The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-11 00:00:00

were among the Christians themselves. It had unfortu- (Laughter.) When he was a young man he felt, as a

nately been the policy of France to misrepresent the policy
of England in the East. Indeed the most infamous people
in Syria were the persons calling themselves Christians.
And of the efforts upon the part of the French to misrepre-
sent the policy of England with regard to the East, if the
house would extend one moment's further indulgence to
him, he would bring under their notice a matter that was
personal to himself, and which was remarkable as a gross

misrepresentation. He read in the Debats of that morning
a severe commentary written by one of the French writers
on the debate on the lonian Islands two nights before—a
commentary in which her Majesty's Government was not
spared—some remarks affecting himself. Ho was repre-
sented is the Debats—a journal which had the character of
boing generally temperate and respectable—as having ex-
pressed an earnest desire that two Albanian regiments,
without pay—

The SPEAKER—I beg to remind the hon. member
that unless there is anything in the article personal to his
own character, he is not in order in referring to it.
Mr. LAYARD begged to assure the house that it was
personal to himself. He was represented as having ex-
claimed, when he was speaking of the lonians, that he
wished the Sultan would send two Albanian regiments to
Corfu, without pay, and he warranted they would soon
give the people of that island a distaste for the government
of free Greece, Now he must say that that was a reflection
upon his character in this house. No English gentleman
would say so, and he now emphatically declared that he
never made use of any such expression. (Hear.) He hoped
that hon. gentlemen would read the papers relating to Sy-
ria, and they would see what the character of the Christians
there was. He was sorry that they bore the name of Chris-
tians. The papers, on the other hand, reflected the greatest
credit on the Porte. It might appear paradoxical, but the
position of Turkey at that moment was owing to the great
toleration of the Turk. Let them see how it contrasted with
that of Spain. Spain sought to exterminate the Moors, and
Russia was at that moment exterminating or driving out
the Tartar race from the Crimea by the most infamous and
intolerant proceedings. Now, looking at the morality of
Syria, there was not in existence a more moral people than
the Turks in that country. If the European Powers de-
sired to put a stop to the existing state of things in Syria,
they could not only do it by preventing the consuls from
meddling in the affairs of the people in that country ; and
they should also put a stop to the meddling of tho priests,
for of all agitators those in the garb of a priest—he cared
not of :what denomination—were the most dangerous.
(Hear.) He implored the noble lord at the head of the Go-
vernment to support the Turks in the adoption of their own
plans, and not to force upon them the plans of any foreign
Powers,
Colonel CLIFFORD would be one of the last to ap-
prove of the attrocities that had been committed in Syria.
Much credit was due to Lord Dufferin for the efforts
which he made to stop the effusion of Druse blood, which
was called for by the Christian priests. It was well known
that the Christian prelates sent in the names of 4,600
Druses for proscription ; and it was due, and highly cre-
ditable to Lord Dufferin, that he resisted the demand, and
succeeded in having the names reduced even to 1,000. He
(Col. Clifford) had with his own eyes seen acts of the vilest
and most wantonly-cruel kind inflicted by the Christian
Maronites upon the Druses in Syria. He, however, could
not coincide in the glowing account of Syria which had
been given by the lion, member for Southwark (Mr. Layard),
being enabled to speak differently on that subject from his
own observation and experience. In conclusion, he bore
his testimony ty the gallant conduct of Sir Hugh Rose in
protecting the Christian garrison at Beyrout from an attack
by the Druses.
Sir H. VERNEY said that it was the corruption and
maladministration of the Turkish Government which was
at the bottom of the discontent in Syria and every other
part of the Turkish Empire.
An Hon. Member moved that the House be counted, but
40 members were present when the Speaker announced the
number.
Sir H. VERNEY said that if the noble lord the Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs could by arty means cause an im-
provement to be effected in the Government of Turkey, and
infuse into it the sprit of justice, moderation, and integrity,
he would confer the greatest possible benefit on Europe.
Mr. MONSELL denied that the evils of Syria arose
