Lords Sitting of 19 March 1897

INTEGRITY OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

  SPEECH BY LORD KIMBERLEY AT NORWICH.
  THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): I have given the noble Earl private notice that I wish to call attention to some observations which he is reported to have made at Norwich, and first about a matter of very little importance, which is a purely personal question. The noble Lord said—
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Is the noble Marquess quoting from The Times report?
  THE PRIME MINISTER: Yes. These are the words used by the noble Earl:—
  "It so happened that it was his duty the previous night to ask the Prime Minister to make a statement to Parliament on the policy which was being pursued by the Government, and he received for answer that he might find that policy stated, not by the Minister of the Crown, but by the Minister of France."
  I have a report of what passed in this House, and the noble Lord's interpretation of it departs so widely from what actually took place that I feel it necessary to contradict it lest I should be supposed to admit the statement to be true by default. He did not ask me precisely to make a statement of the policy of the Government. He asked me whether I was
  "in a position to make any statement as to the determination now come to by the Powers with regard to their course of action as to Greece and Crete."
  My reply was:—
  "The only answer I can give to that Question which states any fact not already formally known to the House is, that instructions have been given to the Admirals for the blockade of the island of Crete. Beyond that I do not think that there is anything which corresponds with the description implied by the Question of the noble Earl."
  In my answer I did not state that he must not come to a Minister of the
  1010
  Crown but should go to a Minister of France, but I went on to say that he would
  "find an admirable statement of the policy of the Powers, though not containing any fact or many facts absolutely new, in the speeches of the Minister I referred to."
  Then again the noble Lord said he would prefer to hear a statement from Her Majesty's Minister, and I replied:—
  "I think the House has heard all I can give in explanation of the policy of the Powers to which Her Majesty's Government have assented. I am not aware that I have omitted anything."
  As the House knows, I have on one or two occasions made quite as fully as I was asked to do, and I believe as fully as the subject permitted, statements of the agreement the Powers had come to, and had told the noble Lord absolutely everything I knew which the Powers had agreed to. I think, therefore, it is something of an outrage that the noble Lord should go down to Norwich and state there that, when he asked for a statement of policy, I had told him he must go, not to a Minister of the Crown, but to a Minister of France. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, that is a private question that really does not matter very much, only I do not wish to allow the statement of the noble Lord to remain without absolute contradiction and to be accepted as a fact by reason of any default of mine. But there is something much more important in the noble Lord's speech at Norwich to which I wish to call attention, and that is with respect to the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. The noble Earl made this statement:—
  "He found from the statement of the French Minister that the policy of this Government was the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Were we to approve of that policy which had for its basis the integrity of the Ottoman Empire?"
  Then again at the end of his speech the noble Earl said:—
  "He would only say that every one of them in that meeting was convinced that the cause of freedom should be advanced, and repudiated and utterly refused to accept a policy which was based upon the integrity of Turkey."
  Now this is a very momentous statement, and, if made at all, should have been made in this House—should have

