Sitting of 14 August 1878

MINUTES.
EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS —Resolution [August 13] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Expiring Laws Continuance [296], and passed.
Third Reading— Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Bishoprics [197], and passed.
Withdrawn—Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices * [281].

QUESTIONS.
  PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT—PETITIONS AND PRESENTMENTS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. E. JENKINSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will, next Session, lay upon the Table of this House, a Return from each Archbishop and Bishop in England and Wales:—1. Of the number of Petitions, or other formal or informal presentments, received by him, complaining of illegal practices in churches or by clergymen within his diocese, since the time of the passing of "The Public Worship Regulation Act;" 2. The name of the parish; of the clergyman and church; the terms, nature, and number of times of complaint in each case; the names and descriptions of complaints; 3. The action taken thereupon; and, in cases where no action has been taken, whether it is owing to defects in the provisions of the Law?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I have not had time to communicate with the Archbishops or Bishops since Notice of this Question was put on the Paper. I do not see any objection to the Return being granted if the materials for it are in existence. If the hon. Member will move for the Return next Session, I will in the meantime make inquiries.

  POST OFFICE—SURVEYOR GENERAL'S CLERKS, EDINBURGH AND DUBLIN.

    QUESTION.
    SIR ARTHUR GUINNESSasked the Postmaster General, Whether the scale of pay is not higher, and the classification better, of the clerks in the Surveyor General's branch of the General Post Office in Edinburgh than that of the clerks in the corresponding department (viz. the Secretary's office) of the General Post Office in Dublin; whether it is not a fact that the duties performed by both sets of officials are identical; and, whether, if this is so, he intends to remedy the inequality under which the Irish section of the department is labouring, by giving the clerks in the Secretary's branch of the Dublin office the classification and rate of pay accorded in Edinburgh?
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, with reference to the first Question which has been put to me, I may reply to it generally in the affirmative. As to the other parts of the interrogatory, I have simply to say that I have no power, so far as I am personally concerned, to alter or remedy the inequality complained of; but it is my intention to call the attention of the Treasury to the subject.

    ISLAND OF CYPRUS—HEALTH OF THE TROOPS.—QUESTIONS.
    MR. MONKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is able to inform the House what truth there is in the statement that has appeared in the "Daily News," that the unhealthiness of the troops in Cyprus is assuming serious dimensions; that out of 150 Sappers quartered near Larnaca 57 are in the hospitals; that the 42nd Regiment has upwards of 50 sick, and that the 101st Regiment is nearly as bad; that the Commissariat department is suffering severely from the prevalent sickness among officers and men; and that fever, complicated with severe diarrhœa, has attacked the sailors and marines who have been employed on shore, as well as the European and Maltese servants and interpreters?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can inform the House what are the most recent accounts he has received relating to the health of the troops in Cyprus?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, the latest information that I have is a telegram received two days ago from Sir Garnet Wolseley, who says—
    "There is no serious illness among the troops. Some six cases are in hospital from the mild fever of the country. The men are doing well, and are likely to be on duty soon."
    I have since received other telegrams from Cyprus about other business. No reference is made in them to any special degree of sickness, and therefore I am in hopes that these cases are not so severe as some people may imagine. I do not like referring to private letters; but I have just received by this mail a letter from Sir Garnet Wolseley, in which he says—"The health of the men continues excellent, although the heat during the day is very great in the bell tents." I have also received a medical

    1947
    report, and although I have not been able to go through it as carefully as I could wish, there have been apparently only two fatal cases of enteric fever. I may be allowed to ask the House to remember that there are only two conditions in which a soldier is considered with respect to health. He is either fit for every duty, or he is placed on the sick list. Therefore, even a cut finger, or a common cold, or anything which prevents him from discharging every duty, would be sufficient to put him on the sick list. That may account for the apparently large number on the sick list according to some accounts. Judging from the accounts I have received, I cannot say there is any cause for anxiety.

    CENTRAL ASIA — RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN.—QUESTION.
    MR. C. BECKETT-DENISON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question which may be thought out of date after the debate which we had last night; but, as it refers to an event which may mark a new era in the history of Central Asia, I desire to put it. The Question is, Whether the Government have reason to believe that arrangements have been concluded between the Emperor of Russia and the Ameer of Affghanistan for the location of a resident Russian Minister, or Political Agent of high rank, at Câbul? In answering this Question, I trust that the Under Secretary will give to the House whatever authentic information he may possess on the subject up to the present moment.
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, I am afraid that I cannot give the House any further information upon the subject than I gave last night. I then stated that Her Majesty's Government were aware that a Russian Minister had arrived at Cabul; but that they did not know what negotiations had taken place between Russia and the Ameer, which had led to that Minister being sent there, and that we had not been informed of the nature of any negotiations which might still be going on between them.

    METROPOLIS—CONDITION OF LOWER THAMES STREET.—QUESTION.
    MR. FAWCETTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the near-
    1948
    lected and dirty condition in which Lower Thames Street has for some time past been permitted to remain; and whether, as the City Commissioners of Sewers have failed to give any attention to the repeated complaints that have been made to them on the subject, he can take any action in the matter?
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's first Question, I must say that my attention has not been called to the condition of Lower Thames Street, except by the present inquiry. As regards the second Question, in which it is assumed that the Commissioners of Sewers have failed to give attention to complaints made to them on the subject, I have received a communication from the Commissioners in which, while it is admitted that the condition of Lower Thames Street is not all that could be desired, statements are made which go far to show that it has engaged their special and serious attention. They say that they have issued instructions to their officers to pay particular attention to this street; that the police have been requested to prevent refuse being thrown into the public road; that detectives have been employed to watch offenders, who, by their evidence, have been convicted; and that the whole street is swept twice a-day, and frequently washed and sprinkled with deodorants. It is further said that the spot most complained of is immediately opposite the Custom House, to remedy which structural alterations are required, which cannot be effected without the consent of the First Commissioner of Works. That consent, however, has been obtained. With regard to his inquiry whether I can take action in the matter, I may refer the hon. Gentleman to the 49th section of the Sanitary Act, 1866, by which it is provided that in case of neglect of duty by a nuisance authority, such as are the Commissioners of Sewers in the City of London, complaint may be made to the Secretary of State—that is, as the law now stands, to the Local Government Board—who are invested with the necessary powers of dealing with such a case.

  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. FAWCETTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can pro-

    1949
    mise that the Government will, next Session, introduce a measure to deal with what he lately described as the "enormously increased charges of the Metropolitan Water Companies?"
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, this is a matter of importance, and one which is connected with a very large question. I am not able at the present moment to give any positive promise on the subject; but I think the matter is one which calls for the careful consideration of the Government.
    MR. FAWCETTgave Notice that, in the event of the Government not taking any action in this matter, he should take the earliest opportunity next Session of asking the House to express its opinion in reference to it, and of moving a Resolution relating to it.

  ARMY— GOOD CONDUCT MEDALS.

    QUESTION.
    SIR GEORGE DOUGLASasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain why so great a time was generally allowed to elapse between the recommendation of a soldier by his Commanding Officer, for a good conduct medal and the issue of the medal to him, it in many cases not being received until after the soldier has left his regiment, whereby he is deprived of the honour and gratification of having the decoration presented to him on parade and in the presence of his comrades?
    COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, that this subject had been brought under his notice; but he was not able to give a very precise answer to the Question at the present moment. He, however, entirely agreed in the principle that a good conduct medal should, if possible, be given on parade and before a man left his regiment. The medals would be given in future on parade. They were now connected with gratuities which had to be obtained out of the public funds; and it would be necessary, when a medal was so bestowed, that it should be given without any prejudice to the gratuity which might be issued.

    TURKEY—ALLEGED OUTRAGES IN THESSALY.—QUESTIONS.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
    1950
    Whether he can give the House any information as to the truth or falsehood of a statement, contained in a letter from Volo, dated 31st July, which has appearedin the public press, to the effect that the Turks were entrenching Armyro and Damoko, in Thessaly; that seven women and children have been killed and five wounded at Vardikoussa by Turkish troops under the Caimacam of Ellassona, and the village pillaged; and that an English Commissioner had been sent to inquire into the affair; whether the Commissioner, if sent, has reported; and whether his Report will be laid on the Table?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, I am very sorry to say that I did not see the hon. Member's Question until this morning, and the time which I have had to make all the inquiries desirable on the subject has been limited; but I have made considerable inquiries about it, and I can say that I do not find anything that can justify the statement which the hon. Member says has appeared in the public journals. With regard to the second part of the Question, which mentions an outrage by Turkish troops, I have looked through some Papers respecting a subject analogous to this. I must remind the House that this appears only to have taken place a fortnight ago, so that it is quite possible that we may not yet have received information which may eventually reach us. All I can say on the subject is that I do not find any account of an outrage of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman which could justify the statement referred to in the Question. As to whether, supposing we do receive any information upon this particular alleged outrage, we should lay a Report on the subject on the Table, all I can say is that we know a great number of outrages have taken place, probably are taking place on both sides, and to present a Report on one particular outrage would be to give to the House and the country a very partial idea of what is really going on; but I do propose to lay on the Table Papers on the subject generally before the end of the Session. No doubt all the information we possess on the subject will be given in these Papers.
    MR. H. SAMUELSON: I gave Notice openly in the House yesterday of the Question I have asked.
    MR. BOURKE: I did not hear it.
    MR. H. SAMUELSON: I should now like to ask the hon. Gentleman, If it is not true that Captain Sing has been sent out as a Commissioner, and who could have sent this Commissioner if not Her Majesty's Government?
    MR. BOURKE: All I can say is that I know of no such Commissioner being sent.

ORDERS OF TEE DAY.
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir Matthew Ridley.)
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

    [BILL 296.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. HOPWOOD,who had given Notice that he would move that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day month, said, he should not persevere in that Motion; but, at the same time, he wished to make a few observations with reference to one of the Acts it was proposed to continue by this Bill —namely, the 24 & 25 Vict. relating to the Salmon Fisheries—and the particular section to which he desired to call attention was the 31st, under which the Fisheries Inspectors held their appointments. When the Act was passed, in 1867, it provided that two Inspectors were appointed for the term of one year. At that time it was contemplated that the appointments should only be of short duration, and the object of their appointment was that early proceedings might, if necessary, be taken under the Act. The powers of the Inspectors were extremely limited. They were merely to be authorized to make Reports to the Secretary of State for the Home Department when called on so to do. At any rate, he knew of no other duty they had to perform, or of any powers they possessed. They had no power to prosecute anyone for breach of the Act, nor had they the power of coming to any determination of their own. All they could do was to bring any particular matter under the notice of the Home Secretary. If they were the only persons having charge of the fisheries and the duty of inspecting them, he should still think there ought to be something found for them to do in order to justify their appointment; but from the expiration of
    1952
    their first appointment, a Bill had been brought in annually continuing their appointment, without imposing any real duties upon them. In 1865, it was found that the existing powers as to the regulation of the fisheries were not sufficient; and a Bill was brought in under which certain Commissioners were appointed, and one of the Inspectors was sent about to examine the different weirs and engines for the destruction of salmon and the spawn of salmon; whereupon the Commissioners adjudicated in a number of cases, and there being power of appeal given to the Courts of Law, many of those who owned the engines complained of availed themselves of the right thus given, and sometimes judgment was given in their favour, and at others in favour of the Commissioners. That body of Commissioners was a useful body. In 1868 or 1869, a Bill was passed in which the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had a great deal to do, and under that Act bodies of local conservators were to be created in different parts of the country by means of election, wherever need for such a body existed. The result of that measure was that the supervision of the fisheries had passed into local control, and there was no need for inspection; and, as far as he could judge, there had been since then little or nothing for the Inspectors to do. The usual way in cases where it was desired that appointments should be kept up for which there was no justification, was to give the persons holding such appointments something to do under another Act, and then say that they were useful public servants. One of the Inspectors had been employed as Commissioner in connection with the Deep Sea Fisheries or the Shell Fisheries; but, whatever his duties, they were quite outside the Act under which he was appointed, and he might refuse to discharge them if he liked; consequently, to say that the Inspectors were employed in duties for which they were not appointed was no justification for the renewal of their appointment under the existing Act, but was rather like making their office a sham. If were thought necessary to retain one Inspector, he doubted whether it could be shown that both were necessary, and he should like to ask, what were the duties that those two gentlemen had been galvanized into performing over a

    1953
    number of years? He had put this Question the other day, but as he had not taken the course which was generally most successful in that House— that of resorting to obstruction—he had obtained no answer. He thought he had made out a case requiring the consideration of the Treasury and the Home Office, which were both interested in keeping down expenditure, and which ought to exercise some supervision over the renewal of Acts of Parliament that were only passed for a temporary purpose, but which were afterwards allowed to sleep, as this Act had been, in order that certain appointments might be perpetuated. He hoped he should be considered as having done something that would not be without its advantage in calling attention to this matter.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he must apologize to the hon. and learned Member for having accidentally omitted to answer a Question on this subject which the hon. and learned Gentleman had put to him the other evening. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asked why, if these Inspectors were approved of, an Act had not been passed to make their office permanent? He (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) could only say, in answer, that the difficulties of legislation were so great as to make it very often, in the opinion of the Government, better to retain a section in a Continuance Bill than to try to carry through Parliament a Bill embodying that section. These Inspectors had done good and important service to the country, as their Reports showed; and if they had not the full power which it might be well that they should possess, they acted under the authority of the Home Secretary, and had carried out important investigations in reference to the fresh-water fisheries in Norfolk and elsewhere, and to the oyster beds, and they had also made inquiries for the Board of Trade. No one could doubt these gentlemen were doing a good work, and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was decidedly of opinion that it would be impossible, with any advantage to the country, to do away with them.
    MR. WHITWELLthought the Inspectors ought to be permanently appointed, and that the system of continuing them by this Bill gave rise to the impression that they were only appointed
    1954
    for a temporary purpose. He wished to bear his strong testimony to the very useful services of these Inspectors in the North-West of England.
    MR. J. COWENdesired to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the present condition of the Corrupt Practices at Parliamentary Elections Act. The Government had embodied their suggestions and ideas on this subject in a Bill that had been put down for consideration that day; but which was only put on the Paper as a matter of form. He hoped he might be permitted to say that if the House were to take the ideas of the Government as thus formulated on this subject to be their ultimate decision, they were, in his opinion, very inadequate and incomplete, and did not cover the ground at all. He thought this matter was the more pressing owing to the near approach of a General Election, and he hoped that the Government would reconsider the whole question, and embody in the Bill a more comprehensive proposal than the one at present before the House. He would add this suggestion, which he thought was worth the consideration of the Government— namely, whether it would not be a wise step to associate with each Judge appointed to try Election Petitions two, three, or four Members of Parliament, or legal gentlemen, who might act in the capacity of assistants or assessors; the Judge being judge of the law, those who were associated with him being judges of fact? He believed that some such plan would remove the difficulty that was at present experienced in having Election Petitions settled absolutely by one Judge. This suggestion was not embodied in the proposal of the Government, and he would suggest that it should be adopted, if possible, before the next General Election. Another point to which he wished to draw the attention of the Government was the very unsatisfactory state of the law with regard to employment of cabs at Elections. They all knew that at borough Elections cabs were employed, and frequently at a very large expense. They also knew that this was an illegal system, and yet it was regularly indulged in. He had occasion recently to know something of the expenses incurred in this way in borough Elections, and he thought the Government ought to do