from any desire on the part of the tribes to fight with each
other. He believed that the Druses and the Maronites
would live in perfect harmony if they were left to them-
selves—(hear, hear)—and not acted upon by any sinister
influence. It was not the Druses or the Maronites they
had to control, but the Turks. The Turkish Government
and the Turkish officials promoted the massacres, and to
allow the Turkish Government to arrange the affairs of
the Lebanon would be not only inconsistent with the
honour and promises of this country, but would infallibly
lead to the most disastrous results. Her Majesty's Go-
vernment should insist, before the European troops were
removed from Syria, upon the establishment of some fair
and reasonable system by which the Christians would be
protected. It would be an outrage against humanity to
sanction the removal of the troops until that were done.
They could not agree to the Turkish plan of allowing the
Turkish Paella to be omnipotent in the T.ehannn. If they
chose to do Eo, they could compel the Turkish Government
to introduce such a system as would prevent a repetition of
those miseries produced by their misgovernment. Great,
indeed, would be the responsibility of her Majesty's Go-
vernment if they neglected that line of policy. (Hear.)
Mr FREELAND said the Government had been ex-
tremely fortunate in their choice of Lord Dufferin as com-
missioner. (Hear, hear.) It was right also as regarded
M. Thouvenel, who had been referred to, to state that his
measures were of a most benign character. He (Mr. Free-
land) hoped the Powers of Europe would endeavour to
solve this difficult question in a humane and conciliatory
spirit. As to the French occupation, he thought that sub-
ject might be safely entrusted to the noble lord (Lord J.
Russell). He thought the Maronites were the aggressors.
That was the opinion of Lord Dufferin, and M. Thouvenel
almost admitted it. The Ottoman Government, however,
were chiefly to blame. Sir H. Bulwer said this, and in one
of his despatches said he had been constantly bringing this
matter before them, but without any satisfactory results.
After repeated warnings, the Turkish Government had de-
clined sending troops to Syria to repel these disturbances.
Lord Dufferin said the Turkish Pachas at Beyrout were
chiefly responsible for the disasters that 13.0 occurred. He
(Mr. Freeland) thought it was of the greatest importance
that the Government of the whole of Syria, and not of the
Lebanon merely, should be looked to, and secondly, that
Syria should not be governed for the interest of any parti-
cular European country, but for the benefit of the native
races. Among the reforms that ought to be made, he would
suggest a reform in the seraglio, the extent of which was
beyond belief, and the expenses of which were greater than
the whole army of Turkey. (Laughter.)
Mr. GRIFFITH thought we ought to prevent any-
thing likely to lead to foreign conquest in Syria, to avoid
joining with any particular party there, and to allow the
provinces to obtain their liberation how they may. (Hear.)
AFFAIRS OF 11EXICO.
Mr. BUTT asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs when the papers rel ding to the affairs of Mexico
would be laid on the table of the house and if any instruc-
tions were sent out to Sir C. Wylie to enforce the conven-
tion relative to the Customs duties ?
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that instructions had been
sent out to Sir C. Wylie, but at prt sent he had nothing
further to communicate.
THE INDEMNITY BILL.
Mr. HADFIELD wished to ask the Secretary of State
for the Home Department when the yearly Indemnity Bill
would be brought in ; whether the form and purport of it
would be the same as had been used annually since 1828 ;
and whether he would cause it to be printed in the way
usually done on the introduction of other bills, for conside-
ration and discussion ?
Sir G. C. 11.F.WT g replied that the bill tr.= annually
brought in by the Under Secretary of State for the Home
Department, and was a very short one. It would also be
found always in the folio edition of the statutes. As to the
law on the subject, there was no test whatever. A declara-
tion was required, and if not made, the parties were saved
from all consequences by an Indemnity Bill, which passed
every year.

soldier, that a " wife" would be a great incumbrance, and
that she was no part of the necessary comfort of a soldier
(Laughter.) For example, they had now regiments com-
prising a thousand persons, and they had not barrack
accommodation for more than 700. He thought a proper
retiring provision ought to be made for barrack-masters,
and a better system be introduced than that •to which he
had referred. (Hear, hear.) _ _

