manders were called reformers, the outbreak was not casual, but it appeared that reformers now meant persons who did not reform, and the character had become consequently altogether innocuous. So also with the invectives pronounced against the Czar. They were like other invectives uttered a year ago against another Emperor, and might result, as in his case, in their object being ere long embraced as one of our most faithful and trusted friends. After some observations by Mr. Spooner and Mr. Cobden, condemnatory of the proceedings, and in support of Mr. Bright, the conversation ceased, and Mr. Monckton Milnes, in pursuance of notice, called attention to the Greek insurrection in Turkey, and moved that the circular of Sir Henry Ward to the residents of the Ionian Islands should be laid on the table. It was natural to expect, he said, when the Emperor of Russia laid upon a religious basis the foundation of hostilities, and professed to occupy the Principalities as a guarantee for the freedom of the Christians, that the Christian subjects of the Porte would have risen to support his claims. But it had not been so. In certain portions of the Ottoman territory, however, which almost joined the kingdom of Greece, an insurrection had broken out, which, though not very important, threatened to be of a dangerous character. The causes did not lie beneath the surface. He showed from the blue books, that on the withdrawal of the regular troops, the Albanian soldiery had committed excesses, especially in Epirus and Thessaly; and that VOL. XCVI. had its origin in real injustice. Considering our position at the Ionian Islands, some means should be found of limiting, and if possible, of stopping the evil. He hoped the Egyptian troops would not be sent; and he suggested the appointment of a British commissioner, who should point out to the insurgents the real state of the case, and hold out, by reference to the condition of Poland, Circassia, and the Principalities, good reasons why the insurgents should abandon their hostility to the Porte. He was very anxious on the subject, because he feared England might appear as an accomplice in suppressing an attempt to obtain what was only just and right. It had been said that England and France had come to an understanding for the forcible suppression of popular tumult; but he trusted England would not act as France had done at Rome. Government should remember, that however important the political exigencies of Europe might be, there were matters more sacred even than those. Lord John Russell concurred in much that had fallen from Mr. Milnes. It was our duty to do all we could to improve the position of the Christian subjects of the Porte. Notwithstanding the liberal policy of the Sultan, the Christians had much cause of complaint. Lord Stratford's advice had tended to mitigate these evils; and but lately he had advised the Sultan not to send any but regular troops to suppress the insurrection. It was our duty to discourage this insurrection, which could not lead to any im [E] provement in the condition of the Christian subjects of the Porte; while the House might be assured that Government would endeavour as much as possible to place the Christians and Mahometans on the same footing of equality. Mr. Rich contended that the wrongs to which the Christians in Turkey were subjected required more active interposition, and called for a more positive declaration on their behalf from the Government. Lord Lovaine insisted that to expect toleration from the Turks was absurd, and that amalgama tion between Turks and Christians was impossible. The insurrection of the Greek Christians was warranted, he said, by the oppression of 400 years. Lord Dudley Stuart vindicated the Turks, showing that Russia had interfered because Turkey was making reforms, and he asserted, as the result of his own observations, that the Christians of Bulgaria were not disaffected. Lord C. Hamilton spoke against the war as unjustifiable, and opposed the employment of British troops to put down men only seeking to regain that liberty of which they had been cruelly deprived. He palliated the proceedings of Russia in relation to the questions at issue, and inveighed against the weakness and corruption of the Ottoman rule, which had, he said, repeatedly embroiled the affairs of the East. Mr. Layard recalled the House to the question-What was the origin of this outbreak? Early last year the Russian Admiral Kornilef was sent to Athens: then was the time to check the growing movement in the Greek States; but these intrigues had gone on unchecked until they ended in a general outbreak. He knew from personal experience, that last year there was scarcely a convent on Pelion or Olympus in which presents from the Emperor of Russia were not to be seen. Matters had arrived at such a state, that not only the soldiers but the ministers of the King of Greece were deserting him. If they were not to permit the Porte to put down the insurrection, nor do it themselves, by whom was it to be quenched? As to the massacres by the Turks, did not Ypsilanti massacre them? But when the fleet was burnt at Navarino, Sir Stratford Canning did not need to seek the shelter of our ships from the fury of the Turks. As to religion, the maxim of the Sultan Mahmoud-that the Turkish Government desired to recognise the Turk in his mosque, the Jew in his synagogue, and the Christian in his church-was founded on principles of liberality that no nation had surpassed. Mr. Layard drew a shocking picture of the state of Greece. Much misconception as to the state of Turkey had arisen from the reckless reports of the British vice-consuls, most of them Ionian Greeks. When a new pasha was appointed, all the vice-consuls in turn waited upon him, proposing some new scheme of taxation or local administration : receiving all courteously, he probably saw no ground for any of the suggestions, or was unwilling to listen to one more than to another; and