    1955
    one thing or the other—either legalize the use of cabs, or make the punishment for employing them a little more stringent.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was bound to add his testimony to the admirable way in which the Inspectors of Salmon Fisheries performed their duty. He believed it would be impossible for any Secretary of State to administer the law properly without their assistance.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses agreed to.
    On the Schedule,
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he had one word to say upon the Schedule of this Bill, although he did not propose to move the Amendment upon it of which he had given Notice. Some misunderstanding appeared to exist in reference to the duties of the Fishery Inspectors, because they were not employed in any way officially with regard to the oyster fisheries. He would not say that they might not have undertaken some duties of the kind; but the oyster fisheries were not administered under this Act of Parliament. His contention was that if these gentlemen rendered any services of this kind, they rendered them gratuitously, and that this was a state of things that ought to be put an end to. If they rendered valuable services, let them be paid for those services, and not for something else which they did not do. He would not press his Amendment.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that in consequence of the passing of the Highways Bill, it had become necessary to modify the paragraph in the Schedule which continued the Locomotive Act. He therefore moved, in line 22, to insert after the words "whole Act," the customary words "as far as not repealed."
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that supposing this Bill received the Royal Assent before the other, some difficulty might arise.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would undertake that the Highways Bill should receive the Royal Assent first.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, looking at the period of the Session, and considering that this Bill would have to pass through all its stages in the House of Lords, he would trust to the indulgence of the House to allow it to be considered and read a third time. If that were not done, the Session would be prolonged. He took that opportunity of stating that it was proposed that the House should meet to-morrow at 3 o'clock.
    MR. NEWDEGATEcalled the attention of the Government to what appeared to him to be an error in the reference made to the Statute 21 & 22 Vict. c. 50, or to the 5 & 6 Will. IV.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
    (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time,"—(Mr. Raikes.)

  TURKEY—MURDER OF MR. OGLE.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. H. SAMUELSON, in rising to call attention to the failure of Mr. Consul General Fawcett to ascertain the circumstances under which Mr. C. C. Ogle, the "Times" Correspondent in Thessaly, was murdered by Turkish soldiers; and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, Mr. Consul General Fawcett's Report upon Mr. C. C. Ogle's death is inconclusive, and that a fresh Commission of Inquiry ought to be instituted, composed of Englishmen only, who should be specially empowered to assure the witnesses of the protection of Her Majesty's Government,"
    said: I must say that I feel some compunction in obtruding myself upon the House at this late period of the Session, and I also feel bound to apologize to the House for the length to which, in all probability, my remarks will extend. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke) told me, when I complained on a former occasion that we had not had the Papers as soon as I thought we might have expected them, that the delay of which I complained was due to the fact that the

    1957
    Report extended to 62 pages in length. I am afraid that I shall be obliged to go through those 62 pages, in order to justify the Resolution which I am about to move. The Resolution calls attention to the fact of the Inquiry of Consul General Fawcett into the circumstances of Mr. Ogle's murder having failed entirely to bring out the truth; and, having proved that, I shall endeavour to show that a fresh Commission of Inquiry ought to be instituted, composed only of Englishmen, and that the Commission should be specially empowered to give the witnesses, whom it may be necessary to examine, the protection of Her Majesty's Government, and to transport them to a place of safety after giving their evidence. I believe I shall be able to prove to the satisfaction of the House that each of the points included in my Motion is a matter of absolute necessity. I regret that it has fallen to my lot to call attention to this subject, because I cannot but recognize my own inability to do justice to it, and I believe thoroughly, upon the facts of the case, that if any more experienced Member had brought it before the House, he would have succeeded in doing that which I can only hope to attain. In raising this question, I desire not only to secure justice to a murdered Englishman; not only to satisfy the just wishes of the family and friends of Mr. Ogle, who feel deeply that such attention has not been paid to this case as one would expect to be paid to the murder of an Englishman by the English Government; but I wish also to see whether a great and powerful country like our own is as able and willing to protect the lives and fortunes of its citizens, no matter where they happen to reside, under the present, as under former Governments. I have no hesitation in saying that if the murder of Mr. Ogle had occurred while Lord Palmerston was in power, it would never have been passed over in the way it has been. While that noble Lord was in Office, to say "Civis Britannicus sum" was a real amulet of protection to Her Majesty's subjects abroad. Every country, especially every barbarous and semi-barbarous country, then felt a positive certainty, arising from experience, that England, in ease of the murder of even the meanest subject of the realm, would hold a full and fair investigation, and
    1958
    punish the guilty as surely as light follows darkness. If Her Majesty's Government allow a murder of this kind to be neglected, as I believe I shall be able to prove it has been; if they allow it to remain not only practically uninvestigated, but coloured and distorted by a prejudiced statement of facts; if they allow the guilty to remain undesignated, I think the House will agree with me that upon them will rest the very grave responsibility of rendering more insecure in the future than in the past the safety, honour, and welfare of our citizens abroad. In making this Motion, I am anxious to give them an opportunity of relieving themselves of that responsibility.
    It is necessary that I should say a few words upon the character of Mr. Charles Chaloner Ogle; because I find, in reading the Report, that both his character and conduct are impugned distinctly by Sir Austen Layard, our Ambassador at Constantinople, and Consul General Fawcett, and I must therefore defend his conduct and exhibit it in a proper light. I do not mean to say that because Mr. Ogle's character was a good one he had any greater claim to justice. On the contrary, I rely on the much higher principle that even if his character had been bad, that would have been no reason why the circumstances of his death should not have been fairly tried, and justice done to the claims of his country and his relatives. But, in point of fact, Mr. Ogle's character was thoroughly estimable. No doubt he had his faults; but, to use a French expression, they were only "les défauts de sesqualités." His kindness of heart was carried almost to excess. As he once said to a friend—"He could never hear anyone ask for bread and not give it." He was a friend to the poor and the oppressed of every class or clime, and he was as kind to animals as to man. In crossing a stormy arm of the sea, on a wet, and cold, and windy day, he took off his own coat and threw it over his horse. A merchant of Volo has, I am informed, bought the horse, in order to have something to "show kindness to that was Mr. Ogle's." Strong men, refugees from Bulgarini, wept when they spoke of his death, saying that he had been more than a father to them. His last act was to protect, to conduct out of harm's way, to give

    1959
    money and bread to defenceless and oppressed fugitive women and children from Bulgarini. His last written word was a charitable message to a friend in Volo, written only one day before his murder, to this effect—
    "Friend, pray send these nine women and children to your warehouse, and give them food at my expense. Your friend, Charles Chaloner Ogle."
    These were the last recorded words of Mr. Ogle. His character was fully recognized in Greece. Two little children of Bulgarini who, not being Greeks, had no claim upon the orphan school at Athens—an institution most difficult to obtain admission into—were placed there by favour; because, as the Committee told them, the English gentleman would have wished it. Mr. Ogle was impartial, and a man of a most sincere character. He has been represented as being an ardent Anti-Turk. Nothing can be further from the truth. He recognized, as many Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House do, the good qualities which many of the Turkish people possess. No doubt, he did notice and reprobate the evil conduct of the Turkish authorities; but he cannot, with any fairness, be described as a disliker of the Turks. With reference to the insurgents, of whom he has been accused of having been an agent, he said to Madame Zabanski—
    "It is not because I am blind to the faults of these people that I hope they will succeed, hut it is because I am convinced that there is no other remedy for them. I would give them freedom as I would have a child vaccinated."
    I would ask if that is the language of a spy, or of a revolutionary agent? As a newspaper correspondent, his great desire was, to use his own expression, "to be true; to be exact." He would rather be silent on a subject of the deepest interest than send an account to a newspaper which was not based on reliable information, satisfactory to himself. Of this I know a remarkable instance. At the time of the murder of the Consuls at Salonica, being asked by a lady what account he was going to telegraph, he said that he had heard so many contradictory accounts that he intended to send none at all, and this was notwithstanding the fact that other newspaper correspondents were telegraphing every piece of information that came into their possession. It is
    1960
    too much to be feared that the very fearlessness and truth of his character, being recognized by his enemies as well as by his friends, caused him to fall a victim to the very qualities which most distinguished him. The Times said—
    "Mr. Ogle had tracked murder and rapine and brutal lust home to the Chief of Police of Thessaly, and denounced publicly the official miscreant."
    Such conduct was very likely imprudent, but it was the conduct of a brave and gallant Englishman. Are we to condone his murder on the ground of such imprudence? The politician for whom Mr. Ogle cared most in Greece, and with whom he was most intimate, was M. Tricoupi, whose name is well-known to hon. Gentlemen. M. Tricoupi always opposed the encouragement by Greece of irregular movements in Thessaly. He hoped that more would be gained by moderation, and Mr. Ogle shared in that hope. This was well known to his friends; but a perusal of these papers, without knowledge of his character, would produce a contrary impression, and might well create a groundless prejudice against him. Mr. Ogle was energetic, studious, and able. The King of Greece made him Knight Silver Cross of the Order of the Redeemer, in recognition of the thorough knowledge which he had acquired of every branch of the social and political affairs of Greece. Probably, His Majesty hoped that Mr. Ogle would make use of his knowledge in dispelling certain mistaken opinions, prevalent in some quarters of England, upon the present state of Greece, and upon the wonderfully rapid progress which that deservedly rising country has made of late years. Well, Sir, that Mr. Ogle was held in the highest esteem by all classes in Greece is proved at once by referring to the circumstances that attended his funeral. On that occasion the shops were spontaneously closed. A vast concourse of people followed him to the grave, including representatives of every class, from the President of the Council of Ministers, and other Members of the Cabinet, the members of the Holy Synod, a gentleman-in-waiting of the King, and the Mayors of Athens and Piræus, down to the pretty weeping child of 12, who, at the last moment, placed on the top of the pile of memorial wreaths of flowers that hid his coffin,

    1961
    one bearing the words—"The widows and orphans of Bulgarini to him who saved them." He now sleeps in death by Admiral Canaris, the veteran hero of Greek independence. His monument is to be beside Lord Byron's; and I would ask the House, is this a man whose murder England intends to allow to remain a mystery, and will she permit the miscreants who did the deed to go undetected and unpunished?
    I would now allude for a moment to some of the circumstances of Mr. Ogle's visit to Thessaly. Upon this subject, as upon too many others, an inaccurate view has been put forward in the Report to which I shall presently refer. It is quite true that when the insurrection in Thessaly first broke out, Mr. Ogle crossed the frontier as The Times Correspondent; but when the Volunteers were recalled, Mr. Ogle went back to Greece. That excursion had nothing to do with his last visit to Thessaly, and ought not to be confounded with it. Some time before the troubles upon Pelion came to a climax, Mr. Ogle crossed the Gulf of Volo from Amaliopolis, upon the Greek frontier, and landed upon the quay of Volo. He landed perfectly openly. His landing was within the knowledge of the authorities, as the landing of all travellers is in a Turkish town. He lived quite openly at the house of M. Zabanski, the colporteur of the Bible Society. His status, as The Times Correspondent, was equally well known to the Turkish authorities. There was no concealment of any kind whatever as to his movements. When he wanted to go to Bulgarini, he applied directly to the Caimacam of Volo for an escort. This was not the act of a man who wanted to conceal what he was about, or of a spy. We are told, in a despatch from Sir Austen Layard, that the escort was refused him; but it will be found, on referring to page 53 of the Report, that an arrangement was made between the Caimacam of Volo and the Italian Consul to send a man with him as escort. This man was examined by the Caimacam as to what happened during Mr. Ogle's visit to Bulgarini, and Mr. Ogle went afterwards, and asked—
    "Why did you question the poor Ghega who accompanied me, when, if you had sent to me, I would willingly have told you everything I did, and everything I was going to do?"
    At this time the country was, not in a
    1962
    state of actual war, although the inhabitants of the numerous villages that clothe the sides of Pelion were in a state of fitful and irregular revolt. This assertion is corroborated by Hobart Pasha, when, on March the 19th, he interviews the village Chiefs, and reads a Proclamation, in which he states—
    "The villages in the immediate neighbourhood of Volo are, if not in actual revolt against the Government, harbouring rebels in great numbers."
    And he goes on to say—
    "Before resorting to coercive measures, I wish to try what conciliation can effect."
    I am not at all astonished at the state of the villages. I visited Volo last autumn, and gathered information from trustworthy persons, and I know what tyranny, what misgovernment, what outrages, and what fearful exactions had goaded these Thessalian peasants out of a chronic state of smouldering discontent into active, but desultory, resistance to the Turkish rule. At this time the road to Macrinitza and the other villages was perfectly open. The insurgents came in openly to Volo to buy not only food, but ammunition, and returned as openly to their hill-side homes. Mr. Fitzgerald, the Correspondent of The Standard, says—
    "To act the part of a spy was unnecessary, indeed, impossible. There was nothing to spy out, evade, or conceal. No more signs of war than there would be in an English county if the military were called out to quell an armed assemblage of rioters in some such place as Merthyr Tydvil."
    But, if Mr. Ogle was a spy, why was he not treated as one? Why did the Turks not arrest him, and have his conduct investigated? The answer is plain. Because they knew that there was no foundation for the charge. I have been obliged to allude at length to this part of the subject, in consequence of the ex parte statements listened to by Sir Austen Layard, and relied on by Consul General Fawcett. I will now refer to some of those statements. In page 1 of the Report, there is a telegram from Sir Austen Layard to the Marquess of Salisbury, in which he states—
    "Report has come from Athens that The Times correspondent at Volo has been killed. Porte has telegraphed for information; but nothing is known of circumstances here. It was alleged that the gentleman was aiding insurgents, and strong complaints were made to me

