The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-01 00:00:00

viously be expected by witnesses who came forward uttering
falsehoods against their own government, and who sought
foreign protection with a view of weakening it. (1-1., ar, hear.)
That plan was relinquished, and a new propos t was lately
made to the Turkish Government that an inq y should be
instituted at Constantinople by the Grand V zier, or some
high minister at the Porte at the head of i . as to whether
the convention should be extended. But that proposal has
been rejected by the Turkish Government, and has not been
renewed. The Russian Government made another proposal
that the reforms now in contemplation by the Grand Vizier
should be communicated to foreign governments, and in that
proposal Sir H. Bulwer, our Ambassador at Constantinople,
concurred, and thought it was a desirable step to take. I
agree with him that it would be a desirable step, but of course
it is not intended that these foreign ambassadors should do
anything more than point out in what way these proposed
reforms should be effected, leaving it to the Turkish Govern-
ment to adopt or reject the suggestions which might be
made to them. With regard to bringing the note to which
the hon. gentleman referred before the conference at Paris,
I may state that that note is in answer to a report of the
Grand Vizier—it is a note stating that very imperfect evi-
dence had been laid before him, and supporting the asser-
tions by details and particulars. The note contains no ques-
tion for the conference of Paris. It is a question for the con-
sideration of the Government of the Porte enly, and we said
at Constantinople that it was desirable the Grand Vizier or
the Minister for Foreign Affairs should make an answer to
the note, for the charges therein made are very grave charges
and ought not to be passed over without reply. I now come to
the affairs of Syria, and I am very sorry that, having to speak
not entirely from 45fficial sources but likewise from reports
made to me by foreigners and travellers, I have to concur in
much of what the hon. and gallant member (Sir J. Fergus-
son) has stated. (Hear, hear.) It should be stated that by tho
arrangements of 1842, confirmed and enlarged by that of
1845, there are two separate authorities set up in the Leba-
non, to a great degree independent of the Turkish gover-
nors in the provinces of Syria. One of these is called the
Kaimacan, and be is a Christian. The other rules over that
portion of the country inhabited by the Druses, and is a
Druse. These two officers, exercising their authority in
virtue of the European arrangement, and under the protec-
tion of the great powers, have been, it is stated, and, as I
believe, objects of considerable jealousy on the part of the
Turkish Government, who would have preferred, and I do
not blame them, to have their own authority paramount in
Syria and independent of foreign influence. The hon. and
gallant gentleman. has stated in part what occurred at Da-
mascus, but there are other statements which I have heard,
and which I am inclined to believe, and these ought to be
told, because it is not desirable to conceal the difficulties of
of the situation or the errors which we have to repair. The
officials named by the Porte and sent as governors into the
provinces are found, in some cases, excellent and honest
governors, but in other cases they have endeavoured to
amass wealth very rapidly by oppressing the provinces,
and by those means have defrauded the Sultan. It is said
the governor of Damascus had been ordered to send a body
of troops for the security of Damascus, and at the same
time to be disposable for other parts of the empire. This
governor did not raise those troops, but he informed the
Sultan that he had done so, and he drew the money for
their pay, and he went on for three years stating that these
troops had been raised. That governor was desired to send
one of those bodies of troops to the provinces on the Da-
nube, where there was danger, and he had not the troops
at his command—they did not in fact exist. Thereupon he
cleared the prisons, and took the moat notorious robbers
and murderers, and enlisted them into the troops, and sent
them to the other extremities of the empire. He thus
answered the sultan's demand, and ridded the provinces
of some of the worst characters in the country. But
unfortunately for him there arrived a notice that
the provinces were likely to be disturbed, and that
Damascus would require the protection of the troops about
to be sent to the other parts of the country. The governor
had to recall these very troops and to employ them in put-
ting down the revolt at home, when in fact they were even
more likely to join in the disorder and plunder than to check
it. They did do so, and to that was to be attributed the
great loss of life and the plunder which actually occurred,
and which shocked us all last year. My hon. friend who
spoke last has said, and with a great deal of truth, that
within the past ten years there has been a vast deal of fo-
reign intrigue in Syria. I should think it not unlikely that
a Syrian Bishop, who was on such intimate terms with tha
French consul, would boast to the Maronites of the con-
stancy of his visits to him, and would promise the support
obtained through him of the French Government in the
event of any quarrel with the Druses. I think that a pro-
bable story. The Maronites were able to introduce a vast
quantity of arms into the provinces. The Druses on the
other hand prepared themselves with arms, and I believe
both parties were waiting and watching for each other—
both prepared for a deadly conflict for ascendancy. It hap-
pened that a quarrel, of no great importance in itself, oc-
curred on the road between Damascus and Beyrout. I be-
love that a Christian was killed, and shortly afterwards
three or four of the opposite party were slain. The two
parties assembled in arms, and both were ready, but the
Druses being superior, not in numbers, but in strength and
valour, they committed those atrocities which shocked and
afflicted all Europe when we heard of it last year. Now,
those who are called Christians have no right to the title if
they are ignorant of the doctrines and wholly fail in the
principles of Christianity. (Hear, hear.) In:some:of the
villages men, women, and children were put to death indis-
criminately, and the stench arising from the dead corpses
was horrible. Nothing at that time had taken place at
Damascus, but there was a great aiarm lest massacres
should occur. The French ambassador stated to me, and I
stated to the cabinet, the apprehensions of the French Go-
vernment, and their intention to propose the despatch of a
body of European troops, without mentioning to what nation
they should belong. It has been stated to me very recently
by a gentleman that it is his belief that if these troops had
not been sent to Syria, similar massacres would have been
perpetrated at Bagdad and Jerusalem. The Sultan agreed
to put a stop to these atrocities by a foreign intervention.
