilment of that Treaty. That proposition of the Russian Government in a modified form was finally supported by the personal opinion of Prince Bismarck and by the formal adhesion of the Austrian Government. You, therefore, had Russia, Germany, and Austria, all united in recommending that a clause should be added to the Treaty of Berlin binding Europe to see to its fulfilment. Who was the opponent of that clause? The noble
  1734
  Marquess. By his persuasion mainly he procured this result—that England, France, and Italy, not venturing directly to oppose it, took, I must say, the extraordinary and undignified course of refusing to vote on the subject; and when it came to the vote, Austria, Germany, and Russia stood there in favour of that proposition, and England, France, and Italy went out of court, and the Turks, I need not say, were against it. Therefore, I repeat, through the exertions of the English Government, the Treaty of Berlin is without any clause entitling the whole Powers as a body to see to the fulfilment of that stipulation. Now, my Lords, this is part of the political mess to which the present Administration has succeeded—and in which all over the world the noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) has left the Government of England. This is part of the mess in which the present Administration finds itself when they are obliged again to try to unite the Powers of Europe in something like common accord for the fulfilment of that very Treaty of which the noble Lords opposite are so proud. My Lords, it is our desire to carry out these stipulations, it is our sincere desire, and the difficulties which we find in our way are difficulties which were imposed upon us by the active exertions of our Predecessors in Office, and difficulties which are now being from week to week increased by the constant speeches of noble Lords opposite deprecating and disbelieving the possibility of united action. Now, my Lords, I believe, quite contrary to the opinion of the noble Marquess, that the only hope of salvation for the unfortunate populations of Turkey both in Europe and Asia is to exert the united influence of united Europe at the centre of that Government. I believe the hope that our Consuls can effect any reforms of that Government by influence exercised in the Provinces are visionary, because all the Pashas are sent to the Provinces from the most corrupt motives. We cannot act through them, but only through the Central Government of Constantinople. I trust my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) will succeed in re-uniting the Powers of Europe on some common ground for the fulfilment of the Treaty for which the noble Lords opposite are responsible.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETtrusted that, if there was to be any pressure

  1735
  brought to bear on the Turks, Her Majesty's Government would let their Lordships know what it was to be. He heard that the Sultan was much pleased with the change of Government in this country. He said he had used up the patience of the noble Marquess the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but, knowing the noble Earl (Earl Granville) to be a most good-natured and amiable man, the Sultan hoped not to have used up his patience for a year or two. What was going to be done to unite the Powers of Europe? Europe would unite, no doubt, to give advice; but when it came to action would the united Powers agree? Moral pressure would be readily tried again as it had been tried in past years; but when that pressure failed, had the Government decided what to do? That was the real difficulty, and that was the question on which, if the Government had any definite information, he should like to hear their views.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) had followed very much upon the lines of the noble Marquess the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in finding a way not to do anything. His noble Friend who had brought forward the Motion had been confirmed in his description of the state of Asia Minor by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville). The noble Marquess had told them that the Porte had neither the will nor the power to carry out the necessary reforms. He quite agreed that the Porte had not the will; but he was not quite sure that the noble Marquess was correct when he said they had not got the power. It was a very remarkable fact that the Porte had never failed in asserting its authority whenever it suited its purpose to do so. There had been outrages in many parts, and there had been revolts and rebellions; but those revolts and rebellions, often excited indirectly by the Porte itself, had always been put down when they seemed to involve any real menace to the Sultan's power. He was still so convinced of the fact that the Porte— the Sultan and the ruling Pashas—was determined in no way to carry out any reforms, and that, whatever pledges or promises they might give, they were still equally determined not to carry them out, that he agreed with the noble Marquess that any attempt to influence the Porte with the view of obtaining a
  1736