    1963
    against him; he was warned of the danger he was running by going about from village to village. Hobart Pasha has written to me about his proceedings, stating that he was in communication with Athens."
    Sir, there is not one word of proof of all these allegations against Mr. Ogle. I find next, in No. 7, page 5, a despatch from Mr. Layard to the Earl of Derby, with an inclosure of which the following is a translation:—
    "The following is a telegram which the Vali of Yanina addressed to the Prime Minister, dated the 6th (18th) of March, 1878:—'The Correspondent of The Times has arrived at Volo and made an application to the Italian Consul, requesting two zaptiehs and an official letter to take with him to the village of Bulgarini, in the interior of the district of Yénidge. If such a letter were given to him, the authorities would have seemed to wish to guarantee the life of the traveller in the midst of the localities infested by the Greek rebels, who had already burnt several villages which had become thereby the scene of the hostilities. To have the traveller accompanied in these places, even by several zaptiehs, would be a very dangerous proceeding. For all these reasons we have declined to comply with the request of the above-named Consulate."
    But they did comply with the request, and allowed a man to accompany him, as I have already shown. There is a statement on the next page (6)—
    "This gentleman went to the insurgents of the villages, Bulgarini and Kesrick, in company of a brother of one of the insurgent Chiefs named Papa Costa, an inhabitant of Volo, native of Yénidge, and having resided at Volo for some months past. Ho visited the district of Yénidge, calling himself English, and a son of the Correspondent of The Times. He pretended that the insurgents were going to the district where other Greek insurgents would join him, to lay waste the locality. He said that the Ottoman troops were few in number, and gave information respecting fortified positions; adding that a considerable number of individuals, belonging to families of note in Greece as well as of students, were going cither to put themselves at the head of, or to join the insurgents. That news has been communicated by the Sub-Governor of Yénidge. This gentleman is here to excite the people. Credible information goes to prove that the object of his journey is solely to foment disorders. It is hardly necessary to call the attention of your Highness to the fatal results which might be produced by such a seditious state of affairs, especially under existing circumstances. Consequently, I beg your Highness to have the goodness to take the necessary steps at the Embassy of Her Britannic Majesty, in order to obtain the removal from the country of this person, whose presence gives rise to inconvenience."
    Well, afterwards, to show what the object of Mr. Ogle's journey was and how he carried it out, in No. 28, page 14,
    1964
    Mr. Layard informs the Marquess of Salisbury—
    "I telegraphed to Hobart Pasha, who is in command of the Turkish Squadron off the coast of Thessaly, and requested him to have inquiries made on the subject, and to inform me of the result. I instructed Consul Barker in the same sense. The Prime Minister, to whom I also spoke on the matter, at once sent the most stringent orders to the authorities at Volo to give every facility for a full investigation. I have received two telegrams from Hobart Pasha, who appears to think that Mr. Ogle was killed during the attack on Macrinitza, and that the Europeans and Greek sympathizers at Volo are endeavouring to give a very exaggerated version of the circumstances connected with the unfortunate gentleman's death. I have seen an English gentleman, well known here, who is just arrived from Volo. He states to me that Mr. Ogle had been killed as he was taking an active part with the insurgents, and was in the habit of exposing himself to great danger by going backwards and forwards between Volo and the villages occupied by them. He had been frequently warned not to do so. It was reported that during the attack on Macrinitza, he was seen in an advanced position, and that a Turkish officer, recognizing him as an Englishman, restrained his men from firing upon him."
    Sir Austen Layard repeats a number of assertions in the same sense, with which I will not trouble the House. I will merely make the same comments upon them all—first, that they are not true; next, that the authority is not given; and third, that I shall be able to disprove them.
    In No. 38, Mr. Layard, in a telegram to the Marquess of Salisbury, says—
    "Burrell's state of health prevents him going to Volo. Consul General Fawcett is ready to go if you consider it absolutely necessary."
    Mr. Blunt, who began the inquiry, wished to leave. No doubt he found that the inquiry was not likely to turn out as satisfactory as he could have wished, and another official—Consul General Fawcett—was appointed, because he was considered a proper person to hold a judicial inquiry. When I come to the Report itself, I shall show what sort of an inquiry the Judge of the Supreme Court of Constantinople considered a judicial inquiry. Mr. Layard's directions to Consul General Fawcett are on page 38, inclosure 44—
    "I have directed Mr. Blunt by telegraph to have ready for you such evidence as may have already been taken on these subjects. I trust, therefore, that it will not be necessary for you to be long absent from your post, but that the inquiry will speedily be brought to an end. Considering the excitement that it appears to be

    1965
    causing, Troth at Volo and in Greece, it is very desirable that it should not he prolonged beyond the term absolutely necessary, in your judgment, for ascertaining the truth."
    That is for concealing it. [Mr. BOURKE: Where are those words? ] Those are words of my own; that is what I consider to be the result that would naturally follow haste in this matter. At page 40, No. 49, Mr. Layard wrote to the Marquess of Salisbury—
    "I have the honour to inclose in original the Report addressed to me by Her Majesty's Consul General and Judge of the Supreme Court with reference to the death of Mr. Ogle. I have not had time to have translations made of the evidence taken in Greek. Should your Lordship require such translations, I will have them made if the documents are returned to me."
    In that case, of course, more delay would take place. The documents would be sent from this country to Constantinople, translated, and sent back to England. I am sorry to observe that there is not in the Correspondence between Mr. Layard and the Foreign Office a single syllable of real regret, on the part of our Ambassador, for the murder of Mr. Ogle. It was of consequence at that moment to minimize the event as much as possible. Important negotiations were going on between this country and Turkey, and if an angry feeling had been raised against Turkey the negotiations might have altogether failed. There was, therefore, a natural anxiety to hush the matter up, and I am afraid that that anxiety was gratified at the expense of justice. I do not blame anybody, but I am merely endeavouring to give an explanation of the extraordinary fact of so little attention having been paid to the murder of an Englishman in Thessaly. I have noticed that there is generally a great esprit de corps among the gentlemen of the Press; but it is a curious fact that, at almost one and the same moment, all mention of the case in certain papers which had taken an interest in it before ceased. It would almost seem as if a mot d'ordre had been sent out by someone of sufficient importance that the subject of the murder of Mr. Ogle had better be dropped, and that justice to individuals must give way to political expediency. No more letters were inserted in The Times or in The Standard, which had been very fair in the matter. I challenge an explanation of this curious
    1966
    fact from the papers. I only wish that the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) were present now, in order that he might say a word for his correspondent who was murdered in doing his duty so bravely.
    The Blue Book teems with opinions expressed before the inquiry as to what ought to be the constitution of the desired Commission. There was a general opinion, clearly stated, that an inquiry would fail if not conducted, in the first instance, at all events, before Englishmen only, and after the safety of the lives and the property of the witnesses had been specially guaranteed by Her Majesty's Government. This is the general gist of the documents upon this branch of the subject in the Blue Book. The predictions that there would be an indisposition to give evidence, except under the specified guarantees, are justified by the fact that before the Joint Commissioners, Consul General Fawcett and Regeb Pasha, not one witness gave evidence, although plenty offered to give evidence privately and were refused. In page 2, No. 4, in a letter from Mr. Wyndham to Lord Salisbury, dated April 3rd, this statement occurs—
    "The Greek Vice Consul concludes by stating that nothing less than the presence of a Commissioner, accompanied by force, can obtain particulars, owing to the terrorism which prevails."
    A similar despatch, sent by post, was received on the 13th of April, No. 22, page 12, and there is another on page 13. The next document I will refer to is on page 28, inclosure 5, No. 29, which is a mémoire upon the death of Mr. Ogle, written by Mr. Streit, Professor of National Law in the University of Athens. He states—
    "The man who had brought me the first information concerning the whereabouts of Ogle during the afternoon, evening, and night, subsequent to the battle, had started for the village. I commissioned a very respectable person at Volo to try to bring him to me; this person returned saying that the peasant in question was afraid to come to Volo, but had given him the list of the names of the people who had seen Ogle during the time mentioned; but he had made him promise not to divulge them unless an adequate English military force could insure their safety. The whole Consular body of Volo, the Correspondent of The Standard, and the Greek inhabitants of Volo are unanimously of opinion that an inquest might lead to a verification of the circumstances of the death of Ogle

    1967
    by eye witnesses, if (1st) Turkish authorities were excluded; (2ndly) if the presence of an English force encouraged the witnesses to depose the truth; (3rdly) if the witnesses were carried away from Volo directly after the close of the inquest."
    On page 29, you will find the reply of the Consuls to Hobart Pasha, who asked them to join him in investigating the case—
    "An inquest in the presence of Turkish officials, and without the necessary guarantee of the lives and fortunes of the witnesses, in the shape of an adequate English armed force, would turn out a mockery."
    Mr. Streit's mémoire concludes with these words—
    "It is considered probable that the murder was committed by order of some officer of superior rank; that it would be very difficult to obtain satisfactory proof of the latter fact; but that the murder would be easily exposed if the above-mentioned measures were resorted to. Lastly, that the Turks at Volo seem highly pleased that no demonstration of English military force has up to the present been the result of the Ogle affair."
    To show how afraid people were of their names being mentioned, let me refer to page 30, No. 32, a letter, to which there is this postscript—
    "Pray take care that my name does not appear; one must be under Turkish protection to know what fear means."
    I know who the writer of that letter is. He is a resident in Volo; a man whose character is above suspicion. At page 36, there is an inclosure, No. 40—
    "I have been informed that in case of inquiry, the Greeks who happen to know anything will most likely be afraid to come forward and give evidence from fear of Turkish vindictiveness."
    At page 38, there is a letter from Mr. Ogle, of Sevenoaks, to the Marquess of Salisbury, which states—
    "The result of the inquiry, conducted partly under the auspices of the Commander of the Turkish Forces in Thessaly, is not likely to be the conclusion of it, and the presence of the official has effectually scared witnesses away, and has not emboldened his lieutenant, Iskender Pasha, to appear as a witness. Until a preliminary investigation is made by English officials alone, and complete provision made for the safety of witnesses during the investigation and for some time after it, England will be baffled, and those who allow her to be so will be involved in consequences which even friends must deplore. Even amidst events the most momentous, it may be wise to meet a single incident with caution in view of its possible issues."
    1968
    He goes on to say, at page 39, No. 47, in a letter dated the 17th of May—
    "Personal and political bias, such as would be incompatible with personal honour and official integrity, has not been ascribed, I believe, either to Mr. Blunt or to Mr. Fawcett. But what of the personal and political bias of Regeb Pasha? He is the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Thessaly, and these are the Forces to which Mr. Ogle's assassins are supposed to belong. He himself, and his lieutenant, Iskender Pasha, have been publicly declared to be so cognizant of the subject of the inquiry, that they ought to have been called as material witnesses. Ho is probably the commanding officer of Major Reschid, who is distinctly denounced by John Elliott in his letter of the 8th of April (of which a copy has been forwarded to your Lordship), and is positively declared to have said to several bystanders that he would make the Correspondent Ogle's sermons cost him very dear. Such is the personal and political bias of Regeb Pasha, and so well is it known, that it has been found impossible to induce Greek and Christian witnesses to enter into his presence. Their distrust is justified by the fact, reported in to-day's journal, that three persons who had privately given information concerning the late Mr. Ogle's movements on the 29th of March last have been sent to Athens, their lives having been threatened if they return to their villages. This fact indicates also the only procedure by means of which depositions can be obtained which have been hitherto withheld."
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: At what page is that?
    MR. H. SAMUELSON: At page 8. What is the consequence of not giving effect to these recommendations in the formation of the tribunal? Why, as I said before, that no witnesses at all came before Consul General Fawcett. The Greek Consul, M. Zioti, writes to M. Delyanni at page 34, inclosure 37—
    "I am told that every possible effort is being made to form the commission charged with the investigation into Ogle's murder exclusively of persons favourable to the Turks."
    A letter from Mr. Ogle to the Marquess of Salisbury, received May 7th, says—
    "Professor Streit writes (in his mémoire, at page 10) that he has seen two eye-witnesses of the murder of my son. I have telegraphed to M. Tricoupi, and he has telegraphed to me in reply that Professor Streit had addressed Consul General Fawcett in respect to these witnesses. I should have taken it as a matter of course that these witnesses would be summoned, protected effectually from Turkish officials, and examined in the first instance, at least, in presence of British officials only. But the fact is that up to a very recent date they had not been examined, and they never were."
    Mr. Ogle then goes on to say—
    "Hitherto the inquiry has been conducted as if intended to screen the Turks, and I must ur-