Sir MORTON PETO could not but call attention to the
item relating to 196 clerks of the works, who had salaries
and expenditure allotted to them amounting to £135,959.
He had had long experience with public works, and he was
utterly at a loss to account how there could be a necessity
for such a Cody of clerks of the works. (Hear, hear) And
when be compared the expenditure of England with that of
France, in their public works, he must say that that of this
c)untry was frightful. (Hear, hear.) We must separate

the political from the commercial and financial departments
of the Government. Until that was done any real enforce-
ment of economy was perfectly hopeless. If they removed
persons from responsible positions just as they became
efficient, it was impossible to exercise efficient control. No
such changes took place in other countries, and there was
no reason why it should be the case here. He should be
glad to hear from the Under-Secretary-at-War some ex-
planation of the item to which he had referred, because he
knew of no works now going on in this country which
should require the services of 196 clerks of works, at a cost
of £136,000 a-year to the country.
Colonel DICKSON concurred with the hon. baronet iu
his condematiou of this particular item, which had also
arrested his attention in looking over the estimates.
Lord STANLEY could not concur in the views expressed
by the hon. baronet the member for Finsbury as to putting
the control of the expenditure into the hands of permanent
officials. If that was done those permanent officials would
in fact become the irresponsible ministers of the country,
and the whole foundation of our parliamentary system
would be undermined. The control exercised by that house
would be in fact taken away. (Hear.)
Mr. E WART said unless some explanation were given
as to the reason why there were so many clerks he should
be obliged to vote with bis hon. friend.
Mr. AYRTON agreed with Lord Stanley in thinking
that to give the control of the expenditure to permanent
officials would destroy the power of the house, but the fact
was we had a permanent establishment, and the house was
continually called upon to resist the tendency of the per-
manent establishment to increase itself. At Gambia, for
instance, he found, though on two different pageS, that
£257 was paid for the supervision of the expenditure of £4.
That was a sample of the way in which the money was ex
pended, and certainly he believed his hon. friend the mem-
ber for Finsbury would not spend money in that way. He
must say that it appeared to him that the per tentage paid
for supervision was much higher than was paid in the
establishments of private individuals. He must say, how-
ever, that the more they looked into these estimates the less
they understood them.
Mr. BARING could not agree that the cost of works and
the cost of supervision should be included in the same ac-
count. He admitted, however, that economy might be in-
troduced into the superintendence of 'Works under the Board
of Works. That had not escaped observation on the part
cf the Government. The present system was too military
for the execution of what were or might be called civil
works. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the proposed reduc-
tion in the amount of money paid for the lodgings of sol-
diers, he would remind the committee that money spent in
promoting the health and comfort of the soldier was not
money thrown away. (Hear, hear.) It was, he admitted,
in reply to what had fallen from the hon. member for
North Warwickshire, of great importance that they should
have a complete account of the expenditure con-
nected with the public manufactory of arms, and he
should take care to have such an account prepared
on commercial principles and laid before the house. He
hoped that in the course of next year the expenditure under
this vote would be in some degree economised.
Lord W. GRAHAM wished to know where the military
telegraphs, for which £2OO was charged, were placed.
Captain JERVIS advocated the diffusion of the manu-
facturing resources of warfare over the country, instead of
concentrating them in a few places. They ought by this
means to keep up the pre-eminence they had always done.
Mr. FREELAND wished to know was there any special
reasons for lumping together in this vote no less than nine
items of a miscellaneous character, which amounted to
£45,000.
Mr. BARING would take the suggestion into considera-
tion before the next session, and if the items could be set
out in detail that arrangement would be made. The account
of the manufacturing expenditure for the past year would
be rendered within three or four weeks from the present
time. The observations of the hon. member for Harwich as
to the position of the manufacturing establishments was
worthy of every consideration, and would receive it. The
military telegraphs for which a vote was made were situated
at Malta and New Zealand. He could not hold out hope
of increased pay to barrack-masters, as had been suggested
by some hon. members.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he would now move that the
vote be reduced by the sum of £24,690, which would bring
the vote down to the same amount as it was last year.
After a Short discussion the committee divided, when the
numbers were—
For the amendment .. 24
Against