  better state of affairs in Asia Minor was very nearly, if not quite, hopeless. Action should be taken at the extremities, and not at the centre. But when the noble Marquess went on to deal with the question how to carry this out he suggested nothing. As to representations by means of Consuls, as the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) pointed out, that had been going on for 35 years. In fact, nobody could have watched this question without seeing there was only one way by which anything could be done to ameliorate the condition of the Provinces of Asia Minor, and that was by force. But he was not prepared to say how or by what means that force was to be exercised. Without force and troops at their command the remonstrances and representations of our Consuls would be perfectly useless and futile; and matters would remain in this position—that if the Powers did not by force back up the representations of the Consuls the whole population of Armenia would be in danger of total extermination. The noble Marquess said that the cause of the evils under which the Provinces were suffering was mainly due to the late war. To some extent that statement was perfectly correct; but only indirectly so. The real cause of the evils under which Asia Minor suffered was the fixed determination on the part of the Turkish Government not to do anything to protect the people or to improve their position; but, by encouraging the depredations and inroads of the Kurds and the plundering propensities of the Circassians, to effect the total extermination of the Christian population. It was openly boasted at Constantinople that there was only one way to solve the Armenian question, and that was by the emigration of the Armenian population out of those Provinces. The noble Marquess had alluded to the late war; but if the Powers of Europe had united in putting pressure upon the Porte, and, if necessary, had united in putting force on the Porte in support of the decisions of the Conference at Constantinople of which the noble Marquess was a Member, nobody knew better than he that the Porte would not have resisted such pressure. If now the Powers of Europe were prepared to enforce their decisions with regard to Asia Minor by force, there need be very little doubt of the

  1737
  Porte complying with their demands. If the Porte was convinced that for the next three years the action of England was to be limited, as during the last two years it had been limited, to mere empty remonstrances and the publication of Blue Books, be feared there was very little chance of a satisfactory settlement of the difficulty or of those evils under which the population, both Mussulman and Christian, suffered, being put an end to.

  STATE OF IRELAND— AGRARIAN AGITATION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DUNSANY, in rising to call attention to the revolutionary agitation against landed property in Ireland, originated and encouraged by Irish Members of Parliament, to the successful defiance of lawful authority in certain districts, and to the strength which agrarian lawlessness derives from speeches (probably misconstrued) of Ministers out of Office, and to ask Her Majesty's Government for such assurances as might give confidence to the loyal, and to discourage revolutionary hopes and designs, said, be believed the agitation of which he spoke originated with a Gentleman of Irish-American parentage, who probably remembered a passage in American history wherein the resistance offered to the collection of rents was successful. In any case, the invitation given by that Gentleman to the Irish people was to resist payment of rent. The House was doubtless aware that Mr. Parnell had in various parts of Ireland addressed large meetings, and recommended them not to pay their rent, at the same time denouncing landlords and what he called landlordism; and all this had certainly not been without its effect. The most remarkable feature of those meetings was not so much the words used by the speaker as the responses made by the people who heard him, and who were reported to have frequently made use of such cries as "Down with the landlords," "Shoot them," "Give them lead—plenty of lead." It might be thought that Mr. Parnell would have addressed some words of reproof to those who uttered such sentiments, or, at least, that he would have attempted something like dissuasion; but he (Lord Dunsany) was not aware that Mr. Parnell had done this on
  1738
  any occasion except one, when, according to a Cork newspaper, Mr. Parnell remarked—"Well, lead had sometimes been useful." He did not know whether the House would think it revolutionary for a Member of Parliament to tell the people to defy the law. Mr. Parnell was not a man who minced matters. He had spoken out freely in this country and Ireland, and even more freely in America, where, in a speech delivered at Pittsburg, alluding to the determination of the tenant farmers to own the land, he said—
  "I believe in the right of the people to own the land, and, whether they gain it by purchase or by force of arms, it is the duty of every true Irishman to devote his whole energies to the solution of this great question. When we have given Ireland to the people of Ireland, we shall have laid a foundation from which to build up the Irish nation. The feudal tenure and the Irish landlords have been the corner-stone of England's misrule. Pull out that corner-stone, break it up, and destroy it, and you will undermine British government. When we have undermined the English Government, we shall have paved the way for Ireland to take her place among the nations. Let us not forget that this is the ultimate goal at which all Irishmen aim. None of us, whether in America or in Ireland, or wherever we may he, will be satisfied until we have destroyed the last link which binds Ireland to England."