    1969
    gently appeal to the Foreign Office if I care for truth and justice. All these things justify my solicitude and my distrust of the Commission as hitherto constituted. The preliminary inquiries should surely be conducted by English officials only. The Turkish witnesses are intimidated by Turkish officials; much more the witnesses who are not of the same race as those officials, and are subject to their power."
    Two battles took place at Macrinitza, one on Thursday, the 28th of March, and the other on Friday, the 29th; and the assertion of Mr. Fawcett is most distinct that Mr. Ogle was murdered on the evening of the 29th, as he was returning with the insurgents from the battle of Macrinitza. Perhaps I may here quote Mr. Fawcett's statement as to the geographical position of the places I shall have occasion to mention—
    "In order to understand what follows, it is essentially necessary to have a knowledge of Volo and the neighbourhood, which I must therefore attempt to describe. Volo lies at the end of the bay of that name. Behind it, running nearly north and south, is the range of Mount Pelion, with an elevation of nearly 4,000 feet. Between the sea and the mountains there is a fertile plain about two miles and a-half wide, covered with olive and other fruit trees. Looking at the mountains behind Volo from the sea three villages are seen, the lowest or centre one being Eski or Old Volo; a little to the right, and higher up, is Portaria; to the loft, perched on the steep face of the mountain, and higher up than either, is Macrinitza. This last village from top to bottom is nearly a mile long, and its streets are almost perpendicular."
    I will now refer to the Report itself, at page 40, and before doing so, I should like to explain that I do not blame Her Majesty's Government for their action in this matter. If difficulties were thrown in the way of eliciting the truth, they were due, in the first instance, to the instructions which were given by Sir Austen Layard to Mr. Fawcett; and, in the second place, to a too rigid construction placed on those instructions by Mr. Fawcett. Mr. Blunt had already taken certain depositions which were submitted to Mr. Fawcett, and appended to his Report. The second Commission consisted of Mr. Fawcett, and Regeb Pasha, the commander of the Forces in Thessaly. I do not wish to impute any blame where it is not due, and I will at once give Regeb credit for his humanity. He commanded the Turkish troops at the first battle at Macrinitza, and because he spared the prisoners, and did not commit atrocities, was accused of having
    1970
    taken a bribe, and great dissatisfaction was expressed with him. Reschid Pasha, who commanded in the second battle of Macrinitza, carried out a very different system, and determining that he should not be accused of humanity, he treated the conquered peasants with the greatest inhumanity and cruelty. At page 40, Mr. Fawcett states—
    "I saw the Greek Consul and other persons in the place, who stated that there were individuals who could give valuable evidence as to the alleged assassination of Mr. Ogle, but also were afraid to do so lest they should be afterwards punished or maltreated by the Ottoman authorities. The Greek Consul further stated that these people required a guarantee that they would not be molested from the British Government, and also that they were prepared to give me information in private as to the matter. I informed him that I did not see how it was possible for Her Majesty's Government to give any such guarantee, and that I had no instructions to give any."
    But Mr. Fawcett did not telegraph to ask if he might give such a guarantee. There is no sign in his Report that he wanted to give such a guarantee, or that he asked the permission of Her Majesty's Government to do so. I may here mention that Hobart Pasha and the Caimacam of Volo had also refused to give such a guarantee on behalf of the Turkish Government, as appears from, page 17—
    "After the despatch of the English Consul's note, Hobart Pasha went to him, accompanied by the Caimacam, and proposed to have the matter of Mr. Ogle's murder inquired into by the Consular body, assisted by the Turkish authorities. Mr. Suter answered that he could not take any steps until the Turkish Government had guaranteed to the English Government the lives and goods of the witnesses. As Hobart Pasha and the Caimacam replied that they could not grant such a guarantee, the matter dropped."
    There was thus a distinct refusal on the part of the Turkish authorities to give a guarantee, and a distinct refusal on the part of the English authorities. Mr. Fawcett then goes on to say—
    "For the second request, I informed him that I was officially here on a mixed Commission of English and Ottoman authorities to investigate the circumstances connected with Mr. Ogle's death, and that any information given to me privately could not form part of any Report I might make. But I told him that I would most earnestly impress on the Mutessarif at once to proclaim in the most solemn manner that all persons who could give any evidence at the coining sittings might do so in perfect safety, and that no harm should come to them."

    1971
    On page 59 will be found the Proclamation, which was issued in the following words—
    "In connection with Mr. Ogle, The Times Correspondent, killed in the last battle of Macrinitza, any person having information of any kind, may freely and fearlessly appear and give evidence before the Commission of Inquiry sitting at the back house of Dorotheus, from 3 o'clock to-morrow, and thenceforth."
    But the Caimacam had been two days before this to Macrinitza and warned the villagers of the consequence of giving evidence, as I am informed privately; and it is a fact which I hope Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration. Well, this affiche was put up in Greek and Turkish, and the Greek Consul having been informed of it, expressed his satisfaction at what Mr. Fawcett had done. But though he expressed satisfaction, he did not say that he considered that all had been done that was necessary, nor did he in any way modify what he had said before as to the necessity for a Government guarantee of the witnesses' safety. What followed? Mr. Fawcett says—
    "On the following morning, Regeb Pasha arrived from Larissa in time to attend the meeting. The Greek Consul, the Italian Consul, and others interested, were present. We waited a long time, but no witnesses came. I then proposed to Regeb Pasha, to which he gave his cordial assent, to put out the next day (Saturday) a further and stronger notice, in which the Pasha and myself gave our solemn personal assurance (parole d'honneur) that in no case should anyone suffer for any evidence they might give."
    The following is the stronger Proclamation which was issued—
    "His Excellency Regeb Pasha, Governor of Thessaly, and Mr. Fawcett, Consul General in Turkey for England, the two Commissioners named by His Majesty the Sultan and Her Majesty the Queen of England to inquire into the cause of the lamentable death of the late Mr. Ogle, give public notice to all whom it may concern that everyone who can give any evidence concerning the circumstances under which Mr. Ogle met his death, is invited to come towards morning at 10 o'clock to the House of the Consul General, where the Commission sits. The two Commissioners give their solemn assurance (parole d'honneur) that everyone is perfectly free to come, and that no one on any account will be in any case molested or persecuted for any evidence he may have given to the said Commission."
    That last sentence is important. It was, no doubt, not intended to bear the con-
    1972
    struction which the villagers put on it. It guarantees that the witnesses will not be persecuted for the evidence they may give; but it was not understood by the persons to whom it was addressed as a guarantee of immunity from persecution or molestation as insurgents. The next day, Mr. Fawcett says, he ascended the mountain and visited the scenes of the conflict, the three villages of Macrinitza, Portaria, and Eski Volo, and the exact place where the body of Mr. Ogle was found. He took with him Hassan, the cavass, who found the body, to point out the localities. He speaks of the exact place where the body of Mr. Ogle was found; but there is no proof in the whole of this book that the exact spot where the body of Mr. Ogle was found is known to this moment. Hassan asserts that he found it in a particular place; but his assertion is not corroborated, although there were plenty of people with him at the time that he asserts that he found the body; but not one of them being called, I say it is not proved where the body was found:—
    "The next day, Sunday, the 5th of May, another meeting was held, but no witnesses appeared. Mr. Fitzgerald, the Correspondent of The Standard, was present, and also the Greek Consul. These gentlemen said they had witnesses, but they would not come forward. I pointed out that already two witnesses had been examined from the village, and Regeb Pasha and myself having pledged our words, these people could have no excuse for keeping away. We adjourned till the next day, in the hope of their coming."
    Then the last meeting was held; but, as before, no evidence was produced. The next thing Mr. Fawcett did was to consider his Report with Regeb Pasha; and if hon. Members will refer to page 43, they will see Mr. Fawcett says, he is
    "firmly persuaded that Mr. Ogle met his death among the fugitive insurgents on the hillside, on Friday, the 29th of March."
    He says one person from Macrinitza gave evidence, and another from Portaria. I will comment on that evidence, and show that where it is to the point it is utterly untrustworthy. Mr. Fawcett goes on to say—
    "Nothing could be stronger than the assurances of safety Regeb Pasha and myself gave, and I have come to the conclusion that no more evidence was forthcoming, simply because none existed."
    That was an infamous conclusion under

    1973
    the circumstances, and I will shortly show why there was no more evidence forthcoming, though plenty existed. I will prove that there was good reason why the witnesses should be afraid to come forward and give evidence. The first Commission was composed of Mr. Blunt and Regeb Pasha, who commanded the very Forces which had been destroying and burning the villages where these poor people lived. Mr. Blunt was considered, rightly or wrongly, to be more Turkish than the Turks. The second Commission was composed of Mr. Fawcett, who was also a well-known philo-Turk. I do not say that Mr. Fawcett is unfairly partial to them; but everyone who knows him knows that he is a great lover of the Turks. He is almost as well known for his love of everything Turkish as the new Commissioner to Roumelia, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). The room where the Commission met was guarded by Turkish sentries; in the vestibule were Regeb's Turkish, attendants, zaptiehs, Turkish soldiers, and others whom these poor people had good reason to fear, through whom they would have to run the gauntlet in coming in to give evidence, and who might well be expected to remember them and make them suffer after the Commission ended. Beside this, there is a general fear in the East of testifying to a murder or to the discovery of a body, for fear of being accused of complicity in the crime. Great endeavours had been made to keep the matter secret. In a despatch sent home by the Greek Consul, he says—
    "The Mutessariff of Larissa has been here (Volo) for the last two days. His object here is to obtain information as to the proceedings at Macrinitza. To judge by what he has effected so far, one would be inclined to think that his real object is to muster witnesses against the charge—to deny the facts stated, as the custom is in Turkey. Efforts arc also being made to prove, in uniformity with the Ottoman allegation, that Ogle was killed in the course of the battle. The local authorities will have no difficulty in producing similar evidence. I am told that every possible effort is being also made to form the Commission charged with the investigation into Ogle's murder exclusively of persons favourable to the Turks."
    The people understood why all these precautions were taken, and they were not stupid enough to run their heads into the noose prepared for them. I am told that in Thessaly, when a Christian has
    1974
    been murdered, it is the custom to imprison first the informer who gives notice of the murder, and, next, all the relatives of the murdered man. Two days before Mr. Fawcett's second Proclamation, the Caimacam of Volo had gone to Macrinitza and warned the villagers of the consequences of giving evidence. Guarantees of safety to the witnesses had been refused both by the English and Turkish Governments, and evidence was refused to be taken in private. And all this time the insurrection was still going on. After the battle of Macrinitza, a telegram from The Times Correspondent, dated Volo, 31st March, and published in The Times, April 4th, states—
    "Men, women, and children too, have been massacred at Macrinitza and Portario. Names of several are given, as Constantino Zanilieri, aged 65; C. Carvonaris, 70; N. Balambani, 75; Caterina Zitgonali, 45; George Valanages, 70."
    The captain and officers of an Italian iron-clad also visited Macrinitza, and can bear testimony to the murders and shocking outrages committed there. As late as May 19th The Times Correspondent mentions skirmishes between Turkish soldiers and the peasantry of Pelion, whom the former were endeavouring to rob of their flocks. I think, therefore, I am justified in saying that at the time of the inquiry the insurrection was still going on, and that the witnesses would be either insurgents themselves, or people who sympathized with the insurgents, and who would render themselves liable to considerable danger by giving evidence. To get people to come forward, we ought to have assured them that they should not be molested, not for giving evidence there, but for being there at all. Besides, the word of Mr. Fawcett and Regeb Pasha would never induce Greek Christians to testify against Turks in a matter where, rightly or wrongly, grave suspicion was afloat against Amoosh Aga, the Chief of the Police of Thessaly. I would ask the House to listen while I tell them who Amoosh Aga is. He is a notorious brigand, who was imprisoned for his crimes; but, being released, after the manner of the Turks, he was made Chief of the Police of Thessaly. This man is a worthy comrade for Chefket Pasha, and has been guilty of murder, rape, torture, burning, and outrages of an unspeakable character. In March, when

    1975
    Mr. Ogle was visiting Bulgarini—as detailed in The Times of April 4th, in the last letter but one which was printed, but not the last one which was received by that journal from Mr. Ogle—he was informed by the people of the place that some time before his arrival—
    "A number of women and children were shut up in two houses to serve the brutal lusts of the troops, who came in scores to debauch them, and not to debauch them only, but to beat and kick them, to tyrannize over them, and to outrage the very laws of nature, so that the place rang with their screams and with the brutal laughter of the fiends who revelled in those orgies."
    A week before Mr. Ogle's visit the British Commissioner, Mr. Longworth, was there, and examined the people in the same house. They told him they were contented, and said nothing of these outrages. Why? They feared to tell the truth, because, as they informed Mr. Ogle, Amoosh Aga and the Caimacam were in the room. And Amoosh Aga had previously sent a corporal to warn them, "that if anyone should say a word against the authorities, he should not escape." After the skirmish at Konkonrava—a neighbouring village —on February 27th and on February 28th, Amoosh Aga sent a letter to the people of Bulgarini, telling them to send ten of their principal men to do homage, and that if they did so his soldiers should not enter their village. Having committed no crime, and taken no part in the insurrection, they willingly complied, and set out the next day—1st of March. They were seized by Amoosh Aga and his men, and brought to a spot between Bulgarini and Agia. Shepherds stood watching on the hills above—
    "The bugles sounded the halt, and here, by a brook, the wretched men were hacked almost to pieces by these cruel murderers. The bodies were then piled up like a row of wood, a row with feet this way, a row with feet that way, and branches, which had been placed beneath them, fired. The fire did not do its work completely enough to hide the crime, and when Mr. Longworth passed he saw the burned and blackened corpses;"
    while Mr. Ogle, a week later, saw traces of the dreadful crime. Madame Zabanski, on page 54, speaks of Mr. Ogle's interview with Amoosh Aga, and relates how he upbraided him with his brutality, how Amoosh Aga first denied and then confessed that it was true, and prayed Mr. Ogle not to publish the out-
    1976
    rages, and how Mr. Ogle refused to conceal them. Mr. Ogle said—
    "I have come to discover the truth; had I found that you had done no wrong, I should have written so; but, having been a witness to your crimes, I shall write about them, and everyone shall know them. Take care not to do such things again, for, if you do, I shall hear of them, and I will make them universally known."
    In consequence of all this, Mr. Ogle felt certain that Amoosh Aga would some time or other make him suffer for what he had done. He said, on the day of his departure for Macrinitza—"I am sure Amoosh Aga will kill me, or will set someone to kill me." I think I have said enough to show who Amoosh Aga was. No doubt, Mr. Fawcett's and Regeb Pasha's promise would not be violated as long as they were on the spot. But Mr. Fawcett, it was well known, was leaving in a few days. Regeb Pasha was a General, and liable to be ordered away at any moment; but Amoosh Aga would remain, and who was to protect these poor people from his vengeance? They felt the full force of this, and it caused them to write under the Proclamation, in the night—
    "Turks, we know you! you shall not entrap us! Englishmen, assure us of safety, and we will give evidence! 'Slaves.'"
    That their fears were fully justified was proved by the event. I read, in The Standard of the 13th of May—
    "It has been found necessary to send away three persons with their children who had privately given information concerning Mr. Ogle's movements on the 29th of March. They have been sent to Athens, their lives having been threatened if they return to the village. One was a woman whose husband had been killed by the Basi-Bazouks of Amoosh Aga."
    I have now shown that there was evidence offered which was not received; and I will now refer to the three findings of Mr. Fawcett, which were as follows:—
    "1st. That C. C. Ogle met his death by a gunshot or bayonet wound, on Friday afternoon, the 29th of March, whilst retreating with the insurgents after the second battle of Macrinitza. 2. That he was afterwards mutilated, his head being cut off by Turkish soldiers."
    Probably, in my opinion, to be taken as a proof of the murdered man's identity to the person who ordered the murder.
    "3. That his great imprudence made it extremely probable that some casualty would happen to him."

