THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE" AND THE SPECTATOR."
IN our article on the Rhodope Commission last week we were careful to confine ourselves to a summing-up of the evidence on both sides, leaving our readers to form their own judgment on the facts which we had fairly and accurately placed before them. On one side were groups of unknown and deeply prejudiced Turks ; on the other, English gentle- men, including some British officers of repute and of unques- tioned honour and veracity. The former accuse Russian soldiers, under the orders of their superiors, of committing atrocities of the most appalling description, and with such circumstances of publicity and notoriety as would have made concealment absolutely impossible. Some of the latter (e.g., Colonel Brackenbury and Mr. MacGahan,
affirm that they were present where and when those atrocities are said to have been committed, and that nothing of the kind took place ; on the contrary, that the Russian Army, both men and officers, behaved towards the whole Turkish population, military and civil, with singular forbearance and humanity. Others (e.g., Captain Gambier, of the British Navy, an avowed philo-Turk, and Colonel Wellesley, the Military Attache sent specially by the British Government to report on the conduct of the Russian Army) declare that, after the most careful inquiries at the time and on the spot, they could not discover a scrap of evidence of any atrocities at all committed by the Russians. Besides other witnesses, Colonel Wellesley examined Correspondents of English news- papers who were present at the places and on the occasions in- dicated, some of them " representing papers decidedly hostile to the policy of Russia ; but they one and all emphatically denied having witnessed any such acts as those of which the Russian soldiers have been accused," and with equal emphasis " testified to many acts of kindness on the part of the Russians towards Turkish prisoners." Captain Gambier visited, within three weeks of the alleged occurrence, the scene of perhaps the most abominable of all the atrocities charged against the Russians. He "cross-questioned at least eighty, many of these being Jews, who have less interest in misrepresenting the state of affairs, and a few well-to-do Turks, apparently telling the truth." He also examined " the Turkish medical officers who remained throughout the whole Russian occupation." " From all these the same story was obtained, namely," that throughout " the whole Russian occupation" " they were not only not molested, but kindly treated."
Such is, in epitome, the statement which we placed before our readers last week. After examining it for two days, in- cluding the undisturbed repose of Sunday, the Pall Mall Gazette felt bound to offer to its readers what, we suppose, it wished them to consider a reply. And a wonderful reply it is. In brief, it comes to this :—The Spectator belongs to the class of "professedly religious journals,"—which will be news to our readers. This being its character, it follows that the Spectator indulges in "wicked methods of controversy." These "wicked methods " are divided by our contemporary into two categories. First, the Spectator has been guilty of quoting as evidence " the letters of the Times' Correspondents (1), and the letters of the Daily News' Correspondents (!)." Now here we must complain that our contemporary is a little too hard upon us. We remember occasions (witness certain articles on Russian "atrocities " in Turkestan), in which our contemporary himself appealed to this very class of testimony with unquestioning faith. And now, when we have followed, longo interrallo, the ex- ample which he set us, he accuses us of resorting to " wicked methods of controversy !" It comes to this, then :—When men like Colonel Brackenbury and the late Mr. MacGahan give evidence against Russians, they are to be believed implicitly. When they give evidence in favour of Russians, their evidence is to be dismissed contemptuously, with two marks of ironical admiration. Our contemporary offers no explanation of this singular paradox. He lays it down as an ethical axiom too self-evident to need the support of argument. And there we are obliged to leave it. Our second " wicked method of con- troversy " consists in " deliberately suppressing " facts which tell against our side of the question in dispute. Here our contemporary does condescend to give his reasons, as follows :—
" What said the French Commissioner on one occasion? This :— 'From the moment the victims unanimously declare that they have taken to flight in face of the misdeeds of the Russian Rimy, the Com- mission ought to endeavour by every possible means to ascertain whether these accusations are well founded. But every time that they have desired to examine into details, ic., or proceed to take fuller evidence in order to learn the value of the depositions, the Delegates of Russia and Germany have offered a persistent opposition.' No answer was made to this statement : it passed without objection or protest. And there it stands in the Report, and it has been quoted a dozen times into English newspapers. But the ,Spectator deliberately suppresses it; and no wonder."