  1011
  been made where it could be dealt with. It is a momentous statement, not only by reason of its intrinsic character, but because of the position of the man who made it. The noble Lord who made that statement was himself a Member of the Government by which the integrity of the Ottoman Empire was made part of the law of Europe. He has held office again and again since then, and quite recently he was Minister for Foreign Affairs. I am not aware that he has given to anybody on any occasion any ground for the belief that he had repudiated the policy which the chief he served and the Government to which he belonged solemnly adopted and to which they put the name of England in 1856. ["Hear!"] It is only now that he has done it. He will tell me that the Sultan of Turkey has behaved very badly in the last two years, and I do not traverse that statement. I admit it to the full extent, and I deplore and condemn what has been done as much as he can. ["Hear, hear!"] But if his declaration of the policy solemnly declared by his Party and the Foreign Minister in whom they trusted, before Europe, and agreed to by England in the face of Europe, is to be given up because only during two years there have been actions on the part of the Turkish Government which deserve the deepest condemnation, I think the policy was either very lightly adopted or very lighted abandoned. [Ministerial cheers.] But beyond that it is not merely the past which must be considered. It is his future. If the present Ministry went out of office the noble Lord would probably be Minister of Foreign Affairs. He comes in with an announcement that he is pledged to disregard that which all Europe has, up to this time, adopted as the basis of its policy. A graver statement could not have been made, and I repeat that it should have been made in some more formal manner, and with some fuller statement of reasons, than on a Party platform at Norwich. I feel how heavy a blow the noble Lord has dealt at the policy of this country. Of course, I may say what I please, for I am only the holder of an office until such time as I vacate it, and when I vacate it, it will probably be held by a statesman who has pledged himself to disregard the solemn
  1012
  signature of England with regard to one of the most important treaties of the century. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not take the integrity of the Ottoman Empire for a permanent dogma. It was established by the Legislature of Europe; it was established, it has been modified by them; no doubt it will be modified again. But this is the first time, as far as I know, that a man who has been Foreign Minister and will probably be Foreign Minister again, declares in the face of Europe that he will disregard the signature of his country, and, not with the consent of the other Powers, but in their face, will tear up the engagements to which he has come. [Ministerial cheers.] I feel bound, at all events, to separate myself as strongly as possible from that declaration. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not by any means hold to the doctrine that the integrity of Turkey will not be modified. It may be very likely modified in the future, but what is done will be done by the consent of all the Powers by which the integrity of Turkey was made part of European law. Much was said, not, I think, by the noble Lord, but by those who stood by him, in condemnation of the Powers of Europe on this occasion. At least it may be said for them that they are representing a continuity of policy, and that they are maintaining the law of Europe as it has been laid down by the only authority competent to create law for Europe. They have been defied by a State which owes its very existence to the Concert of Europe. Had it not been for the Concert of Europe the Hellenic kingdom would never have been heard of. They have been defied—if breach of obligations and disregard of former statements is any aggravation—under circumstances of the gravest aggravation that could have taken place. In point of international law, Greece has not a shred of right to the island of Crete she has invaded—I say in point of international law, and the Powers of Europe appear as the defenders of international law, believing that unless it be respected the peace of the world is worth a very few years' purchase. [Ministerial cheers.] I know that there are those, and I suppose the noble Lord opposite is one of them, who appeal to some higher law, whose precise provisions I do not know, but by which what would have been a filibustering expedition in any other

  1013
  Power in this case is a righteous act, because of some superior obligation, I do not know where it comes from, but which is deduced by a subtle logic which I cannot follow from the fact that the battles of Thermopylæ and Salamis were fought 2,000 years ago. [Laughter.] Crete is not the only island in the world which, is dissatisfied with the Monarchy to which it is attached; and other races, too, have in the distant past hopes and traditions of which they are proud, and to which the poets among them love to appeal. If the Thermopylæ and Salamis argument is to be taken into the law of Europe, it will not be only the Turkish Empire, it will not be only the Treaty of Paris which will be affected by such a novel doctrine. ["Hear, hear!"] I feel it is our duty to sustain the federated action of Europe. I think it has suffered by the somewhat absurd name which has been given to it—the Concert of Europe—and the intense importance of the fact has been buried under the bad jokes to which the word has given rise. But the federated action of Europe—if we can maintain it, if we can maintain this Legislature—is our sole hope of escaping from the constant terror and the calamity of war, the constant pressure of the burdens of an armed peace which weigh down the spirits and darken the prospects of every nation in this part of the world. ["Hear, hear!"] The federation of Europe is the only hope we have; but that federation is only to be maintained by observing the conditions on which every Legislature must depend, on which every judicial system must be based—the engagements into which it enters must be respected. ["Hear, hear!"] They must not be treated as pieces of waste paper to be torn asunder at will in obedience to any poetical, or rhapsodical, or classical feeling that may arise. It must not be denounced by the Ministers who have been partisans and colleagues of those by whom they were signed. It must not be thrown over at the mere will of an outside Power, whose motives it is not for me now to canvass, but which is no just subject for the eulogies that have been passed upon it. I think I may add that the maintenance of that federation of Europe will be increasingly difficult if every statesman who has retired from public life thinks it right to fling insults at the Sovereigns who occupy the principal thrones of
  1014
  Christian Europe. [Ministerial cheers.] I think these are very grave matters, which should be submitted to your Lordships' House. I cannot cavil because the noble Lord chooses to entertain notions which are certainly eccentric amongst statesmen, and which are entirely novel in himself. But I do cavil at the time he has selected to reveal them, and at the mode he has adopted in order to enforce them on his countrymen. ["Hear, hear!"] At all events, I wish to say that we have no part in them, and that, whatever measures the Concert, the federation, of Europe may in the future, in its wisdom, think it right to take with respect to the integrity of Turkey, we will be no party to a violation of that integrity without their authority, consecrated as it is by congresses the most solemn, by negotiations the most important, by events which should have pressed their value upon every mind, and having been, in the minds of some of the greatest statesmen we have had—statesmen not belonging to this side of the House—the foundation of European order, and of the policy which this country has consistently pursued. [Cheers.]
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Let me just say a word on what the noble Marquess mentioned, and called a private matter. I need scarcely say, and I am sure the noble Marquess will believe me when I say, that I have not intentionally misrepresented him. For my part, although I have heard the contradictions the noble Marquess has given, I am quite unable to perceive how I did misrepresent him. It is quite true that he commenced his answer to me by stating that the only information he could give was that instructions had been given to the Admirals to institute a blockade of Crete. I may mention, though I do not attach special importance to it, that something else was told to the other House—namely, that a communication had been addressed to the Powers, and for that reason, I think it was added, nothing further could be told. I do not lay too much stress upon it, but that is the fact. But the noble Marquess went on, as he himself has quoted quite correctly, to refer to statements which had been made the day before in the French Clamber. The noble Marquess bases part of his objection to my view of what he had said upon my having asked