    1977
    Now, Sir, I say there is no evidence at all to show that Mr. Ogle met his death on the 29th of March, while retreating with the insurgents; but there is a large amount of evidence that he met his death the morning after the battle, when he could not be accused of taking part with the insurgents, or being guilty of any imprudence. All the depositions, which are to be found in the Blue Book, were taken before Mr. Blunt, and not before Mr. Fawcett. [These depositions—with the exception, I am told, of that of Pericles Mitrianos —were not upon oath.] What do the depositions amount to? In the first place, none of the Turkish authorities were examined, and, therefore, they could not be cross-examined. Nobody is examined who can prove anything; such evidence as there is, is, as Mr. Fawcett himself admits, in part hearsay, in great part, as I can show, unworthy of credit; while Mr. Fawcett allows that much of it is irrelevant. What is the first deposition which I shall allude to? It is that of M. Zabanski. He simply proves that Mr. Ogle was unarmed and on foot, and nothing else of importance. The second is that of Hassan, the Cavass of the Italian Consulate at Volo. This man was the main witness; but his evidence is entirely uncorroborated. He asserts that he found the body, but he could not remember what day he found it on a month afterwards. He was with a muleteer, Akilleas Kaffeggi, and a Christian of Volo, Nicolas Kazamias, as well as with two other Voliotes, whose names he forgets. He says that when he found the body they were all together, yet not one of the others is called, and not one word of his evidence is substantiated. They were, says Hassan, followed by five other men of Portaria and Macrinitza. There were other bodies of insurgents and villagers lower down, and there was also another headless corpse, appearing from its clothes to be that of a foreigner. Akilleas and his companions raised the body and carried it away. Thus, there were 10 persons present, some of whom are named; but none of them were examined in support of this man's evidence. Why was this, if not because it was feared that the other men would be unable to corroborate his story? Hassan is a member of a secret society called Becktash, composed of the most fana-
    1978
    tical Turks; and I am informed, on good authority, that he was in constant secret communication with Regeb Pasha. Mr. Fitzgerald, of The Standard, gave me this information, and he most kindly authorized me to give his name. The next witness was Hussein Aga Haggi Matou. To this witness was confided the task of making public Mr. Ogle's passport, so that no Turk engaged in the battle might be connected with its discovery and called. The soldiers who brought the passport to the Pashas who gave it to Hussein Aga were not called. Then came Kostaki Markidi, who could only prove that Hussein Aga showed him the passport. Next was Jacob Vianelli, who is supposed to be an important witness; but who proves nothing material, and contradicts himself in such a manner as to render his testimony absolutely worthless. In a letter, which I will show privately to any hon. Member who would like to see it, I am informed that this man admitted to the writer that he was in the habit of sending false news for money to a Vienna journal. He confessed his fault, and promised not to repeat it. Let me call to the notice of the House the evidence of this man with regard to the permission of Hobart Pasha for him to go through the Turkish lines, about which he is cross-examined. He said, first, he gave it up to Iskender Pasha and had not got it. Then, when asked how he got back through the lines without it, he says he received it back and has it at home, and promises to bring it next day. The next day he comes without it, but says it is not material, and gives a verbal account of its contents. He again promises to produce it, but never does so. I heard of this man in Volo, when I was there last autumn, long before this affair, and was warned of his untrustworthy character. Sir, this man's testimony Mr. Fawcett considered important; but I say without hesitation that it is not to be believed. The next witness, Maulusurf, proves nothing, except that he read Mr. Ogle's passport; while the next one, Athanasion, proves no more. Pericles Mitrianos' deposition comes next, and I am glad that the Solicitor General is here to judge of the value of his testimony. He asserts, first, that he, being concealed, saw "towards the decline of the day "—that is, in an indistinct light—"a head being carried to-

    1979
    wards Macrinitza." He says the head had short hair, like his own, in fact; hut he cannot well recollect about it. The hair was fair, but he could not well remember, as it was bloody. There was a moustache, but he cannot say whether there was a beard or not, the head was so bloody. Sir, a head upon a bayonet was not an uncommon sight in those days upon Pelion. There is nothing to show even that it was unlike the head of any Thessalian peasant. The hair was like Mitrianos' own in length. As to its colour, he cannot depose. Well, I say such evidence proves nothing at all, and is not worth the paper it is written on; and Mr. Blunt actually stopped the cross-examination of this witness who, on the authority of Mr. Fitzgerald, I state, was procured for Regeb Pasha by Hassan, and instructed by him. After giving his evidence, he went to Mr. Borrell's house and asked for a reward. They asked, what do you want a reward for? He answered—"Why, have I not given evidence to please the friends of Mr. Ogle? " They told him he was quite mistaken, and he replied—"At any rate, I said what Hassan told me to say." Yet great importance is given to this witness in Mr. Fawcett's Report. The evidence of Tzocanos proves nothing. He says he had never seen Mr. Ogle, but he saw a Frank riding on horseback on Friday; while Mr. Ogle is proved clearly in the depositions to have had no horse, so that the only thing he proves is that he knows nothing at all about the matter. Now, I come to page 51, the evidence of Dr. Diomedis, of Portaria, on whose evidence Mr. Fawcett strongly relies. He says—"The evidence of Diomedis is remarkable, though it is hearsay evidence." This Dr. Diomedis, after some uncorroborated evidence, supposes that Mr. Ogle was killed on Friday, and that he could not have slept at Macrinitza; because witness's sister and sister-in-law, at whose houses he had sometimes passed the night, had left the place and shut up their houses. That was no proof at all that Mr. Ogle did not sleep in some other house, or, as a Correspondent must often do, à la belle étoile. At page 43 of the Report, we are told that—
    "Not long before his death he got into a brawl with some soldiers, and was arrested, and brought to the Konak, and liberated with a caution to be more prudent."
    Mr. Fitzgerald, in his evidence on page
    1980
    50 of the Report, explains this affair, and says that Mr. Ogle told him that, on hearing the firing of muskets, he went out to see what was going on. He met some Turkish soldiers and followed them. As they advanced they saw some men who took refuge in some houses, and closed the doors. The officer who commanded the soldiers caused them to surround the houses. They then, with Mr. Ogle, approached the first house, knocked at the door, and the men opened it. As some soldiers ill-used one of the men, Mr. Ogle intervened, when the officer asked him what business he had to do so? But, as Mr. Ogle could speak no Turkish, and the officer no Greek, Mr. Ogle was arrested and taken to the Konak, to the Caimacam, who at once set him at liberty. Thus, what was really only a misunderstanding was magnified into a brawl. Mr. Fitzgerald states that the Wednesday before the battle, Mr. Ogle intended to set out for England on very important private affairs. Was it likely that in the midst of the insurrection, a spy, a revolutionary agent, would leave and go to England on private business? I should here like to quote Mr. Fitzgerald's statement with regard to what Mr. Fawcett says at page 41. He says—
    "Mr. Fawcett is decidedly in error in stating that I was misled by peasants of Drakhia, who imagined it was Mr. Ogle who passed the night in their village. I was from the first of opinion that most of the circumstantial evidence was due to the confusion of Mr. Souta's movements with Mr. Ogle's. I distinctly repudiate being in any manner a representative of Mr. Ogle's friends, beyond sympathizing with them in their grief at his loss. They entertained opinions I did not entirely share, and for which I cannot be held responsible. My admission to Mr. Fawcett was that, without satisfactory evidence to the contrary, I should be constrained to admit that Mr. Ogle was killed on the Friday; but that I knew other evidence was in existence."
    This is from a private statement, but which I am willing to show any hon. Gentleman. In conclusion, Mr. Fitzgerald says—
    "I may say that from the very first inception of the inquiry under Mr. Blunt to the last lines of the Report by Mr. Fawcett, the intention to screen the Turkish authorities is evident throughout. The impression on myself, obliged to be present on the inquiry, was painful, for I felt that a prostitution of the British name was going on. It would have been better that no inquiry at all should have taken place."
    That is the opinion of a gentleman who

    1981
    was clearly only interested so far as the ends of justice were concerned. Next comes the evidence of Kantargi, which proves nothing, while I may say the same of Ismail Effendi's. Then the evidence of Sakellarides speaks to the passport only, while that of Madame Zabanski shows that Mr. Ogle had previously been frequently followed by Ghegas, and also by a man supposed to have been an Armenian doctor. It shows that he asked the Caimacam of Volo for an escort to Bulgarini, which was not the action of a spy or a traitor, and, by an arrangement made by the Caimacam, got one. It shows that he remonstrated with Amoosh Aga for committing gross atrocities, and that Amoosh Aga had an enmity against him for doing so. It also shows that Mr. Ogle wrote a playful letter to Hobart Pasha, which is the only foundation for the assertion in the Report that Mr. Ogle set the authorities at defiance and insulted them. I have the authority of Mr. Ogle's nearest relatives in the world for saying that Hobart Pasha thoroughly understood the letter as a joke, and that he has since written to Mr. Ogle, of Sevenoaks, speaking of the deceased in terms of the highest commendation. Then, evidence was not only refused but suppressed. The man who bought Mr. Ogle's pocket-book from a Turkish officer was never examined, and the man who was found with his stick was never examined. Then, again, at page 59, you have a letter signed Emin Bey, which purports to give a description of Mr. Ogle. But the description is not a correct one, and such as it is, it was wrung from the man who gave it—a prisoner—while he was in the jail at Larissa. I am told that there is evidence to substantiate this statement. Then, there is the discrepancy in the medical evidence, which shows some inattention; but, in any case, whether the wound which caused the death of Mr. Ogle was caused by gun or by sword, it is quite clear that the death, according to the medical evidence, took place at close quarters, and not by accident, or by a dropping fire when the insurgents were in retreat. I will only refer to one more document—that at page 60—merely to mention that it is another memorandum not signed, and proving no more than the one I have quoted.
    1982
    I have now shown what has not been proved, and that evidence has been refused. I will now show what can be proved. What can be proved, if another inquiry shall be issued, is, that in the first place, Mr. Ogle was not a spy; that he was not in constant communication with the Greek Committees at Athens; that he did not come over the frontier with the insurgents; that he did not set the authorities at defiance and insult them, although such a statement was made in the Report; that he did not get into a brawl as stated by Mr. Fawcett; and that he did not meet with his death on Friday afternoon while retreating with the insurgents. I cannot, unfortunately, give the names of the witnesses who can prove these things; but I can show them to any hon. Gentleman who wishes to see them, and they have been already submitted to Lord Tenterden. These witnesses can prove that Mr. Ogle, on the 29th of March, after the capture of the first line of the insurgent's defence by the Turks, left the battle-field with A. and B. In the afternoon of Friday, when the insurgents were in general retreat, Mr. Ogle was seen near the church at Macrinitza talking to C. That makes three witnesses who had seen him after the battle. Towards sunset on the same day—Friday, March 29th—at the time when he was supposed to be killed, he is spoken to at Lukopetra, the wolf rock, whither he had come from Portaria, to which village he had conducted some poor women and children from Bulgarini, whom he met at 2 o'clock, after the battle of Macrinitza, for safety, and about whom he wrote, as I have already mentioned, to a friend, asking him to take care of them. He is spoken to here by D. E. F. G. and H., besides many others whose names I do not know. That makes eight witnesses to Mr. Ogle's movements. That same night—Friday— he slept with many fugitive villagers in the open air, on this same shoulder of Pelion called Lukopetra; whereas Mr. Fawcett says he was murdered that afternoon. On Saturday morning very early, on the 30th of March, Mr. Ogle was on his way to Macrinitza from Lukopetra, with the object, as he told witnesses, of seeing the Pasha, and endeavouring to induce him to stop the pillage of the hamlet; and it was while on this philanthropic errand that he was