  This seemed to be rather a negation of the idea of Home Rule, under which it was generally supposed that the golden link of the Crown was to unite the two countries; but, according to Mr. Parnell, the last link was to be broken. [The noble Lord quoted another passage from a paper called The Irish World, which he said was to be regarded as a recognized organ of Irish discontent, and he also cited a pamphlet headed "Revolution the only Remedy for the Oppressed Classes of Ireland," as a specimen of the manner in which the Irish people were incited to revolutionary agitation against the laws.] The chief object of such publications appeared to be to inspire the Irish people with a hatred of England. As to Mr. Parnell himself, he believed that, unlike the majority of Irish agitators, he was perfectly sincere, and that his hatred to England was somewhat stimulated by a certain incident during the Fenian disturbances in Ireland. But when a man in his position advised the non-payment of rent, when he advised his hearers, and possibly his dupes, openly to resist the law, one naturally asked what resources did he rely upon?

  1739
  On the side of the law there were the whole powers of the State, which in England were deemed to be simply irresistible. When, therefore, a man counselled others to resist those powers, it was to be presumed that he must have thought of the consequences. The Blue Book lately-laid on their Lordships' Table gave a very disheartening picture of the present state of Ireland. The sum total of the crime for last year—he was speaking now of that agrarian crime, and of by far the smallest portion of it, which was actually brought under the cognizance of the police—was 977 outrages. Those crimes were committed before the accession of the present Government to Office. Officially the present Government had no connection with any of these outrages; but he could not help thinking that many of these outrages—that much of the revolutionary greed for land now in Ireland—were to be attributed to the encouragement which was given to agitation on the Land Question in former times, to the Act of 1870, and to the still more imprudent speech by which that measure was introduced. The catalogue of crime furnished the details of two and a-half outrages for every working day, three for every Sunday, and 17 left for other holidays in the year. It was the more deplorable when they considered that, 10 years after the passing of the Land Act, which was supposed to have settled the question between the landlord and tenant, the amount of crime was greater by 30 per cent. As to agrarian crime, he was sorry to say that the county of Galway took preeminence. During last year 220 agrarian outrages were committed in that county. Next to Galway, Mayo followed with 196 outrages. He was glad to say that in his county (Meath) a very cordial feeling existed between landlord and tenant, and there were very few disturbances, the number of outrages amounting only to 22. He wished to call attention to one case, where a labourer was shot for having fenced a farm from which a tenant had been evicted. There seemed to be an idea that landlords only were shot in the country; but the majority of the outrages mentioned in that Blue Book were directed, not against the landlords, but against the tenants and labourers. There was another case. An armed party entered a house and forced the tenant to
  1740
  go on his knees and promise, a revolver being placed at his head, to accept £100 in lieu of land left to his wife by his father. That, he thought, was the Irish form of settling a Chancery suit. But they would see that in the case in question there was no connection with the landlords. It was merely a family matter. He had a particular reason in turning to the county of Cavan. It was the next county to Meath; but it was not in the Province of Leinster. It was in the Province of Ulster. There was a common impression that in Ulster all was tranquillity; but in Cavan there were 40 outrages. This meant 40 outrages under the Ulster Tenant Eight, as against 22 where the Ulster Tenant Eight did not exist. At the same time, he was bound to say that, if the outrages in Cavan had been 40,000 instead of 40, it would not have been more than one might expect from the advice given by the hon. Member representing the county. He did not wish to say much of that Gentleman, as from his own words their Lordships would be able to form an opinion. By a report in The Times of the 22nd of March, he found that the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), speaking on the borders of the counties of Cavan and Meath, and replying to the toast of "The Irish Parliament," was reported to have referred to what Hartmann had done in Russia, adding that if the Constitutional course which was being pursued in Parliament failed, he believed that Ireland would produce another Hartmann, and with better results. Speaking of a gentleman, an agent named O'Conor, whose views did not coincide with his own, Mr. Biggar had said he would tell his hearers what they would be justified in doing to this person. When he appeared in public he should be hooted from the surface of society.
  "I do not say," continued Mr. Biggar, "you should offer any actual violence, because if you did you would be brought before a partial jury and would not get justice done you in a Court of Law. You would be brought before partizan magistrates, a partizan Judge, a packed jury, and would not get justice done."