The French Commissioner does make the imputation here attributed to him. But it does not " stand in the Report ;" and as to the rest of our contemporary's criticism, we appeal to the record. On the very page from which he takes his quotation, it is recorded that the only one of the accused persons who happened to be present repelled as follows the Frenchman's imputation :—" M. Muller, in order not to repeat what he has already said, will not reply to all that M. Challet has just observed. He does not consider that he ever opposed the proceedings of the Commission, so long as it confined itself within the limits of its instruc- tions." And yet, with this staring him in the face, our contemporary says :—" No answer was made to this [M. Challet's] statement ; it passed without objection or protest." As for M. Challet, we claim to be as good judges of what the prates-verbaux contain as he is. We have not—though the Pall Mall Gazette makes the insinuation—characterised the French or any other Commissioner as " Turkophile." But we decline to accept the allegations of any of them, without verifying them for ourselves. And there are special reasons which induce us to receive M. Challet's assertions with some degree of salutary scepticism. The Report—not of the Rhodope Commission, for the Rhodope Commission issued no Report— which her Majesty's Government has published, without any sig- nature, was written by M. Challet, and it is replete with such loose inferences and such wild and turgid declamation, as to convince sober persons that its author is a man who has not even a remote idea of what constitutes evidence. Two examples must suffice, out of many which lie before us. The Commission had seen the ruins of villages which had evidently been burnt. " It was conceivable to every one," moralises M. Challet, in the Report, " that the man who was capable of kindling such a fire might also indulge in pillage and murder." It is lucky for our officers in India that M. Challet has never been sent to
write a voluminous report on their frontier warfare. In another part of the Report, he claims credit for " stating in general language acts to which thousands of victims would have been able (' auxquels des milliers des victimes auraient pn '), one after another, to testify individually." These are specimens of M. Challet's notions of evidence. One example will sufficiently illustrate his judicial fairness. After the return of the Rhodope Commission to Constantinople, the Austrian Commissioner, who was Chairman of the Com- mission, wrote a note to his colleagues, in which " he deeply regrets to have been unable to take part in the deliberations on the general and final Report, having only a vague know- ledge of the first draft, which, in his opinion, ought to be much. modified." M. Challet, with a parent's love for his bantling,
made a determined effort that " this note should not appear in the proces-verbaux," because, forsooth, it was written at a moment when the " colonel is much weakened by suffering !" And it was only on M. Muller pressing the point repeatedly, that " the Commission decided to annex " the Chairman's written disapproval of the Report " to the proces-rerbaux."
We had good reason, therefore, for not quoting the passage which our contemporary has accused us of "deliberately sup- pressing," in addition to the fact, which we shall presently prove, that the passage itself is not sustained by the evidence on the record. In order to a just appreciation of the issue which the Pall Mall Gazette has raised, it is necessary to recall the origin, scope, and purpose of the Rhodope Commission. In consequence of a telegram communicated to him by Lord Salisbury, Count Schouvaloff proposed in the Berlin Congress (July 11th) that European Commissioners should be sent to " the Rhodope districts," " who should be authorised to insist on measures of repression" against the disorders which Lord Salisbury's telegram described. That telegram is based on a despatch from Consul Fawcett, in which the districts to be visited are named. They lie in a tract of country outside the lines of the Russian occupation. After some discussion, the Congress passed the following Resolution :- " The Plenipotentiaries of the Powers assembled in Congress at Berlin, moved by the reports which have reached some of them as to the present sufferings of the populations of the Rhodope and of the neighbouring countries, aro of opinion that it is desirable to come to an agreement with the Sublime Porte for the immediate despatch of a European Commission, charged to verify on the spot the serious nature of the facts, and as far as possible to remedy them."