    1983
    killed. Witnesses can be produced who depose as follows:—A man of Macrinitza named K., with another man of the same place named L., was returning to Macrinitza on the Friday evening. They saw some Turkish soldiers coming down the hill, and hid themselves, spending the whole night on the spot. About an hour before daybreak on Saturday morning, Mr. Ogle, whom they knew, passed them going towards Macrinitza along an ascending path. This is Saturday morning, a day after Mr. Fawcett declares that he was killed. At the top of this path was a rock upon which K. states that they saw three Turks on one side and six on the other. As Mr. Ogle passed, they rolled three large stones down on him but missed him. Then the Turks came down, fell on him, assassinated him, impaled his head on a bayonet, and set off towards Macrinitza. K. and L., coming forward to see more clearly, were fired on by the Turks. L. was killed and K. escaped by flight. The body of L. is probably that alluded to in Streit's mémoire. That makes ten witnesses; the eleventh is M., of a village on Pelion, who declares that he was sent early on Saturday morning, the 30th of March, from Lukopetra by way of Portaria to try to enter Macrinitza to get a bag containing documents which was hidden in another person's house. All the names are in my possession. Between Portaria and Macrinitza he saw Mr. Ogle, whom he knew well, having acted as guide to him the day before, going on ahead towards Macrinitza. He correctly describes Mr. Ogle's dress—and I may here remind the House that there was no satisfactory description of Mr. Ogle given by any witness before the Commissioners. He lost sight of him for a moment owing to a winding of the path, and next saw him amongst 8 or 10 Turkish soldiers. He saw them strike him with a sword or bayonet. The witness then took to flight, and was fired on, but missed. These witnesses are corroborated by two others, a woman and a boy, mentioned in Streit's mémoire, which is generally well worthy of attention. Mr. Streit says—
    "On Saturday, 26th April, two witnesses were brought to me—an old woman and her son—inhabitants of the village of Macrinitza; to the best of my memory, these folks assert that they were present at the time when, on Saturday, the 30th of March, in the morning, Mr. Ogle was passing through the ravine be-
    1984
    tween Portaria and Macrinitza to proceed to the latter village, with the intention, expressed to the witnesses, of negotiating for the stoppage of pillage and massacres. They told me that they saw him followed at a distance by some Turkish soldiers; that they themselves were afraid and hid behind some trees; that Ogle perceived that he was being followed and turned round; that the soldiers approached, killed him, unarmed as he was, by a shot from a gun, and thrust from a bayonet, that they also killed a peasant who was near him (probably L.); ' that they cut off the heads of the two murdered men after having searched and rifled them; that they afterwards threw away the head of the peasant; that they impaled Ogle's head on a bayonet through the mouth, and set off in the direction of Macrinitza and the Turkish camp.'"
    This makes three sets of witnesses who independently witnessed the death of Mr. Ogle on that Saturday morning, the 30th of March. These witnesses had been also mentioned to me quite independently some time before the publication of Mr. Fawcett's Report by a gentleman of Volo, who had seen enough of Turkish conduct to desire his name to be concealed. I knew him in Athens, and I know his brother was murdered by Turks. A Greek called Ephthemethes, who had been to America and become an American subject, and on his return to Thessaly had taken a farm from Abram Pasha, the Khedive's banker, near Larissa, and to protect whom and to convey him to his country, an American man-of-war, The Marion, came from Smyrna to Volo harbour, told my informant on board the steamer bound, from Volo to Athens, that he knew a woman and a youth who saw Mr. Ogle murdered by 10 Turkish soldiers.
    MR. HAYTER: Will the hon. Member say if they were regular or irregular soldiers?
    MR. H. SAMUELSON: I cannot say with certainty, but I think they were irregulars. These witnesses, and probably many others, would have testified before the Committee had the Government guaranteed their safety, and I firmly believe that they will do so now under the same conditions. A mixed Commission has failed, and therefore I ask that a new Commission shall be appointed of Englishmen only. The present would be a very good opportunity to show the Turks that we mean to enforce the safety of the lives of our subjects now that we are responsible for the good government of Turkey. Having undertaken that responsibility, are we to begin by allowing the murder of one of our own com-

    1985
    patriots to remain unpunished, nay, screened, as I believe it has been in the most disgraceful way, intentionally or unintentionally? Better, far better, for the prestige of England and for the safety of the lives of British subjects residing in the East, that an inquiry had never taken place, than that such a travesty of justice had been allowed. I will read the following copy of a letter which, after setting forth the evidence I have quoted and other evidence, says—
    "The evidence here set forth with the names of the witnesses is contained in a letter written in Greek by a person, whose name is given, to Mr. X., of Volo, and translated into French by a friend of his. Both letters will be placed in the hands of Lord Tenterden, if his Lordship should desire to have them in his custody. It is asserted that several persons, whose names are not given, can corroborate various parts of the evidence. We have the best authority for saying that every refugee, every person who knew anything about the late Mr. Ogle's case, has been examined by the right hon. Charilaus Tricoupi at his own house at Athens, and that, in the opinion of that gentleman, link by link, a complete chain of evidence has been formed."
    Hon. Gentlemen know what weight is to be attached to such a statement from M. Tricoupi. I say I believe in the assertions of these witnesses, and corroborated as they are one by another, they carry conviction to my mind. I do not guarantee their truth—it would be very wrong of me to pretend to do so—but I demand that they shall be examined, and that their evidence shall be taken for what it is worth. But this can only be done under a guarantee that they shall be safe while they are giving evidence, and that, after giving it, they shall be removed to a place of safety, and this can only be done in the presence of an English Commissioner. There is a precedent for taking more notice of this case than has yet been taken. Hon. Members may remember the circumstances which attended the murder of Mr. Bowlby, The Times Correspondent, and some other Englishmen, in 1860, by the Chinese. A full account of it will be found in The Annual Register, 1860. At that time the lives and property of Englishmen were apparently valued more highly by the English Government. The Earl of Elgin deemed it his duty to take notice of Mr. Bowlby's high qualities in these terms—
    "Mr. Bowlby was the Correspondent of The Times. I deplore his loss, not only because he
    1986
    was a highly-accomplished and well-informed gentleman, but also because from the liberal and conscientious spirit in which he addressed himself to the singularly complicated problems presented by the moral, social, and commercial condition of China, I had conceived the hope that he would be the means of diffusing sound information on many points on which it is most important for the national interest that the British public should be correctly informed."
    Change the word China to Greece, and Bowlby to Ogle, and the same might now be said with justice. Lord Elgin, in a letter to Prince Kung, states—
    "Until this foul deed shall have been expiated, peace between Great Britain and the existing Dynasty of China is impossible."
    He goes on to say—
    "What remains of the Summer Palace, which appears to be the place where several of the British captives were subjected to the grossest indignities, will be immediately levelled with the ground, this condition requiring no assent on the part of His Highness, because it will be immediately carried into effect by the Commander-in-Chief."
    Those were different ways of dealing with such affairs in those days. A sum of £100,000 was also exacted as an indemnity. I ask for no indemnity; the friends and relations of Mr. Ogle ask for no indemnity; we do not ask for blood money—we ask for justice. Those murders took place when China was at war with us, and what penalties were paid! But the murder of Mr. Ogle took place when Turkey was not only at peace with us, but almost in alliance with us—almost actually under our protection. I hope I shall not have to say, as The Times said in a leader, on December 10, 1860—
    "It is provoking to have to fear that there may be some of his countrymen whose ingenuity may possibly be exercised to excuse the crime."
    The other day a debate took place in this House upon the execution on board the Beagle of a Native of Tanna, when the hon. and learned Attorney General said—" Human life was a sacred thing, whether it was the life of a savage or the life of one of Her Majesty's most civilized subjects." He said also—"It was right to attack savages who had murdered English subjects." We do not ask for any attack on the savages who took the sacred life of Mr. Ogle; we do not ask for summary justice to be inflicted; we ask for a new inquiry— for a fair inquiry. We say a sham in-

    1987
    quiry is worse than no inquiry at all, and that it is a shameful mockery and, in our opinion, travesty of justice. Declaring that there are witnesses who can substantiate the truth, we claim a hearing for them. I do not go out of my way to charge complicity against the Turkish officials, although the Papers contain evidence on which such a charge could he based; but I leave that for the fresh inquiry to examine and decide. On a former occasion, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed me that
    "The Government regarded the matter as one of serious importance, and that there was not the slightest intention on their part to dally with It."—[3 Hansard, ccxl. 1567.]
    The hon. and learned Solicitor General reminded us, in the Tanna debate, that—" In England and in all civilized communities, criminality is not confined to the person actually committing an offence, but extends to those who aid, assist, and comfort the offender." I would ask whether Mr. Fawcett's Inquiry does not aid, assist, and comfort the offenders, and will not the Government be doing the same thing if it does not grant what in fair honour and justice I demand? Perhaps I shall be told my demands are not improper, and, perhaps, even reasonable; but that it is inconvenient, in the present state of Thessaly, to institute a fresh inquiry. No doubt, it will be difficult to hold such an inquiry —it is always difficult to hold an inquiry of this kind; but the question is whether the importance of the case demands that the difficulties should be surmounted? Why should the witnesses fear more now than before? Is the state of Thessaly more disturbed now than it was at that time? Or, are we afraid that if we institute a fresh inquiry, we may discover something more than the mere facts of Mr. Ogle's death? I ask whether the inhabitants of Thessaly are treated worse now than they were when Fawcett's inquiry took place? Is this all that we have done for the Greek population of Turkey? I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will evade a fresh inquiry into the death of a murdered Englishman in order to get rid of a difficulty? A great country should never know difficulty in such a case as this. Justice to one of her subjects should override all difficulties. Sir, is such a difficulty to be weighed for a
    1988
    moment against the credit of England, which is at stake in this matter?
    I am happy to say I have now arrived at the end of what I have had to say, which has been a very long task for me, and, I am afraid, a disagreeable one to the House; and in thanking the House for the great patience and forbearance with which they have heard my feeble statement, I assure them that all I demand is justice—bare, stern, impartial justice. I want to vindicate the fair fame of England. I want to take away the reproach from the mouth of Europe, that she cares no longer for the fate of her children in all parts of the world. If I be asked what good results I expect to spring from a fresh inquiry into this case, I shall reply—The dead, it is too true, cannot be restored to life; no more good work will ever be done by the hands that wearied themselves in good works; wrong-doers will never again be mercilessly exposed, or the wretched comforted, by Charles Ogle; but the parents who sorrow for the untimely end of a life of bright promise, the relatives who lament that unjust aspersions should rest upon the memory of one whose actions were irreproachable, whose honour was unstained; the friends who bitterly complain that a base and cowardly assassination should be allowed unnecessarily to remain enveloped in mystery—all these can be, in some small measure, comforted in their affliction, if Her Majesty's Government will consent to have the case re-investigated, fully, fairly, and impartially. On their behalf, then, and on behalf of our country's credit among the nations of the world, I plead for justice to the blood of a murdered Englishman. I cannot imagine a demand more fair, more reasonable, or more just. I cannot imagine a request more free from the possibility of injury to any except the guilty, and I cannot bring myself to believe that such a request can ever be refused by any Government which claims to represent the generous people of England. I beg to move the Resolution which stands on the Paper in my name.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOT, in rising to second the Motion, said, that if before entering that House he had felt disposed to support it, after a careful perusal of the Papers relating to the death of the late Mr. Charles Ogle, presented by the Foreign Office, he should now feel

    1989
    doubly urged to do so, after hearing the very full and exhaustive statement brought before them by his hon. Friend the Member for Frome. His hon. Friend had apologized to the House for undertaking to bring to its notice so important a question as that contained in his Resolution; but he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was sure he spoke the sentiments of all who had listened to him, that the manner in which he had dealt with the subject was highly creditable to his abilities, to his regard to the memory of one whom he must call his murdered friend, and also to his sense of what was due to British justice. After the necessarily long and elaborate argument they had heard, he felt that he could not trespass upon the indulgence of the House; but still entertaining, as he did, a very strong opinion that injustice had been done to Mr. Ogle, both as regarded the circumstances under which he met his death and his conduct previously, he could not refrain from making a few observations, and in order to confine them within as small a compass as possible, he would give a brief outline of the facts of the case, and then, by a review of the principal features of the evidence upon which Mr. Fawcett was said to have based his Report, would proceed to show that that Report was most lame, inconclusive, and unsatisfactory. On Thursday, the 28th March last, the late Mr. Ogle was walking in the Promenade of Volo, in company with a little boy, the son of his landlord, M. Zabanski; and he believed that Mr. Fitzgerald, the Correspondent of The Standard, was with him. On that day Mr. Ogle had been expecting the steamer from Athens to arrive at Volo, and had the intention of returning in her, with the view of leaving Greece for England, in consequence of some domestic matters in his family which required his presence at home. The steamer did not arrive, and while the three persons were walking on the Volo Promenade, firing was heard in the mountains near Mount Pelion and in the neighbourhood of the town of Macrinitza. Mr. Ogle immediately proposed to go towards the quarter whence the guns were heard, and asked Mr. Fitzgerald to accompany him; but that gentleman declined, as he had a despatch ready for The Standard, and said he should stay at Yolo, in the chance of the steamer
    1990
    arriving. The landlord's little boy was sent home, and Mr. Ogle went away alone, taking only the walking stick he had in his hand. So little idea had he of joining the Greek insurgents that he did not even fetch his revolver, which was hanging up in his room. From that Thursday afternoon nothing more was seen of him until his body was brought headless into Volo, and stripped of nearly every article of clothing, on the 5th April. If those who had perpetrated the atrocity thought to escape detection by stripping the body and cutting off the head, they were mistaken; for they had left a flannel shirt covered with blood upon the corpse, and when it was brought into Volo it was immediately identified by the landlady of the house where he had lodged by a similar flannel shirt being found in his wardrobe, and by a peculiar sear on the right wrist. On the Saturday afternoon, Mr. Ogle's friend, Mr. Fitzgerald, heard a rumour that something had gone wrong with him; but no precise information reached him on which he could act. The fights between the Turkish soldiers and the insurgents finished on the afternoon of Friday the 29th, when the Greeks were completely routed and fled in disorder in all directions. On Sunday the 31st March, about 1 in the afternoon, a Turk named Houssein Haggi brought some papers into Volo, and finding one among them which he could not read, being in English, he took it to the shop of Sakellerides, a jeweller, in the Market Place, and asked him. to read it. Sakellerides, not being able to read it, showed it to M. Cortaki, who happened to come in, but he was not more successful; and, ultimately, they called in Sowlusuf, a Jew, who had arrived in Volo the day before from the Piræus. He read it, and ascertained it to be the passport of Mr. Ogle. It was given the same afternoon to Turkish officials, and, ultimately, to Admiral Hobart Pasha. That same evening Hobart Pasha met the daughter of Mr. Borrell, the Italian Consul, and said to her—"It is all up with your friend Ogle," or, in words described by another witness who was present—"Ogle, c'est une affaire du passé." Therefore, it was quite clear that the death of Mr. Ogle was known to the Turksh authorities on that Sunday afternoon, and, indeed, according to the evidence, Mr.