Majority
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote proposed was £366,4-17 for the wages of
artificers, labourers, &c.
Mr. MON SELL thought the Government could, by their
own manufactories, produce all the stores that were neces-
sary, and thus effect a great saving. For small arms alone
we voted £724,000, which was equal to all the arms paid for
by the French. Unless some explanation were given on
this point he would vote for a reduction.
Captain JERVIS said the country, after many experi-
ments, had been greatly indebted to that great philosopher
—for he could call him by no other name—Sir W. Arm-
strong, for his gun and his shell. By his invention no
wooden ship could appear before us that we could not blow
out of the water. No foreign Power could make that gun
for want of mechanical appliances, and therefore, if they
discovered the secret of the Armstrong gun, still they would
be unable to make anything like it. From experiments
made, Great Britain was in a position to attack iron ships
with a success which no other country could aspire to.
Mr. C HILDE RS did not understand why England should
be spending £3,000,000 for arms alone when France only
expended £800,000; and yet, in comparing the armaments
of both countries, their neighbour across the Channel was
much superior in that respect. He wished, therefore, to
know what they were to look forward to as the result of this
great expenditure.
Mr. E. BALL was not a man of war, but he could easily
understand how money was expended in carrying out such
vast improvements in such warlike materials as the Arm-
strong guns. He gave her Majesty's Government great
credit for the position in which they placed the country, and
certainly so long as the present Emperor of the French
ruled the French people that precaution was necessary,
After a few words from Captain JERVIS,
Mr. T. G. BARING, in reply to the hon. member for
Limerick (Mr. Monsell), on the armaments of the year,
said the expenditure rendered necessary was not for guns
only, but for gun-carriages and ammunition. 490 gurs
were manufactured at Elsw ick, and 897 at 'Woolwich,
making a total of 1,387 guns. The total cost of the guns
manufactured was £520,000, without gun-carriages or am-
munition. The Royal Carriage Department at Woolwich
was entirely employed in the manufacture of guns of different
descriptions, and the estimate for that department was
£336,312, and if they added the £300,000 to the half a mil-
lion it would bring the sum to upwards of £BOO,OOO. Now
they came to the ammunition for those 'guns. It was all
manufactured at the Royal Laboratory at 'Woolwich, and the
amount was nearly 503,0.00, making a total of _Pi, '700,000.
With regard to the cost of small arms, it was half a million
of money for those that were contracted for, and £370,000
for those manufactured by the Government. By those
means, adding those two items to the £1,300,000, they got
more than £2,000,000 out of the £3,000,000 for which the
vote was asked. With regard to this large expenditure,
looking to the state of the armaments of other countries, it
would not be wise not to supply the navy with the best
guns. The charge for all the Armstrong guns (with the
exception of those necessary for the navy) would be taken
in this vote. It would be borne in mind that they wore now
passing through a transition state, and unless something
extraordinary should occur, it was to be hoped that the ex-
penditure next year would be considerably less. He was
sure the committee would agree with him that, for the
defence of the country, this was a vote that ought not of all
others to be reduced. (Hear, hear.)
Colonel DUNNE said although the hon. member had
satisfied the committee on several points, he yet did not
satisfy the hon. gentleman opposite as to what had become
toof
Nt%h.he
agunsd wb he
ci co hm
ehadof
tbheee nv
ahsitt her
quantitiest o an uoffa tmu
ar me,lid and
a rms as.
Mr. BARING, in answer
wnswaesrhtaopCpyolotonesla3,, D,uhriande,bseaeind alarge
nortion of the rifles, h
distri-
buted to her Majesty's regiments of the line, a large por-
tion to the militia, a large portion to the volunteers, and
also a considerable portion to her Majesty's navy.
The vote was agreed to.
The next vote was £525,416 for army clothing, which
after a short conversation was agreed to.
The next vote was £1°,456,834 for forage, fuel, light,
barrack furniture, bedding, &c.
ishs D. GRIFFITH proposed to reduce the vote by the
sum of £12,454, an amount equal to a stoppage for forage
from the staff and departmental mounted officers similar to
that deducted from the cavalry officers, namely, 81d. per
forage ration—that is to say, per horse per day.
Mr. CONINGHAM regretted that the members wl o
signed the round-robin to Lord Palmerston steadily voted
against all propositions for retrenchment of the expendi-
ture, and he trusted that their constituents would look after
them. He thought, as the vote was £200,000 larger than
last year, that it should be reduced by thatamsyosutenmt.
alwhich
Mr. BARING said that the proposal of the hon. me,
ber would extend the system ef stoppages, a
ho (Mr. Griffith) condemned as a bad one.
Captain JERVIS reminded the house that, by the pre
sent arrangement, it was impossible for men of limited
means to accept cavalry commissions.
cc,1911Q4 Pic4§QZ 91)jeCtca t 9 Air, U2lO propol,