  They would observe that, a man being by supposition guilty, none but a partial Judge and jury would convict him. The Irish people, then, according to Mr. Biggar, were not to commit actual outrage from motives of policy. In another speech delivered by Mr. Biggar to a

  1741
  number of Irishmen at Bermondsey on the subject of the future of the Irish race, he said that by the "Irish race"
  "He meant to include all Irishmen of the Roman Catholic faith wherever they might he found. Protestants he did not consider Irishmen at all. They were merely Western Britons accidentally born in Ireland; and, from his own experience, he could say that they were the bitterest enemies to Ireland."
  He was glad Irishmen had clung to their faith, and went on to say that—
  "By Mr. Gladstone's Land Act the tenant farmers of Ireland had considerably benefited. How was that Act obtained—how? Why, by fear. Mr. Gladstone himself had admitted that it was the Fenian rising which had impelled him to bring forward the measure. He (Mr. Biggar) would not say whether he himself was or was not a Fenian; but if anyone called him a Fenian, he would answer that he did not consider that a disgrace. Physical force was the only thing the British Government had the slightest care for. They cared nothing for reason, or justice, or the rights of the people; but it was possible, nay probable, that some day the democracy would break loose, and London warehouses and Lancashire manufactures would be destroyed, and the shipping of the Thames and Mersey would be set on fire. The Irish Party might be few in numbers; but when they remembered the result of the determined efforts of a mere handful of men in Manchestsr and Clerkenwell they could not doubt their ultimate success."
  These were the words of the hon. Member for Cavan, and their Lordships would not be surprised to hear that the result of these utterances had been most melancholy. It was a mistake to suppose that the landlords were the only obstacles to peace and order in Ireland. If the landlords ceased to exist by the process of shooting, or if they were bought out of the land, that would not improve the state of things. The very day the land got into the hands of the tenants there would be a new form of landlordism which would be obnoxious to the people. Another lesson that was to be learned from what had taken place was that Ulster Tenant Right was no remedy. Amongst the various dangers with which Irish landlords were threatened was the extension of tenant right to districts in which it did not exist at present. This extension, unless compensation were given to landlords, would be nothing more nor less than robbery. Where tenant right existed it implied a concurrent proprietary right in the land of the tenant with the landlord; to give it where it did not exist would be to take away
  1742
  from a landlord all that that concurrent right represented. The last inference to be drawn from the Returns was that the Act of 1870 had by no means removed the grievances of Ireland or rendered the country more orderly or peaceful. That being the case, it was certainly not unreasonable of him to ask from Her Majesty's Government some expression of opinion calculated to give confidence to the loyal inhabitants and some discouragement to the disloyal inhabitants. Some language had, no doubt, been used—perhaps unintentionally— by Members of the present Cabinet, which was calculated to excite hopes among the people of Ireland which could only be realized by revolutionary measures. He trusted, therefore, that Her Majesty's Ministers would declare that they had no intention of legislating for Ireland in a manner in which they would not legislate for England or Scotland. He did not deny that they had a right to modify the Land Laws of the whole of the United Kingdom if they saw fit; but there was such a thing as partial legislation, which implied an indefensible injustice. In conclusion, he begged to ask Her Majesty's Government for such assurances as might give confidence to the loyal and discourage revolutionary hopes and designs.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he would not detain their Lordships long; but he wished to call attention to some figures which he thought were instructive on this matter. The character of the offences was an important point to be considered; and he found when he looked into it, of the very large number of offences returned as "agrarian," more than half of them were simply cases of intimidation. The proportion was tolerably equal in the several counties of Ireland, and he was sure their Lordships would admit that intimidation was hardly to be dignified by the name of "agrarian crime." He did not wish to minimize the evil of this system of intimidation, nor did he wish to dogmatize; but it must be admitted that a threat was far less serious than the commission of a crime. Therefore, when he read the figures he had in his hand, he thought they would have some effect on the mind of their Lordships. In Leinster, the number of cases of agrarian crime from 1st March, 1878, to 31st December, 1879, was 209; but of these, 145, considerably more than

  1743