    1991
    Fitzgerald was told that evening by one of the Turkish officers, "that Ogle had been killed in a breastwork of the insurgents with a rifle in his hand." As the insurgents were driven from their works in the first day of the fighting, this statement was to the effect that Ogle had been killed on Thursday the 28th of March. After this a man named Hassan, a chavass or chasseur, as he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) supposed him to be, of Mr. Borrell, was sent in search of Mr. Ogle's body; but the first time without success. He did not appear to have had any assistance whatever from the Turkish Commander, who had at that time—Monday, April 1— established a military cordon round the mountain, as low as Portaria, and might, he (Sir Eardley. Wilmot) should think, have found and delivered up the body without difficulty. Be that as it might, it was only by a second search, on the 5th April, several days after, that the body was discovered by Hassan, and one or two men who accompanied him, in a ravine between Macrinitza and Portaria, wounded in several places, headless, and rapidly decomposing, and stripped of all the clothing, except the flannel shirt above mentioned. The body was immediately brought to Volo, and identified by the landlord, Zabanski, and the friends of Mr. Ogle. Now, upon these facts, supported by certain depositions taken at Volo before Mr. Blunt, the Consul at Athens—for Mr. Fawcett, as his hon. Friend the Member for Frome had already told them, examined no witnesses himself—came to the conclusion that Mr. Ogle was killed on the Friday afternoon, as he was running away from Macrinitza with the insurgents, and that his head was cut off, and carried to the Turkish camp. He would now look at the evidence in support of this theory, first premising that it, too, was totally at variance with the statements of Rescind Pasha and Lieutenant Skender Pasha, that Ogle was killed in the breastworks, with a rifle in his hand. The most important witness, whose evidence was found in the Papers presented to the House, was Houssein Haggi, of Larissa, who deposed that he received some papers from Turkish soldiers on Friday afternoon, the 29th, and took them up to the Pashas commanding the Turkish Forces. Among these papers was Mr. Ogle's passport,
    1992
    which none of them could read; and they gave it back, with the other papers, to Houssein to take care of. This paper ultimately found its way to the jeweller's shop at Volo. But there was this most important fact—namely, that Houssein said he slept at Macrinitza that night, and the next day—le lendemain—went into Volo. Now, it was quite clear that the day Houssein went into Volo was on Sunday, 31st, and, if so, the passport was shown to the Pashas on the Saturday, and not on the Friday. But the case did not rest there; for two other witnesses, who had nothing whatever to do with the passport—two men who claimed to be with the Pashas when the papers were shown them by Houssein— namely, Kantargi and Ismail Effendi, both stated the day to be Saturday, and not Friday. The witness Houssein, therefore, did not at all substantiate Mr. Fawcett's Report. For, if Friday was the day he was before the Pashas, all Saturday was unaccounted for. Then, another witness, Dr. Diomedis, had been called, who stated that he had been told by two persons that Mr. Ogle had been seen running down a steep ravine on the second day of the fight, in the direction of Portaria; and as he had not been heard of at that place, the presumption was that he was overtaken by Turkish soldiers, killed and mutilated, his head being carried by them to Macrinitza on the point of a bayonet. But why were not these two persons called, who might have been asked if they were sure as to the identity of the person whom they saw running? If not called, what credit could be given to their story? The rest of the depositions were of a piece with the evidence he had referred to; but he really felt reluctant to trouble the House at greater length upon the details so fully and ably handled by his hon. Friend. There was one main feature in the case, which he urged most strongly. If Mr. Ogle's death was known to Hobart Pasha, to Reschid Pasha, and Skender Pasha, on Sunday, the 31st March, well known as he was to everyone in Volo and the surrounding villages; if it were true that he fell while fighting with the insurgents, why did they not return his body to his friends immediately a search was made for it? Why did they allow it to lie headless in the ravine till the 5th April, when their scouts were scouring

    1993
    the mountain in all directions? Why did they allow a Turkish soldier to be seen walking about in the trousers of the murdered man? These circumstances satisfied him that it was not unknown to the Turkish authorities that he had met with foul play. But when, in addition to this, they knew that he had encountered the bitter enmity of Amouss Aga, the Chief Commissioner of Police in Thessaly, whose antecedents his hon. Friend the Member for Frome had described— and God forbid they should qualify any man, except in Turkey, for a Chief Commissionership of Police—when they knew that Mr. Ogle had not only actively interfered to prevent the barbarous outrages committed by the Turks on unoffending and helpless women and children, but that he had on several occasions given the poor inhabitants of the villages money to save them from starving, they might well believe that the death of Mr. Ogle might be fairly ascribed to a deep feeling of revenge against a man so beloved and respected throughout the districts. For his friend, Mr. Fitzgerald, said he was of so noble and chivalrous a character that he would at any time have risked his life to prevent oppression and cruelty. If the theories upon which Mr. Fawcett had based his Report were unsubstantial, and called for further investigation, how much stronger was the case when, as they had learnt from his hon. Friend the Member for Frome, several witnesses could be produced who actually saw the assassination early on Saturday morning, the 30th March, when an unarmed man was set upon by Turkish soldiers, and barbarously slain, stripped, and mutilated? He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was not aware who these witnesses were; but he had proved, without them, that the murder occurred on the Saturday, after all the fighting was over, and not on the Friday. Therefore, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) most earnestly appealed to the Government to grant a further inquiry, and thus do justice to the reputation of this young man, whose good name had been assailed, and thus afford satisfaction to his family and relations, in whose hearts his character was more sacred even than his life. His hon. Friend had spoken of Lord Palmerston, and his readiness always to protect a British subject; but he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) well knew that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of
    1994
    the Exchequer, who at that moment sat upon the Treasury Bench, had in his breast quite as noble feelings as Lord Palmerston, and if injustice had been done to an Englishman, he would be as eager and forward to see it redressed as ever Lord Palmerston had been. He, therefore, appealed to his right hon. Friend to grant a further inquiry into Mr. Ogle's death. Ho could not believe that a Motion so fully justified would be refused; but, if it were so, all he could say was, he should leave that House satisfied that despotism was preferable to constitutional government, and that the British Government was an empty name.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, Mr. Consul General Fawcett's Report upon Mr. C. C. Ogle's death is inconclusive, and that a fresh Commission of Inquiry ought to be instituted, composed of Englishmen only, who should be specially empowered to assure the witnesses of the protection of Her Majesty's Government,"—(Mr. Henry Samuelson,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. BOURKEsaid, he was sure that no one who had heard the statement of the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson), or no one bearing the name of Englishman who read it could help deeply and sincerely lamenting the death of Mr. Ogle. There could be no doubt that the death of that gentleman had been accompanied by those barbarous acts of mutilation with which, unhappily, we had been made too familiar by the war which had just concluded, and at which he did not think it too much to say our common humanity shuddered. He entertained, also, no doubt that Mr. Ogle was a man of noble and intrepid spirit as well as of great intellectual vigour, and that he performed the important duties which he had to discharge with honour and fidelity. It was clear, too, from the Papers before the House, that he was ardently devoted to the Hellenic cause. He was glad, he might add, that his memory had had so able a vindicator as the hon. Member for Frome; and no one, he felt satisfied,

    1995
    could refuse to offer to the family of Mr. Ogle their deep sympathy in the loss which they had sustained. It was due, under all the circumstances, to him and them, that the case should be fully and fairly discussed in that House, and no one who had heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman could deny that it reflected great credit on his ability. After that speech he did not feel justified in taking up the time of the House by entering at any great length into the facts of the case. There was, however, one observation made by the hon. Gentleman which he felt it to be his duty to dwell on very briefly. He had stated that the country at the time of Mr. Ogle's death was not at war; but there could be little doubt that, for all practical purposes, a state of war prevailed. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say that it was impossible to obtain evidence in the case without guaranteeing the lives of those who gave it, and he criticized that part of Mr. Fawcett's Report in which he said that no such guarantee could be entered into. Now, in taking that view, Mr. Fawcett was, in his opinion, justified, not only by his instructions, but on the ground of common sense; because, unless the witnesses who gave evidence were prepared to leave the country—and there was nothing to show that they were willing to do so—or unless the British Government were prepared to occupy it in a military way, Mr. Fawcett could not give the guarantees of which the hon. Gentleman spoke. One of the charges which had been brought against the Consul General, therefore, in his opinion fell to the ground; and nobody could attribute any dereliction of duty in refusing to give the guarantee. As the House was aware, great efforts had been made by Mr. Fawcett to procure evidence; but they unfortunately failed, and no one, in his opinion, who read the Report with fairness could come to any other conclusion than that he was justified on the evidence which he was able to procure in arriving at the decision which he did. ["No, no!"] That, at all events, was his opinion; but he did not wish to enter into that question, for reasons which he would tell the House directly; but he would first remind hon. Members that Mr. Fawcett's Report had been corroborated by Mr. Blunt and by Captain Clarke.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONrose to Order. No Report by Mr. Blunt appeared in the Papers before the House.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, he had only just heard that such an expression of opinion on the part of Mr. Blunt had reached the Foreign Office. But upon the Papers before the House he did not think that any fault could be found with Mr. Fawcett for the proceedings which he undertook or the manner in which he acted. He believed that that gentleman brought to the performance of his duties a sincere and honest intention; and he could not see, from the evidence, that he could have come to any other conclusion than that at which he had arrived. Indeed, he might say that Her Majesty's Government were satisfied with the conduct of that gentleman, believing that he had discharged his duty in a bonâ fide and an honest manner. But a different class of considerations now arose, because the hon. Member for Frome had assumed the responsibility of saying that evidence could be produced which completely negatived the chief findings of Mr. Fawcett. A very grave state of affairs arose if a Member of that House took upon himself the responsibility of vouching for evidence of that character.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, he did not vouch for its truth. He merely vouched for its existence.
    MR. BOURKEremarked that the hon. Member, in the course of his speech, plainly said he believed that the evidence he was bringing before the House was true.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, there had evidently been a misunderstanding. He did not guarantee the truth of this evidence; but he demanded that it should be examined, and he did believe in its existence.
    MR. BOURKEobserved, that in regard to the evidence of several persons the hon. Member vouched his own personal knowledge. There could be no doubt about that. In his speech to-day the hon. Member had not only disparaged almost all the evidence upon which Mr. Fawcett's Report was founded, but he had said that it was altogether untrue, and he had described the character of some of the witnesses as being absolutely infamous. [Mr. H. SAMUELSON: No!] "Infamous" was the word which the hon. Member used. Although the hon. Member did not guarantee the

    1997
    truth of the evidence he adduced, yet it seemed to him to be worthy of credit; and therefore Her Majesty's Government were placed, with reference to Mr. Fawcett's Report, in a different position from that which they occupied before the hon. Member's speech was delivered. The hon. Gentleman had asserted that Lord Tenterden had seen some of this evidence; but, for his own part, he could say it only came under his notice a very short time ago. He believed that Lord Tenterden also had only recently seen it, and then it was placed before them both in such a way that it was impossible to use it, because they were anxious to prevent the witnesses from getting into trouble. Consequently, no charge could be founded upon the neglect of duty by Her Majesty's Government because they did not produce this evidence, for as soon as they saw it they perceived it must fall to the ground. As, however, the hon. Member had now made that evidence public, there could be no objection to their making what use they could of it. In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government were prepared to say that if these discrepancies—to call them by a very mild name—could be supplemented by further evidence, or if any of the evidence on which Mr. Fawcett's Report was founded could be contradicted, a fresh inquiry ought to be instituted, when the country was in such a condition that the witnesses could come forward and give their evidence. It would be impossible, however, for Her Majesty's Government to accept the hon. Member's Resolution, because it pointed to afresh Commission of Inquiry composed exclusively of Englishmen. He was not in a position to say that he could force upon the Porto a Commission composed of Englishmen only. All he could promise was that Her Majesty's Government would do what they had done with regard to this case from the first. They would take the greatest interest in this case; they would get the very best Commissioners they could, and they would endeavour to take measures to give protection to the witnesses; though it would be impossible, in the present state of the country, to guarantee the safety of the witnesses without carrying them away to another country or occupying the Island by military force. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Resolution would
    1998
    be withdrawn. If the hon. Gentleman could suggest any inquiry which was not open to the objections he had urged, he believed a satisfactory arrangement might be arrived at. He regretted an expression the hon. Member had used with reference to Sir Austen Layard, which had led the House to infer that in certain instructions given to Mr. Fawcett, Sir Austen Layard had advised that the inquiry should be shortened for the purpose of concealing the truth. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw that expression.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONexplained that he did not mean to impute to Sir Austen Layard a desire to conceal the truth. What he did mean by the expression was that the instructions which Sir Austen Layard gave to Mr. Fawcett were calculated, without his intending it, to have the result of concealing the truth by hurrying over the inquiry.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, because he thought the hon. Member for Frome was justified in asking the Government for a more definite and distinct statement than that just made by the Under Secretary, as to the course which it was intended to take. The effectiveness of the speech of the hon. Member had been praised; but he (Mr. W. E. Forster) thought its effectiveness was quite as much owing to the exceeding strength of the case as to the manner in which it had been brought before the House. He did not know that he had ever heard so strong a case made out for the re-opening of an inquiry. He understood that Her Majesty's Government were willing to reopen the inquiry; and the fact that Thessaly and Epirus were not yet in a state of complete tranquillity was no reason why the inquiry should not be set on foot immediately. Nor did he see the slightest reason why the British Government should not guarantee the absolute safety of the witnesses. If whoever was sent was authorized to say to the witnesses—"We guarantee that you shall not be injured either in life or goods for telling the truth, and we will take you out of the country if necessary," he did not believe that the witnesses would not be forthcoming. The very least thing Her Majesty's Government could do was to secure at any expense that these people should not suffer either