forthwith elaborate Turkey alone, for this question was not merely one between Turkey and Russia, but concerned the great interests of Europe and the civilised world. and highly-coloured complaints national independence, not for were sent by the vice-consuls to their respective representatives at the Porte. Sometimes these functionaries worked up charges for the purpose of extorting money. The only way to prevent these grievances was to appoint proper consuls, and to do away with the capitulations, so that the Turks might deal with malefactors, great numbers of whom were British subjects; but they should avoid a convention which would speedily involve England in a quarrel with Austria and France. Mr. E. Ball concurred in the arguments of Lord C. Hamilton, and disclaimed all sympathy with those who cried out for war, which he said was unnecessary, and would soon cease to be popular. Lord Palmerston repeated the assurance that Government de sired to place the Christian subjects of the Sultan on the same footing as the Mahometans; but their endeavours must be tempered by what was due to the independence of the Sultan. But recently the Sultan had sanctioned a firman by which Christians were allowed to give evidence in the courts, criminal as well as civil, in the same way as the Mussulmans-that was, without the form of oaths. With regard to the Greek insurrection, he did not share the apprehensions as to the extent to which some thought it would be carried; and it was impossible not to see that it was not wholly of domestic origin, but was stimulated from without. The troops sent from England were sent to maintain the great principles of Mr. Milner Gibson confessed that he had not sufficient information to form 8 correct opinion on the policy of the Government. One noble Lord in the other House told them that the object of Ministers was to resist Russian aggression; then they were told it was to secure the civil rights of the Christians; and now Lord Palmerston said that the Christians had not much to complain of, and that it would be strange for the Government to follow Russia and endeavour to get a protectorate over the Christians. The statement about our taking care of the civil rights of the Christians was a mere mis-statement made to console the misgivings of tender consciences, just as when the French occupied Rome it was said that it was not for the purpose of restoring the Pope, but the Pope with a constitution. How could the English Government enforce guarantees and securities? It would be impossible to maintain for all time the rule of the Turks in Europe; and if we could, ought we, for the satisfaction of some political theory, to rivet on the Greek population a Government which they detest? protested against any such doctrine. He Sir Robert Peel defended the policy of Ministers. At the same time, he insisted that Turkey was effete, and that it was only kept up by the jealousy of Cabinets. But this was not the mo ment for a Greek insurrection. We had now to crush Russian aggression; next we should have to make arrangements for putting a stop to Turkish rule in Eu rope. Mr. Drummond dwelt upon the perplexities and absurdities in which any attempt to protect the Greek religion in Turkey must infallibly involve us; and the subject then dropped. CHAPTER II. WAR WITH RUSSIA-A Royal message to both Houses of Parliament announces a rupture with Russia-The Message-Remarks of Earls Derby and Grey in the House of Lords-Debate on the Address in both Houses-It is moved by the Earl of Clarendon in the House of Lords-Speeches of the Earls of Derby, Aberdeen, and Malmesbury, and the Marquis of Lansdowne-The Earls of Granville, Grey, Hardwicke, and Lord Brougham, also take part in the Debate-After Speeches from Lord John Russell, Mr. Layard, Mr. Bright, Mr. J. Ball, the Marquis of Granby, Lord Dudley Stuart, Lord Palmerston, and Mr. Disraeli, the Address is agreed to by the Commons-In the House of Lords questions are put by Lord Beaumont, and the Earl of Clarendon replies-In the same place a discussion arises between the Earl of Ellenborough, the Duke of Newcastle, the Earls of Hardwicke and Clarendon, with reference to recent accounts from the Black Sea and Gallipoli-Questions by the Earl of Ellenborough as to the transport, pay, and baggage trains of the Troops in Turkey; by the Earl of Malmesbury, as to the Bombardment of Odessa; and the Marquis of Clanricarde, relative to the British occupation of Greece -In the House of Commons inquiries are made by various Members relative to the transport by steam of cavalry; to the removal of Russian Troops by sea from Circassia; to the occupation of Servia by Austria; to the state of the British Troops at Gallipoli; to the Insurrection of the Greek Christians in Turkey; and to the case of the British ship "Ann McAlister "-Remarkable Speech of Lord Lyndhurst in the House of Lords upon the Russo-Turkish QuestionReply of the Earl of Clarendon-Speeches of the Earls of Derby and Aberdeen; that of the latter causes much dissatisfaction, and he subsequently explains it at great length-Comments of the Marquis of Clanricarde-In the House of Commons questions are asked respecting the Treaty between Austria and Turkey for the occupation of the Principalties The proceedings of the fleet at Uleaborg-The supplies are moved in both Houses; in the House of Lords, by the Earl of Aberdeen-In the discussion which follows, the Earls of Ellenborough, Hardwicke, Fitzwilliam, Clarendon, and the Marquis of Clanricarde, take part-In the House of Commons, Lord John Russell moves the vote-Misunderstanding as to his Speech-Mr. Cobden, Mr. Layard, Mr. Disraeli, Lord Palmerston, and various other Members address the House-Motion of Lord D. Stuart for an Autumnal SessionDebate thereon, and Speeches of Mr. S. Herbert, Mr. Layard, Admiral Berkeley, Lord John Russell, and other Members-Further criticisms upon the conduct of the War, by the Marquis of Clanricarde, in the |