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

Asia, with a mixed population; and any day Russia might
get up a disturbance in Armenia. What would be the re-
sult ? There would be a French army in Syria and a Rus-
sian army in Bulgaria, and the very thing that this country
went to war for would be filched from our hands. The pro-
per course would have been to call upon Turkey to put
down the disturbances that had taken place. She said she
would, and she had proved that she could, because we knew
that the massacres had ended, and that there was a reconci-
liation between the Druses and Maronites before the French
troops set foot upon the soil. Therefore the principle of this
intervention was disastrous and dangerous. He was not
blaming the noble lord for this. The noble lord was under a
pressure which he could not resist,and he trusted to hear that
the noble lord did protest most energetically against the occu-
pation of Syria. 'With regard to its present effects they were
disastrous. One element of the population of Damascus
was the idle and vagabond class, who, in the name of reli-
gion, but for the sake of plunder, massacred Christians and
plundered the houses. Let these persons be punished to any
extent. But the other parties, the Druses and Marenites,
were on a very different footing. They had had a long series
of feuds, which broke out last year, and ended in a horrible
way. He (I'd not wish to palliate, but let him ask who was
the cause of it ? 'Why, the author of the document which
his hon. friend the member for Ayrshire read just now, and
which was published in the newspapers. In that document
the bishop called on the population to attack the Maronites,
and he believed he used the phrase, " Spare not woman or
child—exterminate the whole race." He knew on the best
authority that when the proclamation was given to the
French papers the French Government refused to allow it to
be inserted. That proclamation was genuine. The massacres
followed. The French Government, under the sanction of
the convention, sent an army to Syria. Why ?to maintain
the cause of humanity and Christianity. Was that the way
to maintain that cause ? Was Christianity to be connected
with the most atrocious acts of injustice ? If so, he should
say shame on such Christianity. He trusted what had been
said was not true, but they had heard from no less a person
than the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—his
words read as if it were under the sanction or with the con-
currence of the French army—that in ono place 120 Druses

were put to death, among whom were 25 women and six
children. If that were the case, if the French troops had
sanctioned the destruction of these people, we should dis-
tinctly declare that we were no parties to this deed, and let
it be clear that our Christianity was something better than
such a Christianity as that. It was 22 years since he first
went to Lebanon. At that time that magnificent slope was
peopled by the most industrious, peaceable and happy popu-
lation ho ever saw. Every square inch was a garden,
where there WAS no natural soil, earth was brought from a
long distance by great toil. He never saw anything to be
compared to Lebanon in that respect. Every traveller was
astonished with the beauty of the scenery and the wealth
and prosperity of the people. In other parts of Syria there
were wild Arabs, and caravans wereplundered. In Lebanon
the traveller was received hos➢itably by a mixed population
of Druses and Maronites. There was a chief who dispensed
among his people a kind of feudal justice. His orthodoxy
was suspected. Ho was a Druse, but he kept in his inner
apartment a Roman Catholic priest. Now there was ruin,
desolation, burnt houses, destroyed villages, population
scarcely existing, or existing in a famishing state, and poor
Emir Pasha murdered ; and what was the cause of all this?
Foreign ambition, foreign missionaries, foreign protection ;
and wherever they had this system they would have the
same thing over again. He hoped that the assertion that
these atrocities were committed with the sanction of the
French troops would be denied.

Sir J. FERGUSSON was understood to explain that he
did not say the French troops were present.
Mr. LAYARD said—Well, he trusted that these things
would be replied to by the French nation; but it was of no
use denying the fact that for the last 20 years French in-
trigue had been going on on this subject, that the French
Government had united itself with the Maronites, and that
the English interest was found uniting itself with the
Druses. He did not mean to say that we had identified our-
selves with the Druses, but no doubt we were looked upon
as their supporters against the Maronites. He wished the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs would lay before them the re-
ports that were made by a distinguished member of the
diplomatic service, Mr. Alison, who on more than one occa-

thou was sent to Syria. That report was made some years
before this massacre, and he ventured to say would show
that it was inevitable. He would now refer a moment to

the conduct of the Christians. He should be glad if the
ideas in England about Christians in the East were some-
what enlightened. They had heard that when the Mare-
nites were asked how many lives would satisfy them, at
first they said 8,000, and then, by a kind of Dutch auction,
they carne down to 1,200. And who made this demand ? Why
the bishop, whom he had heard some in this country looked ,
upon as representing the Eastern Church. Compare the
conduct of the Christians with that of the Druses. Now he
was also a member of the committee for distributing support
and funds to the suffering people in the East, and he was
glad to take the opportunity to say that the committee was
formed on a most liberal principle, and he only consented
to become a member of it on the condition that the word
" Christian" should be struck out of every document con-
nected with it, and that relief should be given to all. It was
a committee for humanity and not for politics. What had
been the result ? He had been informed that men of all
denomina• ions would come and get blankets from the com-
mittee and immediately afterwards sell them, and thus make

