The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-17 00:00:00

member of the Imperial family ; but by a special ukase he
was made a member of it, under the title of Prince Roman-
offsky. To this question we got at first an equivocal answer,
and it was some time before we could get an assurance from
them that the Duke of Leuchtenberg was included in the
protocol. The exchange of notes in which that assurance is
conveyed only took place on the 4th of December. Any hon.
gentleman who will read the reasons which Lord Russell
gave for arriving at a complete understanding with Russia
as to the persons included in that protocol will Come to the
Iconclusion, I think, that my noble fritnd was perfectly right
in what he did. Prince Alfred stood in two separate and
distinct conditions in regard to the Greeks. We had stated
that for certain reasons he could not accept the Crown of
Greece. Those were great reasons of State; they were
fully understood and appreciated by the country at large,
and they received the support of the entire press of the
country. Everybody felt that it was not desirable that a
prince of the English blood so nearly related to the Queen
should accept the throne of Greece. But not only Prince
Alfred, but every other prince of the blood, would be ex-
cluded from the throne by the protocol, and Lord Russell
thus states hie reasons for coming to an understanding with
the Russian Government before proceeding further :
" The line of Great Britain upon this question has been
clear and simple. She might bind herself by a protocol or a
declaration by which the other two protecting Powers
should be equally bound; or the might, for the sake of
British interests, refuse to entangle herself in the politics
of Greece, and to separate from her own Royal family a
prince no near in the order of succession to the Crown. But
Tll3 her Majesty's Government considered the Duke of
Leuchtenberg as a prince of the Imperial family of Russia,
they could not declare themselves to be bound by the pro-
tocol of 1830, without knowing what that protocol meant.
If it was meant that Prince Alfred should be bound to re-
fuse, and Prince Romanoffsky free to accept, the Crown of
Greece, that would have been in the eyes of her Majesty's
Government a position of inferiority and inequality which
Great Britain could not accept."