  half, were cases of intimidation. In Munster the figures were 191 and 101, in Ulster 158 and 80, and in Connaught 573 and 351. The number of murderous crimes were as follows:—In Leinster 12, in Munster 21, in Ulster 13, and in Connaught 22. He had quoted these figures because he believed from the remarks he had heard made by individuals in conversation, and also in the newspapers, that many people were under the impression that all the cases returned as "agrarian" were murders, or crimes of a very serious nature. It was important to consider the circumstances under which the increase in crime had taken place in Ireland. The last great increase in crime was at a time of great prosperity—in 1870—when the cases of crime in the four Provinces reached the number of 1,329. The increase was greatest in the unfortunate Province of Connaught, which was a Province not at all blessed by nature, and one, therefore, for which great allowances should be made. Prom investigations lately made by Dr. Hancock, it was found that a very large number of peasants went from Ireland to England every year for the harvest. Nearly a half went from Connaught, and nearly a quarter of the whole number from Mayo. In 1841 there were 10,000 from Mayo. The figures had been increased owing to improved railway communication, and in 1878 20,000 went from Mayo instead of 10,000. In the following year there were 5,000 less from Mayo, and 7,000 less from the whole of Connaught. It was estimated that these men brought £14 10s. a-head to their homes in Ireland, and when in England they were frugal and industrious. Owing to the bad state of agriculture in England it had been estimated that in the Province of Connaught no less than £250,000 had been lost under this head. These figures, he thought, were extremely significant. He did not wish to minimize the effect of the danger the Government had to cope with, or excuse the agitators who were responsible for all, and more than all, the existing dangers; but he did wish to do what he could to absolve his unfortunate countrymen, especially his poorer countrymen, from the charges brought against them.
  The EARL of DUNRAVENthought it would have been desirable if Her Majesty's Government could have given
  1744
  the House some outline of what they intended to do; but, considering the short time they had been in power, he did not think it was fair to expect them to give any distinct idea on the subject. He had no doubt the Common Law in Ireland was quite sufficient for the efficient protection of property if only the Executive, the police of the country, had sufficient power to carry it out, and could depend upon the co-operation of the people. Unfortunately, however, the people did not give the police the assistance which they ought to render. This was a state of mind much to be lamented, but one that no law on earth could remedy. The Government were, no doubt, right in not renewing the Peace Preservation Act, seeing that it was perfectly useless, inadequate for the purpose, and unable to deal at all with the state of things existing in Ireland. It was all very well in its way, and would be useful in dealing with occasional isolated cases of agrarian outrage. But matters were much more serious than that in Ireland. A strong, well-organized, and revolutionary attempt had been made in Ireland to upset the whole social fabric in that country, and the Peace Preservation Act was quite powerless to copewith that attempt. He did not see much use in quartering extra bodies of police in disturbed districts and charging the cost on those districts. The most disturbed localities were the poorest. The fine could only be paid by the well-to-do inhabitants, who were peaceable, law-abiding men; or if the poorer people, the authors of outrages paid it, they would have the absurdity of men breaking the law, and paying the fine for doing so out of funds distributed by the Mansion House Committee and from other charitable sources. The noble Lord (Lord Dunsany) had referred to several speeches delivered outside of Parliament. He must observe that a remarkable speech had been made by the present Prime Minister in Mid-Lothian, in which, speaking of the Disestablishment Question in Scotland, he mentioned the case of the Irish Church. In 1865, he said the Disestablishment of that Church was not within the range of practical politics; but he said a gaol was broken open in the centre of the Metropolis, and at Manchester a policeman was murdered in the execution of his duty. At once, added the right hon. Gentleman, the whole country became

  1745
  alive to the case of Ireland, and the question as to the Disestablishment of the Church was brought within the range of practical politics. He did not for a moment say that the Prime Minister meant to convey that outrage was necessary to compel the Government to give attention to alleged Irish grievances; but it was possible that many people on reading that passage would entertain some such idea. He (the Earl of Dunraven) was not going to ask Her Majesty's Government to give any programme of what they proposed to do in regard to Ireland; but there were some questions relating to Ireland about which there had been some controversy as to whether they did come within the range of practical politics. One was the question of Home Rule. Some persons said an inquiry might be made into the desirability of Home Rule, while others urged that it never could be made. It would be well if the Government would give some idea whether they considered that Home Rule came within the range of practical politics or not, and whether any outrage could possibly bring it into that category. An answer on that point might tend to quiet the minds of the people, and promote the peace and prosperity of Ireland.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he did not intend to follow the noble Lord opposite (Lord Dunsany) into all the matters he had referred to; indeed, he and his noble Friends near him had laboured under the disadvantage of not being able to hear all the noble Lord had said. It would, however, be his duty to make a few observations on the question which the noble Lord had put to the Government. The noble Lord had called attention to what he said was revolutionary action against the landlords of Ireland on the part of certain Irish Members of Parliament. He (Earl Spencer) did not for a moment wish to diminish or take away from the importance which he thought had been very rightly attached to that movement in Ireland. Her Majesty's Government were in no way responsible for anything which had been said or done during the so-called anti-rent agitation. It was conducted by Irish Members of Parliament and others, and the whole responsibility—and it was a very serious one—-for what they did must rest on their heads, and on their heads