In a despatch to Mr. Cross, written on the same day, Lord Salisbury describes this Resolution as follows :—
" It was agreed that the Ambassadors at Constantinople should bo instructed to concert with the Porte the appointment of an International Commission, which should proceed at once to the Rhodope districts, with the view of putting a stop to the horrors reported to be taking place in that neighbourhood."
According to these instructions, the purpose of the Com- mission was to verify and remedy "horrors reported to be taking place" in districts declared in the Congress to lie out- side the Russian occupation. (" Turkey," No. 39, pp. 213, 270-1.) And because "the districts in question are beyond the reach of the Russian Commander-in-Chief," " the Ambas- sadors at Constantinople " were instructed to arrange with the Porte " the immediate despatch" of the Commission,—" a European Commission," remember. " In execution of the instructions which they have received from their Governments, upon a decision of the Congress of Berlin," " the Ambassadors of Austria, Er gland, France, and Russia, and the Charges d'Affaires of Italy and Germany appointed Special Commis- sioners for this purpose ;" and the Special Commissioners consisted of rei r.!sentativ es of these Powers exclusively. (" Turkey," No. 4P, p. 2.) Turkey's function in the matter was limited to the duty of affording facilities for the inquiry ; and for the excellent reason, that the scope of the inquiry was confined by the instructions which gave it being, to the territory within Turkish jurisdiction, and outside the fron- tiers of the Russian occupation. There were two things, therefore, which the instructions from Berlin did not authorise. They did not authorise the presence of any Turk on the Commission, nor did they authorise any inquisition into the conduct of the Russian Army. The " horrors " to be investigated belonged to the " present,"—" horrors reported to be taking place " at that time, and " in that neighbourhood." (" Turkey," No. 39, p. 213.) So far we are within the intentions and instructions of the Plenipotentiaries at Berlin. But before the Commission started on its mission, the Russian Ambas- sador at Constantinople " objected to the inquiries of the Com- mission being extended to territory occupied by the Russian troops, and proposed that if they commenced in Mount Rhodope, they should end at the Russian lines." (p. 1.) This is over-ruled by the majority, on a plea which Consul Fawcett afterwards honestly admits to have been an entirely erroneous one. (See Inclosure 15,in No. 10.) Prince Labanoff yields, and it is agreed "that the Commissioners should have full powers to proceed to any district they might think fit to visit." In- stiuctions were drawn up in that sense, and as the Commis- sion originated in Sir H. Layard's telegram, of course he took the lead in the deliberations. In fact the instructions of the Berlin Plenipotentiaries were quietly put aside, and the scope and purpose of the Commission were completely altered. On the way to the scene of their labours, Consul Fawcett wrote a violent despatch to Sir H. Layard, denouncing the Russians, and prejudging the whole case. We give him credit for good intentions, and pass on. When the Commission is fairly started on its inquiries, two Turks, a Pasha and a Bey, mysteriously appear upon the scene, and coolly take their places, without any authority, as members of the Commission. (p. 6.) To one of these, Naschid Pasha, is entrusted the very important duty of selecting the witnesses (p. 14.), and " the Kaimakam " (Turkish Lieutenant-Governor of the district) " undertakes the duty of carrying this arrange- ment into execution." (p. 19.) The mode of procedure was to invite, through the Turkish official; certain villages to send " delegates " to give evidence. Each group of " delegates " was to choose a spokesman, or spokeswoman, to represent their case to the Commission. The Russian Commissioner, seeing the op- portunity which this afforded for repeating manufactured and carefully-rehearsed evidence, proposed that the Commission itself should select the " delegates." " The majority of the Commission reject this procedure." (p. 19.) At least, urges the Russian Commissioner, let the Commission itself, and not the Turks, select the spokesman or spokeswoman whom they shall examine. Again " the majority " vote " against this pro- posal." (p. 19.) And with these facts before him, our con- temporary, repeating the fiction of the author of the Report, asserts that " the delegates of Russia and Germany have offered a persistent opposition " to "every" proposal to test the credibility of the evidence. Seeing that the majority of the Commission had set at naught the original instructions, and were simply bent on making out a case against the Russians, the Russian Com- missioner