That reasoning is perfectly conclusive. Lord Russell did
not at any time change his language on this subject. If
the hon. gentleman will look through the papers he will see
that from the beginning in all his communications with the
Russian Government, with the French Government, and
with M. Tricoupi, Lord Russell distinctly stated that
Prince Alfred could not accept the Crown of Greece. My
hon. friend opposite has mixed up two different things.
Lord Russell at one time did give instructions to Mr, Scar-
lett not to interfere in the elections. The Greeks had a
perfect right if they chose to elect Prince Alfred, after
being solemnly warned, as they were warned, that he could
not accept the Crown, and we certainly should net have
been justified in attempting to prevent them. But suppose
we had interfered in the election before the Russian Go-
vernment had declared their views about the protocol.
We know that there were intrigues going on in Greece—
I won't say that they were intrigues prompted by the
Russian Government—but there were intrigues. (Hear.)
If we had withdrawn Prince Alfred, the Greeks might
have considered themselves free to elect the Duke
of Leuchtenberg ; and Russia, not having admitted
the validity of his exclusion by the protocol, might have
turned round and said, "You may have withdrawn
your Prince Alfred, but we do not see any reason why we
should withdraw the Duke of Leuchtenberg, and we insist
on his election." There was no concealment in the policy of
England, and it will be seen in the papers that Lord Napier
was instructed by Lord Russell to state distinctly to Prince
Gortschakoff that we should consider it our duty to do all
we could to oppose the election of the Duke of Leuchten-
berg. We had good reasons for doing so. I believe the
policy of her Majesty's Government was a wise policy, and
I have not the least doubt that the election of the Duke of
Leuchtenberg would have been as mischievous to Greece as
to Europe. There were other reasons, also, for not inter-
veiling. We were told by persons well acquainted with
Greece that if any attempt were made to check the general
unanimous feeling in favour of Prince Alfred mischief might
occur; that Greece had been left suddenly in a state of great
disorder, and that the only chnce of restoring order was by
such a candidate as Prince Alfred being put forward. My
hon. aiend read a long list of candidates, but he did not
read the number of votes given for them. Very few votes,
in fact, were given for any one but Prince Alfred, and the
election was practically unanimous. I hope the few words
I have said will make it clear to the house that the conduct
of the Government has been perfectly straightforward, We
felt the deepest interest in Greece, but it was not for us to
interfere with them in the choice of a Government. They
h d a perfect right to change their Government as they
chose. We were bound by solemn treaties to other parties,
and it was our duty to ascertain what view was taken of
those engagements by the ether contracting parties. My
hon. friend the member for Galway amused himself by
making some observations in reference to Mr. Elliot, whose
position he entirely mistakes, and who, he thinks, on the
strength of his spelling his name with two "l's" and one
" t," must be a near connexion of Lord Russell. If he be,
I can only say he is a very discouraging example of the
benefit of being related to the head of the Foreign-office;
for when he was comfortably settled at Naples he was
suddenly deprived of his position there, and has since
remained unemployed in his profession. He had
been previously in Greece, and when it became necessary to
send a special mission to Greece, as he was not employed in
any service, he was chosen for it. Had another diplomatist
been taken from some other post, and Mr. Elliot put in his
place, my hon. friend might have had some ground for
blaming the Government for putting him into a permanent
appointment, and not a temporary one. It is said that we
deceived the Greeks by holding out other candidates. But,
if you look at the language used by her Majesty's Govern •
ment, you will see that we always avowed that we did not
intend to impose any candidate upon the Greeks. The King
of Portugal was mentioned. The administration of the
affairs of Portugal had been such that,- if the King of Por-
tugal had thought fit to accept the office, a more eligible
candidate for the crown of Greece could not be found, and
her Majesty's Government merely recommended him to the
Greeks upon that ground. The next candidate was the
Due of Saxe-Cobourg. It is well known that he is a wise
and liberal prince, and I believe if the Greeks had had the
good fortune to obtain him for their King they would be
now in a different position. Her Majesty's Government re-
commended him, but unexpected difficulties arose, and he
declined. (Hear, hear.) I should have limited myself to
these remarks if observations had not fallen from hon. mem-
bers to which it is very desirab'e a reply should be given.
The policy of her Majesty's Government in the East has of
late been very much misunderstood and very deliberately
misrepresented. tier Majesty's policy in Greece is a part
and parcel of her policy in the East. I believe that the
necessity for an extension of territory is greatly exagge-
rated. The only par's inhabited entirely by Greeks are
Thessaly and part of Epirus. They are mountainous
districts, and I believe would not in any way add to the
strength and wealth of Greece. (Hear, hear.) The
Greeks have been diverted from that which would have
really contributed to their welfare and happiness by the cry
after an extension of territory in Turkey. Their commerce
is more the commerce of brokers. They have never had any
really great commercial houses. I grant that they have
driven the English merchants out of the East, but how has
that happened ? The English merchant, under the Levant
Company, and his successor was one of those merchant
princes of whom we hear people often spoak. He lived in
great luxury. Ho had horses and carriages. He indulged
in great hospitality. To live in that way he had to make a
great deal of money, and it was done by selling his goods
at enhanced prices. The Greek who succeeded him lived
on olives and cuttlefish. He slept on a carpet in his recep-
tion room. He indulged in no luxury. He devoted his whole
intelligence and ability to trade, and very great, I admit,
are the intelligence and enterprise of the Greeks. The con

sequence was that they were able to undersell the great
English merchants, and one after another they went. But

by selling English goods at a less price they have very much
increased the English trade, so that, undoubtedly, we are
greatly indebted to the Greeks. (Hear.) Greece is remark-
ably well calculated for a race of enterprising people. The
people have maritime tastes, and the country is full of the
finest harbours, but all their prospects have been destroyed
by the fatal influence of creed. They have neglected the re-
sources which they possessed. The consequences have been
disorders, extravagant expenditure, large establishments,
and a Chamber fallen into contempt. Bankruptcy super-
vened. All public men went down in public estima-
tion, and the same fate followed the King and
Queen. (Hear.) We have been constantly advising
them to give up that fatal policy, and devote their atten-
tion to the improvement of the country. The answer has
been, cc you are enemies to the Christians—you are
friends to the Turks." I believe the advice which was
given was sound, and that if it had been taken the Greeks
would not have been in the condition in which they now
are. No country in Europe was in such an admirable posi-
tion as Greece. No one could touch her, for she was gua-
ranted by the European Powers. She needed no army and
no diplomacy. And, with regard to Turkey, I defy any one
to say that during the connexion of Turkey nod Greece
Turkey has ever violated any of her stipulations with Greece.
If there have been violations of treaties they have systema-

tically been by the Greeks and not by the Turks. (Hear.)
Hon. gentlemen say that we held out the lonian Islands
after we had disappointed them with the Prince. Two or
three years ago I had the honour to take part in a debate
from the Opposition side of the house, and the views which