Now my hon. friend says that the Turkish Government
was not disposed to consent but was actually forced to do
so. I should say in the first place that, unless the Turkish
Government had consented, I should have thought it my
duty to direct Lord Cowley not to sign any protocol on the
subject. It was no doubt a reluctant consent on the part
of the Sultan, but it was founded, I imagine, on this ground
—which can hardly be controverted—that if these mas-
sacres had gone on, and had extended to Bagdad and to
Jerusalem, and the success of the parties had been circu-
laCed through other portions of the Turkish dominions,
some of the powers of Europe would have intervened, and
not in Syria alone but in various other provinces where
these horrible massacres had taken place. If in such a case
I had come down to the house and stated these facts—that
thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children
—whether Christians or not—had been killed through the
fanaticism of the Turks and their secret societies, and that
the Turkish Government had not interfered to prevent it—
that the Turkish troops had stood by and seen these things
and did nothing to interrupt them, and that the European
Powers had not taken steps in the matter—could I have
called upon the house to defend or support the Govern-
ment ? Would that have been a good case to place before
the house ? Would the Government stand well with the
gentlemen who complain of the occupation of Syria ?
Would my hon. friend have stood up to defend that course ?
It does seem to me that this occupation is a calamity, but
it is also a way of meeting other calamities and disasters,
or at least of confining these disasters within certain limits.
At the same time I think that few greater disasters can
happen to any country than its occupation by foreign
troops. (Hear.) This much, however, I must say for the
French Government, that from the beginning of these dis-
cussions and down to the present time, if other Powers
wished to send troops to Syria they were quite willing to
have:a joint occupation. I believe them to have been quite
sincere in this declaration which they have repeatedly
made, and I myself have been blamed for not taking ad-
vantage of it. At the same time I think that serious evil
might arise from the joint occupation. I received a few
days since from Lord Elgin a representation to the effect
that he hoped we might soon put an end to the occupation
of Canton, because he said that the joint occupation of the
city by the troops of different nations is sure to lead to dis-
sensions and jealousies between the commanders, and other
similar consequences, which make the occupation a misfor-
tune to the place and inconvenient to the occupying forces.
If such be the case in Canton, where neither France nor
England has any sympathy with the natives, what must
be the case in Syria, where, as my hon. friend says, the
Maronites have constantly looked up to France as a pro-
tector, and the Druses as confidently turn to Engla.
(Hear, hear.) What unfortunate consequences, for example,
might not have arisen if a French "detachment had gone
into the Hauran, and that an English detachment, being
also there, thought the Maronites were receiving too much
protection from the French. Fearing dangers like this, I
have been uawilling, although I never made a peremptory
objection, to have a joint occupation, and I was further as-
sured that the occupation by the French should end as soon
as possible. (Hear.) The Emperor of the French declared,
in a letter which he published himself, that he was unwil-
ling to undertake this occupation, and thought it might
terminate at the end of three months. Well, the conduct
of the French troops has been such as to expose them to
the remarks of the hon. gentleman. It is not that they
have taken any part in those murders by the Maronites of
the Druses, but I am sorry that all my reports from Syria
—from her Majesty's commissioner, from the gentleman
who went as the English agent to Fuad Pasha, from the
officers who were these simply on leave—all these accounts
concur in stating that the Maronites, taking advantage of
the French advance into the Lebanon, were wreaking their
vengeance on those whom they considered to be their ene-
mies, and that old men, women, and children, were being
murdered in cold blood, and without even the semblance of
being brought to justice. This is one of the reasons Ni hich
makes me wish to see this foreign occupation at an end ; for
the army is placed in this dilemma, either it sees these atro-
cities going on, it knows the persons who committed them,
and if it does not interfere it is accused of sanctioning or al
promoting such murders. On the other hand, if they send
a corporal's guard or officers to take the offenders and bring
them to trial, then they are liable to the charge of taking
the administratiOn of a Turkish province into their own
hands, and that no longer Turkish authority, but French