entered a protest against the regularity of the pro- ceedings, denounced, "in the most formal and categorical manner," " the false assertions and odious calumnies " of the witnesses, because "the fugitives who have been produced had been previously prepared and taught by those who prompt them ; and what confirms him in this opinion is, that the individuals whom the Commissioners encountered accidentally on their road held entirely different language." The truth of this important assertion is tacitly admitted ; and M. Muller proceeds to characterise the evidence as " details of pretended misdeeds " which " seem incredible." (p. 26.) In the teeth of these facts, the Pall Mall Gazette, in a leading article of November 2nd, declares "that, so far from questioning the credibility of the witnesses brought before them, the Russian Commissioners contented themselves with opposing the recep- tion of the evidence, on the plea that it related to matters beyond the competency of the Commission to investigate." Finding his remonstrances unavailing, the Russian Commis- sioner " begs the Commission to have the goodness to suspend its labours " till he has had time to consult by letter his chief at Constantinople. Consul Fawcett retorts (p. 28)," If M. Basily returns to Constantinople, that is a matter of indifference to Mr. Fawcett, who will continue his mission to the end." After this, it is puerile to assert that the Russian Commissioner prevented the Commission from verifying the accusations. If his remonstrances were " a matter of indifference to Mr. Fawcett" while he was hunting up stories against the Russians, they would have been equally " a matter of indifference " to him, if he wished to verify those stories. But our contem- porary hazards some evidence in proof of his bold assertion that " the Russian Commissioner "—the italics are not ours- " refused to allow proof of the witnesses' statements, as often as the other Commissioners would have put them to the test." His first proof is an imperfect quotation from pp. 63-4. Somebody, unnamed, suggested " supplementary investiga- tions." M. Leschine, a youthful subordinate, whom M. Basily, on his retirement, left merely to watch the case, enters a general protest, and withholds his assent. The Pall Mall Gazette insinuates, accordingly, that M. Leschine and M. Muller prevented the verification of evidence. What the proves-verbaux say is," that several other members do not agree " to the proposition made. There is not a word about M. Milner. Our contemporary's next proof is so extraordinary that we must state it in his own words :— " 'A little girl eight years of ago declares that she suffered outrage from three men ;' and 'a doubt having arisen in the mind of one of the Commissioners as to the veracity of the child's statements, Mr. Fawcett proposes that the doctor attached to the Commission should proceed to a medical examination.' This proposal, we then read, is supported by M. Challet, and ' opposed by M. Muller.' And here let it be noted that Loschine's objection to this evidence was maintained ; he said that to enter into these details and to cross-examine the child amounts to instituting an inquiry into the conduct of the Russian troops.' And so it is throughout.'
What does the reader naturally conclude from the evidence placed before him in this extract ? Clearly that Mr. Fawcett and M. Challet were anxious to verify the child's story, that M. Miller led the opposition to it, and that M. Le:chine struck in at the end in support of M. Muller, and thus defeated the proposal. Let the reader look at the proves-verbaux (p. 74), and he will find that the facts are as follows :—M. Leschine delivers his usual protest against the whole thing, before Mr. Fawcett proposes the medical test. After the pro- posal, M. Leschine makes no objection at all. The proposal is supported by M. Challet, and "is opposed by M. Muller, who is supported by MM. Raab and Graziani (the Austrian and Italian Commissioners). Naschid Pasha, who had no authority to take part in the deliberations at all, objects to the medical examina- tion on account of "the religious principles of the inhabitants of these districts." "The verification, therefore, will not take place." Our contemporary insinuates that the medical examin- ation was opposed by M. Leschine (which is not the fact); he suppresses the opposition of the Austrian and Italian Com- missioners ; and knowing that " the verification " was finally stopped by the Turk, he leaves his readers to conclude that it was stopped by the Russian and German Commissioners.
Enough I Our contemporary has forced us into a contro- versy which is not much to our taste. Our " wicked methods of controversy" are now before our readers, together with the " methods " of our accuser, and we leave the public to decide between us.
Previous page