  1015
  a Question as regards the Powers. I put the words"the Powers" in my Question because the noble Marquess objected to my asking, on a previous night, what was the policy of Her Majesty's Government, or something to that effect. The Powers included Her Majesty's Government—and necessarily included Her Majesty's Government—and what I wished to hear was what was the policy of the Government as regards the course which had been determined upon. It is by no means necessary, nor is it at all probable, that, when the six Powers come together to determine upon a course of action in a very difficult and grave matter, they will be all actuated by the same motives of policy. In fact it cannot be so. The French have their own interests, and, of course, in coming to a determination are actuated by a care for those interests. And so have all the other Powers. They may come to the same conclusion, but the grounds upon which they will come to that conclusion will necessarily not be the same, and what I desired really to know were the grounds and the reasons for which Her Majesty's Government had determined on a particular course. Of course, I did not word my Question in that way; it is not usual to ask what are the reasons. I asked what course had been determined upon, leaving it to the noble Marquess, perhaps, to tell me that it was impossible to give at the moment any further explanation, which I should have accepted at once. I confess I was not a little surprised when he referred to the statement of the French Government, both because I thought a statement should have been made by him, and that no statement by a foreign Government, even where there was a perfect agreement as to the course of action, could adequately represent the policy of any one of the Powers; each Power must state its reasons and policy itself. Those were my reasons. My object was certainly not an attack upon the noble Marquess, but I felt disappointed at not having learned what the policy of Her Majesty's Government had been, more particularly as it happened that I was about to make a speech in the country. If the noble Marquess had told me he was not in a position to make any further observations because it would be prejudicial to the public interest, I should have accepted that at once, and should have said I could not go very far because the situation did
  1016
  not allow of remark on that particular point. But when I was referred by the noble Marquess to the speeches of M. Hanotaux and Méline, I looked with some anxiety to see precisely what they had said, and I found that the principal statement was that the French policy rested—it was not"based," the word was"rested"—upon the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Now, the statement I made—and I admit fully and entirely it was a very grave statement indeed, at least as far as I am concerned, though I do not attribute to my words the influence which attaches to the words of the noble Marquess—the statement I made, after full consideration and with a complete sense of the responsibility in making it, was that I meant, as far its I had any influence, to dissociate ourselves plainly and distinctly in the future from the policy upon which, no doubt, our course with regard to the Ottoman. Empire has been based in the past. I fully admit that such a statement made by any public man, holding a position of any influence in this country, is a very grave and a very responsible one. Now, when the noble Marquess says that, in making that statement, I committed myself to a disregard of a treaty which was concluded by a Government of which I was a Member—not, of course, as the noble Marquess knows, a Member of the Cabinet; I was a subordinate Member; but, still, I was Under Secretary in the Foreign Office, and, therefore, to rather a greater extent than an ordinary Member of the Government not connected with the Foreign Office would have been, I was responsible. I admit responsibility for what took place. I am not going to defend what was then done, or enter into the reasons which actuated the Government of that, day, but my view is this—that the then policy has not only failed, but that the integrity of the Ottoman Empire has been put aside and repeatedly violated, and disregarded, and treated as a mere fiction by every Power of Europe. My Lords, my present view, looking at the whole subject, is that, whatever may have been concluded in 1856, it is idle to say that British policy is now to be bound by it as if it were a treaty concluded yesterday. The Treaty of 1856 has been completely violated over and over again by European Powers, however much the violation may have been sometimes veiled by what I have heard called a convenient