a regular traffic in their ruiserie,s. (Hear.) But how had the

Druses acted under these circumstances ? It was a remark•
able fact that while the Christians came down in numbers

to obtain relief there was not a single Dense amongst them.
Noble and single-minded men as they were, they preferred
living on acorns and bread made from acorns, and to die one
by one, rather than come to the fund, and confess that they
were suppliants for our charity. (Hear.) The contrast be-
tween them and the Christians Was a striking one. The
latter were destitute of the manly attributes of the other
race, and they were as cowardly as they were bloodthirsty.
Ho believed nothing could have exceeded the disgraceful
conduct of the Christians during the trial of the Drusee.
He would not justify the conduct of the Druses. They
were a half-civilised set of men, among whom events like
these were almost sure to occur, and they should make the
best allowance for them that they could; but it would be
infamy upon the part of this country if it permitted those
men who had been condemned to be executed. (Hear,
hear.) The effects of the convention into which we had
entered with the other Powers had been most disastrous,
and so would its results be hereafter. That convention was
about to expire, and they were told that it was about to be
renewed. He presumed that Turkey would not give her
consent to its renewal, but in that case she would be made
to do so. Had she, however, told them that she was able un-
aided to keep down Syria ? If in direct opposition to that
statement the French were allowed to keep their troops
there, what would be the natural and logical deduction
to be drawn from that state of facts ? Why this : that
the five great powers assembled in Paris could virtually
dispose of any territory in Europe. That was the logical
conclusion—and a most dangerous one it was—that the
strong powers could dispose of the weak ones. (Hear,
hear.) What power would be safe if such a principle
were admitted? if the Turkish government could take
care of their country they ought to do it. They had been
told by the French press, that if the French troops leave
Syria there will be an immediate repetition of the late
events. No doubt there would be. But who would be
the cause of them, and who would have paved the way
for them ? Why the French themselves : who had got
every bishop and priest in the country under their influ-
ence. The disturbances would occur again, and the
French would throw the blame upon this country. That
would be one effect of the convention. On the other
hand, if the French troops were• to remain in Syria, how
long would the occupation continue ? Did they think
Syria would be better for this ? On the contrary, it would
be a great deal worse, and the existing hatred and feuds
would become mere embittered. The convention ought
not to be renewed. That was tho principle ueon which
they ought to go. England ought to demand that it
should cease, and that the Turks should be allowed to
govern the country themselves, and if the govern-
ment could not do so, then those who resided in the
country should be allowed to govern themselves and
fight their quarrels out. That would be the best policy, and
peace between the contending parties would soon be attained.
The convention appeared to him to be the most disastrous
political measure which had been known in Europe for
many years past. He begged to assure the noble lord that
he had not made these observations in any spirit hostile to
the Government or to himself. But he hoped and believed
that, supported by the opinion of the house and of the
country, the noble lord would put an end to this convention.
(Hear, hear.)

Mr. D. GRIFFITH rose to put a furthPr question to the
noble lord, but being received with ci ies of " Oh, oh," and
groans from all parts of the house, the hon. gentleman re-
sumed his seat.

Lord J. RUSSELL then spoke as follows—Sir, I
will
endeavour, with respect to the very serious discussion which
it
has arisen, to be as impartial as possible, because I feel
is a very serious discussion, the importance of which cannot
be exaggerated ; but if it is right to find fault with much that
has been done in Syria, on the other hand we ought not to
charge either the Government or the army of a great nation
with which We are in alliance without the strongest proof
or evidence that what we charge them with must be imputed
to them as a fault. Now, sir, I will in the first place reply
to the obseit vations of the hon. member for Horsham (Mr.
Fitzgerald), end then recur to what has taken place in re-
ference to Syria;; The hcn, gentleman asked me a question
with respect to thenote presented by the Russian Ambassa-
dore
hon to the /Waist/me ef Affairs at Constantinople.
Th. gentleman has referred accurately to what I said
last year with respect to what took place at St. Petersburg,
and the proposal made to the Turkish Government that there
should be a joint commission which should go to Syria. I
was convinced that such a joint. commission would impair
the authority of the Tnrkish Government, and I was con-
firmed in that opinion by the statement of Prince Gortseha-
koff t 6 our Ambassador in answer to our objections. Ile
said that unless European commissioners were present in
03yria, the witnesses who would be brought forward to
prove the abuses oh the part of Turkish officials would be
afraid to tell the truth. If that were so, and these earn.
zurnefonera were intended to protect the evidence given
111810.0 the Turkiek Government, their protection would ob-