  1746
  alone. That agitation, he thought, had had a most pernicious effect in Ireland. That he did not for a moment deny. It had had an effect more or less in every part of Ireland; but they might take consolation from the fact that the agitation had not spread over the whole of Ireland. The noble Lord, however, and Members "elsewhere," and the Press, who took the same view as the noble Lord opposite, spoke as if the agitation had covered the whole of Ireland. Now, he thought it would be exceedingly satisfactory to find that although an attempt had been made to extend this agitation to the whole of Ireland, that attempt might be said to have signally failed except in a few counties. Those counties where it best succeeded were those in which the state of the agricultural population was in the worst possible condition. Those counties were Mayo, Roscommon, parts of Sligo, Galway, Donegal, and Kerry; and when he had said that, he thought he had named all the counties where the rent agitation had taken, if he might use the word, anything like root. There had been other counties in which it had been tried; but he thought he might venture to appeal to their Lordships' recollection when he said that where it had been attempted in other counties the agitators had not succeeded. As to this agitation, he thought it might have an exceedingly bad effect not only upon the people themselves, who in Ireland were so easily led by any doctrine connected with the land, but also he thought it had a prejudicial effect upon the Irish landlords themselves. That agitation tried to compel all the tenants, regardless of what their rents were, to require their landlords to abate their rents 30 or 40 per cent. Did not that mean to discourage the landlords who had been at times very considerate to their tenants, against doing what they had done? The tenants were to be induced to demand reductions of rent from those considerate landlords. For his part, he felt bound to protest against the doctrine, which he had heard from time to time, that the landlords in Ireland, as a class, were harsh to their tenants. He did not for a moment think that that allegation could be proved. There were landlords in Ireland as considerate as any landlords to be found in England or Scotland were. In every country, of

  1747
  course, and in Ireland especially, there were landlords not of that class, and they had, no doubt, brought upon that country many of the evils which they all deplored; but he felt bound to say that the landlords of Ireland were not the exceedingly harsh men they had been so often described. With respect to the extent of the disturbances which had been referred to, he did not wish their Lordships to suppose that Her Majesty's Government considered the state of Ireland to be satisfactory. He was afraid that in some parts of the country there existed a very formidable conspiracy against law and order. The Government were fully aware of that fact, and he did not wish in any degree to diminish the importance of what had been said on the subject. The range of the disturbances, however, was extremely limited. The noble Lord had referred to a number of agrarian crimes committed in Ireland during the year 1879, amounting to 937. But where were those crimes committed? He found that 544, or more than half of them, were committed in one Province of Ireland— namely, in Connaught, in the counties of Mayo, Sligo, Galway, Leitrim, and Roscommon. He would now turn to another piece of evidence on this subject — the charges delivered by the Judges to the Grand Juries at the Spring Assizes. He had gone through those charges as far as he could, and had analyzed the result of these charges, and he found that in Ireland there were seven counties where the state of the country was bad. He did not mince what the Judges said; but he found that there were 19 instances where they said the state of the country was exceedingly good, and only seven where the state of the country was at all doubtful. He could read, but he would not do so, extracts from the charges of those Judges in counties, where in former days there had been a great amount of crime, to show that in those counties during the past year there had not been an amount of crime to create serious alarm. One of these counties was that of Meath, which the noble Lord (Lord Dunsany) said was his own county, and to his tenants there he paid a just tribute. In Westmeath, Chief Justice Morris said there were very few cases. This, he thought, was sufficient to show that in a great part of Ireland this agitation had
  1748
  not succeeded in any way, and outrages had not followed it. With regard to outrages, he would like just to make one observation. The noble Lord (Lord Mont-eagle), whom the House was always glad to hear, because from his position in Ireland he was able to afford much useful information, had said that there were cases of threatening. No doubt, there was some extent of truth in the remarks of the noble Lord; but he would not go the length the noble Lord did in saying that threats and intimidation were not serious crimes.