  1017
  formula. That is not a treaty which can bind us to such a degree that, if we think another policy is required, we are not allowed to change our policy. The noble Marquess, in a very remarkable speech at the commencement of the Session upon the Address, in answer to Her Majesty's gracious Speech, referred to the failure of that policy. It was a failure, of course, of the policy of reforms by which the integrity of the Ottoman Empire had been sought to be preserved; and he said, further, which was a statement almost startling, but I find no fault with his saying so, that in the momentous decision come to by the Government of that day and by Lord Clarendon, who was then my chief, to reject the propositions of the Emperor Nicholas I., we put our money on the wrong horse. Now could there be a greater condemnation of the policy on which the Treaty of 1856 was based? I was very much surprised when I heard the noble Marquess, in the speech I have mentioned, base his views upon the Treaty of Paris. I thought he should have based them, as certainly, if I had had the honour of being in his position, I should have based them, upon the Treaty of Berlin. But the facts are so notorious that I am almost ashamed to refer the House again to what took place at the time of the Treaty of Berlin. Not one, but several, provinces were severed from the Ottoman Empire; and although Lord Beaconsfield may, in a happy phrase, have called that a consolidation of the empire, what was it but a complete violation of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire and a putting of it aside? It is true that a great conference—a congress, I might say, of all the Powers—was held to ratify what had been done. But that was to ratify what had been dune by Russia, who had torn up the Treaty of 1856, and, by war, had put it aside. There was a solemn meeting of the European Powers. What to do? Not to defend the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, but to ratify its having been torn to pieces. Again, after that the Government of which I had the honour of being a member severed front Turkey—joined with the Powers in
  1018
  severing from Turkey—the Province of Thessaly, and in giving it to Greece. I need not enumerate all that was done, such as the annexation by Austria of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is true that in some of those cases the fiction of the Porte's supremacy was preserved, as in the case of Cyprus. In other cases provinces of Turkey, which previously had been under the suzerainty of the Porte, were made independent. Take Servia and Bulgaria, which were made independent; and Eastern Roumelia was placed in a position not far removed from that. My view is—and it is a deliberate view, and one which I have been long tending towards, and only the events of the last year or two have brought me to an absolute conclusion—my view is that a policy which has been thus treated is no longer a sound basis for the European policy of this country. Does it follow necessarily because I say that the policy of this country is not to be based on the integrity of Turkey, that you are forthwith to proceed to tear Turkey to pieces? Not so. But what I object to is this—that the basis of our policy should be a treaty which, as I say, has been very often violated or treated as only a formula. I believe the time has come when it is the duty of men who think as I do to do their best to disconnect this country absolutely from that policy. My Lords, the fact is this—and I do not think the noble Marquess will differ front me—that the Turkish Empire is a standing danger to the peace of Europe. [Cheers.] It is a sort of gangrene which eats into the peace and tranquillity of the whole of Europe, and to say that our policy is to be based upon what must be the permanent maintenance, as I understand, On account of our obligations by treaty, of that empire—
  THE PRIME MINISTER: Until those obligations are removed.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Quite so. To say that our policy must be based permanently upon such obligations seems to me to be not only inconsistent with the interests of this country, but inconsistent with that which I hold with the noble Marquess, and as strongly as he does, as a matter of the most paramount importance to every State in

  1019
  Europe, and to this country as much or more than any other—namely, the maintenance of peace. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Marquess knows as well as I do that there comes a time when circumstances make treaties worn out, and the wearing out of a treaty is shown when it is constantly violated, put aside, and treated as fiction. ["Hear, hear!"] Although I entirely admit that in so grave a matter the noble Marquess, for whose opinion I have the greatest respect, and others may differ from me, I think what I have recommended is the true policy and the wisest policy for this country. I say there is nothing in the Treaty or in the present situation of the world which should preclude anyone in my position from announcing, as I did announce and as I wish to announce, and to repeat, that I believe it is for the interest of this country and it is for the interest of European peace that we should be disconnected for ever from regarding the integrity of the Empire of Turkey as the basis of British policy. [Opposition cheers.]

ISLE OF MAN (CHURCH BUILDING ACTS) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be Read 3a on Monday next.
SURVEYORS (COUNTY DUBLIN) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be Read 3a on Monday next.

WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House Adjourned at Five o'Clock, to Monday Next, a Quarter before Eleven o'Clock.