    1999
    in life or property. The fact that the transactions in question had taken place in that part of Turkey which, by the decisions of the Congress at Berlin, Turkey had been strongly recommended to give up to Greece, made it all the easier for the Government to take that course. There was the strongest primâ facie ground for believing that Mr. Ogle —a young man of great promise and the highest character — was murdered because he was telling the truth to The Times newspaper, and because he thereby exposed the unspeakable horrors committed by men in authority. Looking merely at the Papers, independently of what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Frome, he was drawn most reluctantly to the conclusion that Consul General Fawcett did not sufficiently examine the case, and that there was nothing in the Papers that justified his conclusions. It might have been justifiable for him to come to the conclusion that nothing was proved one way or another; but it was to be regretted that the Representative of England, examining into the death of an Englishman, should have thought himself justified in making an accusation for which there was no warrant against Mr. Ogle's character; and he would be surprised and disappointed if the Foreign Office did not inform Mr. Fawcett that he was not justified in making that accusation. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER asked what the accusation was?] There was the strongest possible insinuation that Mr. Ogle was a spy on behalf of the Greek insurgents. The Report said— "In any other country he would have been treated as a spy and possibly shot." There was no attempt to prove in these Papers that Mr. Ogle acted imprudently, as had been asserted, even in his enthusiasm for humanity and his indignation against cruelty. Perhaps Mr. Fawcett might have thought it would be inconvenient to raise a controversy at that particular time with the Turkish Government; but such a consideration ought to have prevented the inquiry from being held, instead of causing it to be conducted as it was. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government, instead of waiting until Epirus and Thessaly were pacified, would set on foot a new inquiry at once, and that they would instruct their authorities to give every possible security that could be given to the wit-
    2000
    nesses. He had read with a great deal of pain the dispatch of Sir Austen Layard, in which it was stated it was alleged that Mr. Ogle was siding with the insurgents at the time of his death, and that he was warned of the danger into which he was running. Warned by whom? By Sir Austen Layard; because, if so, he must have had proof of the matter before the inquiry was opened. He did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson) ought to make it an absolute condition that the Commissioners should all be Englishmen; but he was of opinion that power should be given to the Commissioners to hear evidence by themselves if they thought proper to do so. An additional reason for demanding a fresh inquiry was furnished by the relation to which Her Majesty's Government now stood with reference to the Government of Turkey. Her Majesty's Government had undertaken to take steps to reform the Turkish Government in Asia Minor, which was the same Government as ruled over these Greek Provinces. Unless Her Majesty's Government informed the Turkish Government that gentlemen who went to Turkey to report the truth to English newspapers must not be murdered, and that this country would look after them if they were murdered, any attempt at reform in the Dominions of the Porte would be an absolute mockery. All that he (Mr. W. E. Forster) asked for was that the Government should insist upon an inquiry, and that they should instruct their authorities to give every possible security to the witnesses to be examined. They had an abundance of proof that in these inquiries attempts were made to prevent the English Government from knowing what had happened; and he had no doubt it would turn out that, in the present instance, the Camaicam went about the villages warning the people not to give evidence. The case was one which demanded inquiry as much as any case could demand it, and every attempt should be made to punish the murderers; and believing that it was as true now as in Lord Palmerston's day that a British subject ought to be safe in any country, he sat down in the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inform the House that the Government were ready, both in justice to the murdered man and themselves, to order another investigation.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he entirely re-echoed the closing words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He felt that the responsibility of protecting and safe-guarding the lives of British subjects abroad was a duty which lay upon every British Government, and he was perfectly satisfied that duty would be discharged by every British Government, whatever might be its political complexion. Englishmen ought especially to be protected when they were in countries where great agitation prevailed; and where, if they spoke truly, they might expose their lives to private vengeance or public danger. In such cases, the British Government ought to be particularly ready to extend their protection to those who were doing their duty. In the course of the discussion several remarks had been made respecting the character of the late Mr. Ogle, and it would almost seem as if there was a difference of opinion in the House on the subject. He wished, therefore, most distinctly and emphatically to say for himself—and he believed, also, on the part of the Government, and of all those who sat on that side of the House—that there existed no difference of opinion as to the character of the late Mr. Ogle. Whether he was less prudent than he ought to have been was a matter which did not at all affect his character. That he was a man of great courage and energy—that he possessed an amiable disposition, and was incapable of doing anything but what was highly honourable, had never been disputed by anyone. But that did not altogether dispose of the question at issue with regard to Consul General Fawcett's inquiry. That inquiry was as to whether Mr. Ogle lost his life in the action that was fought or in the pursuit that immediately followed it, or whether he was slain in cold blood on another day? It was in no sense a reflection on Mr. Ogle's character that it should be thought he had lost his life in the pursuit on the Friday. There was no question that he went out to see what was going on. Any man who did so exposed his life to danger, and it was quite probable that Mr. Ogle might have been unfortunate enough to lose his life in the struggle which occurred, or in the pursuit which followed it. Even if that view should be sustained, it would in no way reflect upon Mr. Ogle's character.
    2002
    Some injustice, he thought, had been done to Consul General Fawcett by the observations made upon him. Mr. Fawcett was a gentleman of high position, who had acted as Chief Judge at Constantinople for some years, and he was selected on this occasion because he was believed to be well qualified to conduct a judicial inquiry. Accordingly, he was sent to Volo in order to make the inquiry in the best and most solemn manner. What was he to do? He was put in communication with a Turkish authority who was associated with him in the conduct of the inquiry. Mr. Fawcett took what steps occurred to him in order to insure the bringing forward of witnesses, and there occurred in the Report a passage which the hon. Member for Frome had not read; but which, nevertheless, ought to be noticed. In describing what was done to induce witnesses to come forward, Mr. Fawcett said—
    "I informed the Greek Consul of this, who declared his satisfaction, and promised, if possible, to bring up the witnesses."
    [Mr. H. SAMUELSON remarked, that he had read that passage.] The hon. Member had been so fair in his comments that he probably did not omit that passage. Particular notice ought, however, to be taken of it; because it showed, not only that Consul General Fawcett did what he thought was sufficient to bring forward the witnesses, but also that the Greek Consul declared his satisfaction at what had been done. Mr. Fawcett and his associate, deciding on the evidence brought before them, came to the conclusion that Mr. Ogle was killed on the Friday in the retreat. Having read with some care the evidence as it stood, he was bound to say that, although there was not absolute and conclusive proof to that effect, yet the bearing of the testimony strongly supported the conclusion at which Mr. Fawcett arrived. When, however, the hon. Member for Frome came forward and said that there was a great deal of other evidence which could be adduced by persons whose names he did not feel at liberty to state publicly, although he would communicate them to the Government, a ground was certainly shown for further investigation. There could, consequently, be no question that it was the duty of the Government to see that the

    2003
    matter was properly investigated, and that there should be such an inquiry as would clear up the question as to whether such evidence as had been referred to by the hon. Member for Frome existed or not, and, if so, whether it could be relied upon. The hon. Gentleman did not guarantee that the evidence was correct, and nobody could call upon him to do so; but he said—"I do guarantee that it is tendered by persons who are really existing persons, and who, I believe, if an opportunity is afforded to them of coming forward in safety, will give evidence which will prove that Mr. Ogle was not killed on the Friday, but on a later day." In the circumstances, he had no hesitation on the part of the Government—and he spoke with the authority of Lord Salisbury—in saying that the matter was one which the Government were perfectly ready to carry further by a fresh investigation, and that they would conduct the investigation in such a manner as to give the Greek witnesses courage to come forward. Lord Salisbury's words on the subject were—
    "We would be ready to supplement the deficiencies of the evidence by a further investigation whenever the state of the country shall be such as to enable all the Greek witnesses to come forward without fear."
    The Government did not mean that everything must necessarily be entirely quiet and peaceable in the country; but care must be taken that evidence was called for at a time and in a manner which would insure our being able to get the witnesses to come forward without encumbering ourselves with what had been called a guarantee of the British Government. He thought that an offer to remove witnesses whose lives were in danger would be a proper offer to make; and, of course, in such a matter, expense ought not to be considered. The matter should be further inquired into, and, in the circumstances, he trusted his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to press his Amendment to a division. In conclusion, he must express his sense of the ability and moderation with which his hon. Friend the Member for Frome had brought forward the subject.
    MR. H. SAMUELSON,on the understanding that the Government would institute the fresh inquiry as soon as possible, and that they would guarantee protection to the persons required as
    2004
    witnesses, begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ROUMANIA.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLrose to call attention to the sanction given by the Congress to the seizure by Russia of Roumanian territory contrary to the will of the people of that Country, and to the need of securing the real administrative autonomy of the provinces restored to Turkey by guarantees at least equal to those deemed necessary by the Conference at Constantinople. He maintained that a robbery had been committed upon Roumania, and that Her Majesty's Government should not have sanctioned that robbery. It would have been perfectly competent for the Government Representatives at the Congress to have told Russia that the matter was entirely outside their province. What course, he asked, did Russia take previous to the Congress? Under the Treaty made between Russia and Roumania on the 16th of April, 1877, His Imperial Majesty of All the Russias undertook to maintain and to cause to be respected the political rights of the Roumanian State as resulting from internal laws and existing Treaties, and to protect and defend the integrity of Roumania. That agreement having been made, as soon as the war was over, or before it was concluded, Russia announced her intention to seize a portion of that territory which she had guaranteed; and he regretted that Europe should have countenanced it through the Treaty of Berlin. He had always had the idea that this country should endeavour to maintain friendly relations with Russia; but the truth was—and it was well to recognize it—the Russian Government was essentially Oriental in its character, and only kept Treaties as long as they suited its purpose. It was of great importance to Russia that it should be able to say that it was acting on a European mandate in taking possession of Bessarabia. It was also matter for regret that Her Majesty's Government should have restored the provinces South of the Balkans to Turkey without requiring adequate guarantees for their good government. In this

    2005
    respect, Her Majesty's Government, it seemed to him, had altogether departed from the position taken by their Representative at the Conference of Constantinople. The Bulgarians, he knew, were not popular at present; but, from having passed some time among them, he could say that they had many good qualities as a people. Ho maintained that they ought not to be judged by the reports of Sir Austen Layard, which were of a strongly pro-Turkish character. According to trustworthy reports, the so-called Bulgarian atrocities were by no means so serious as our Ambassador at Constantinople had represented them to be. He rejoiced that a good deal had been done for the freedom of North Bulgaria; but he doubted whether it had been done in the best way. The guarantees were not sufficient, in his opinion, and he protested against the intention which seemed to be established of allowing the people to be domineered over by the Turkish troops. It was the duty of the Government to see to that state of things, and they should have secured those ample guarantees which the Powers favoured. With respect to the provinces of Turkey in Europe not included in Eastern Roumelia, what had they to rely upon for the administrative autonomy and good government which had been promised? They had simply to rely upon the provision of the Congress of Berlin, which provided that those provinces should have Constitutions founded upon the model of the Cretan Constitution. He could not help thinking, however, that no more unfortunate model than that of Crete could have been selected. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich had shown what a failure and a farce the Constitution of Crete had been. Believing, as he did, that it was out of the question to expect that the Turks would surrender any territory to the Kingdom of Greece unless they were forced to do so, his view had always been that Her Majesty's Government should have striven to provide for these provinces an effectual administrative autonomy, whereby they might eventually arrive at freedom and independence. It was time that the door was to a certain extent left open, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government might still deal with this question in the interests of freedom. But it was none the less true that the question of the
    2006
    constitution of these provinces was to be referred to a European Commission, of which the Turcophile Member for Christ-church (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was a Member; and that fact did not furnish them with any ground for a sanguine hope that liberal treatment would be extended to the Christians. He should be extremely glad to receive an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that they were resolved that the autonomy to be given to those provinces should be real.
    MR. E. JENKINSthought it was hardly right that the hon. Member for Christchurch should have been attacked on the Opposition side of the House for his Turcophile propensities; because it was to be hoped that in any case he would behave like an English gentleman, and would be prepared to carry out fully the desires of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, however sincerely his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy might have spoken in regard to that hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. E. Jenkins) was anxious that it should not be supposed that there was an unanimous feeling of distrust or suspicion on that side of the House in regard to the manner in which the hon. Member for Christchurch would discharge the terribly responsible duties which had been assigned to him. With respect to the retrocession of Bessarabia to Russia, he was bound to say that, looking at the whole facts of the case, he did not see how Her Majesty's Government could have taken any very decided stand on that question. The injustice, if any, which was thereby done was very small indeed. The cession of Bessarabia to Russia was accomplished in 1816, under the Treaty of Bucharest, and it was confirmed by a subsequent Treaty in 1827. From 1816 to 1856, Russia had possession of the whole of Bessarabia; and the object in view in taking in the latter year of this small slice of territory from Russia was simply to drive her back from the Pruth and the Danube. That might have been good policy; but, on the other hand, everyone must feel that it was no unnatural thing that Russia should desire to effect this rectification of her frontier when the opportunity arose. Then came the question of the Treaty between Russia and Roumania for preserving the territory of Roumania. In the Memorandum obtained from the

    2007
    Czar by Colonel Wellesley, it was distinctly stated, if his memory served him right, that the retrocession of Bessarabia was to be one of the conditions of peace. Looking at the matter abstractly, there would not appear from the arrangement entered into by Russia and Roumania at the outset of the war to be anything dishonourable in the desire of Russia to get back this piece of territory which she lost in 1856, and for which Roumania had not shed a single drop of blood.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) that the appointment of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) might be taken as an intimation that the Government was desirous of favouring Turkey as much as possible. As to Bessarabia, it might be quite natural that Russia should desire to get it back; but she should have done so with the goodwill of the country that possessed it. As it was, Russia had acted dishonourably, and violated the first principles of justice in taking Bessarabia from her Ally.
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, he had given Notice that he should call the attention of the House to the condition of pauper children in Irish workhouses, and make a Motion on the subject; but he was quite willing to postpone it, provided the Chancellor of the Exchequer would engage to keep a House for him to-morrow. He had already put off the question to meet the convenience of the Government.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would do his best to keep a House for the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he also had a Notice on the Paper which would take only a very short time. It was on the subject of the Transvaal, and representatives from the Transvaal were now here anxious to have it discussed. He would not bring it forward now, provided the Government engaged to keep a House for him to-morrow.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would be glad to keep a House for the hon. Gentleman to-morrow if it were possible; but it should be understood that the question in which the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) was interested should have precedence of the Notice of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). It
    2008
    would be very inconvenient not to take the third reading of the Appropriation Bill to-day, as in that case the House could not adjourn on Friday, and Members would be detained a day longer.
    MR. ONSLOWgave Notice that he would call the attention of the House to the subject of Afghanistan to-morrow.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    BISHOPRICS BILL.— [Lords.]
    (Mr. Assheton Cross.)

    [BILL 197.] THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, "That the Bill be now read the third time" (Queen's Consent signified).
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he must reiterate his protest against the measure. The more he had communication with members of the Church of England, the more convinced he was that the Bill was thoroughly unpopular with some of what he might call the most able and active section in it. The Bill was based upon this—that the State stepped into the place of the Church, created bishoprics, and then, through Her Majesty the Queen, appointed them, whether the Church wanted them or not. Such a horrible profanity and anomaly as that would not, he was sure, long be endured by the Christians of this country. He must ask the House to divide on the third reading of the Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 20: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 278.)
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
    House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) *; Expiring Laws Continuance *.
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Exchequer Bills and Bonds (No. 2) *.
Committee—Report—Arranmore Polling District (Ireland)* (189); Metropolitan Commons* (199); Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland)* (197).
Third Reading — Petty Sessions Clerks and Fines (Ireland) * (200), and passed.
Their Lordships met;—And having gone through the Business on the Paper, without debate—
House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Three o'clock.