  LORD MONTEAGLE: I said the threat to commit a crime was not so serious as the crime itself.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he was afraid it indicated a bad state of things when threatening letters were sent out; it showed that there was agitation going on which was pernicious and which could not be disregarded. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Dunsany) had referred to various matters, such as the question of the effect of the extending of the Ulster Tenant Eight over Ireland, and he also asked Her Majesty's Government whether they would declare that they did not agree with those who told the tenants that they were to get the landlords property? He felt almost ashamed to have to answer such a question. The noble Lord, he was sure, could never believe that anyone sitting on the Ministerial Bench would advocate the handing over the land to the tenants.
  LORD DUNSANY: Of course, I did not suppose that the Government would go that length; but 5 per cent of the land was transferred to the tenants by the Land Act, and it has been said by Mr. Bright that far more drastic measures would be necessary.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, of course, the operation of the Land Act was a wide subject which could notnow be discussed. All these matters called for that mature consideration which he was sure the Government would give to them. His noble Friend (the Earl of Dunraven) had asked whether Government would make a declaration of their policy with regard to Home Rule? He (Earl Spencer) was not there that night to make a declaration of that sort, and he did not think it would have been brought up; but as his noble Friend had quoted a speech of the Prime Minister's, he would venture to quote another passage of a speech

  1749
  of his right Hon. Friend which would form a sufficient answer to the question. After the Prime Minister had made one of his speeches in Scotland as to the difficulties there were of Parliament conducting all its Business, he said he should be very glad to see some measure for relieving the block of Business that was in Parliament, and he added these words—
  "There is one limit, and one only, to the extension of local government. It is this— Nothing can be done by any wise statesman or any right-minded Briton to weaken or compromise the authority of the Imperial Parliament. The Imperial Parliament must be supreme in these Kingdoms, and nothing that creates a doubt on that policy can be tolerated by patriotic Britons."
  He (Earl Spencer) felt no doubt that the Prime Minister would now adhere to the views he then stated; and he (Earl Spencer) could in no better way answer the Question of the noble Lord than by putting forward that view. He would not weary their Lordships with any further remarks. He would only say, in answer to the last part of the noble Lord's Question, that he would assure him and all those connected with Ireland that Her Majesty's Government would watch with the utmost vigilance all that passed in that country. They would not in any way strain the law, but they would put that law into execution with a firm hand; and they thoroughly believed if they were supported, as they hoped they would be, by all the loyal people in that country, that they would, even though those special measures were not re-enacted which were enforced under the Peace Preservation Act, be able to maintain order thoroughly in that country. He hoped that, without using those special powers for giving strength to the arm of the law, they would be able to administer that law with as much success as it could be administered in that country.

OUTRAGES (IRELAND.)

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMmoved for—
  "A Return of all cases of murder, maiming, or injury to the person since the last Spring Assizes, for which claim for compensation has been made under the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, which has recently expired;"
  and asked how Her Majesty's Government proposes to meet such claims?
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he believed there would be no objection to giving the Return asked for. As to the latter part of the Question, it would be quite impossible for the Government to meet any such claims for compensation. It was not legal for them to do so.
  Motion agreed to.
  Return ordered to be laid before the House.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.