I expressed then I maintain now. If we had gtven to Greece
the lonian Islands at a time when the policy of Greece was

so aggressive it would have been fatal to British policy in
the East. We have made it a condition that Greece must

give up her aggressive views if she ext ects this Government
to cede to her the lonian Islands. I remember that I said

the time might come when it would-be equally advantage-
ous to this country and to Greece for this country to cede
the lonian islands, and I hope and trust that time will
very shortly arrive. (Hear.) The hon. member for Galway
further touched on our policy in the East, and it is of the
greatest importance there should be clear views as to what
that policy really is. The worn out cry has been raised that
the Turks look to London rather than to Constantinople. I
remember M. Thiers on one occasion saying, " I am going
to give you a lecture on geography," I will not venture
to lecture the house, but I wish to draw attention to three
or four facts. Of what is Turkey composed ? There are
the Danubian Principalities, under the suzerainty of the
Porte, inhabited by a Christian population, with their in-
dependence guaranteed by the European Powers, so that
Turkey has only to receive the annual tribute. You have
Servia, with rights not so extensive,
ensive,inhabited by a pule

Se'Weenie race of the Greek faith, but independent of the
orthodox Greek Church as represented by the Greek Patri-
arch at Constantinople. You have Bulgaria, inhabited by
a race presenting an ethnological anomaly. Although speak-
ing the Selavonic language and professing the Greek faith
they are, in fact, a Tartar tribe. The landowners are
Turks, and they hold the land absolutely. The labouring
population ate Christians of the Greek faith, yet not accept-
ing the superintendence of the Greek Patriarch at Constan-
tinople, for a very short time ago so great was the struggle
to throw off the Government of the Greek Patriarch, that
they actually threatened to become Roman Catholics if they
did not succed. You have Bosnia, inhabited by a Scla-
vonic race. At the time of the Turkish conquest the land-
owners embraced the Mahomedan faith to save their lands,
But the people are of the Greek faith. In Rournelia you have
a Sclavonic people of the Greek faith, and the landowners
are Turks. We then come to Albania, where, with the ex-
ception of the south, the population is Mahomedan. In
Thessaly you have a substratum of the Greek race, but there
too the landowners are for the most part descendants of the
old Mahomedan conquerors; while in Macedonia much the
same state of things prevails. But what, let me ask, is the
population of these provinces, for it is of importance the
real facts of the case should be known to the country. I
find that M. Übicinkwho is a good authority on the subject,
gives the population as follows. He sets down the Otto-
mans in Turkey in Europe as being 2,400,000; the slave
Greeks, 4,000,000; Armenians, 400,000; Jews, 70,000;
Slaves, 6,200,000 ; Roumains, 1,500,000 ; Albanians,
1,500,000; Tartars, 46,000; and Tsigames, a pecular
race, 214,000. In Constantinople you have Mahomedans,
475,000; Armenians, 205.b00, the Greeks being only 130,000.
Such being the case, you will perceive that the great ma-
jority of the population is Mahomedan, while in the pro-
vinces the Mahomedans are also the great landowners.
More than this, they are men inured to arms, against whom
the Christians have no power of successfully contending. I
must, moreover, maintain, in opposition to my hon. friend
that it was not the Turks who corrupted the Greeks, and I
venture to say that no conquerors ever pursued a more libe-
ral policy than that which the Turks adopted. They ac-
knowledged the church of the Greeks and their municipal
system. It is all very well to talk of taking the Greeks to
Constantinople. Indeed, I do not exactly know what is
meant by those who speak after that fashion. Do they de-
sire to give Constantinople a Greek Administration and a
Greek King ? If so, the result of their action would be to
cause a disturbance throughout the whole population. Now,
without being particularly in love with the Mahomedans,
I wish to be just to all parties, and how, let me ask, if the
views to which I have adverted are carried into effect, do
you propose to deal with the Mahomedan landholders ? Are
you to forfeit their lands? The consequences of such a po-
licy are too horrible to contemplate. You cannot expect
4,000,000 of a warlike race to leave their lands without a
struggle, and you would in the end have the Powers of
Europe marching in, and in all probability, an European
war. My hon. friend alluded to Belgrade, and I think it
is well to state that Servia was under the guarantee of the
European Powers; that Turkey never broke the treaty
with Servia, while she over and over again violated it in
the case of Turkey. When, however, there was a struggle
in Servia between those who attempted to oppress the peo-
ple and the people themselves, the Porte invariably took the
side of the liberal party. The hon. gentleman then en-
tered into a narrative of the events which had taken place
in Servia, observing that the Serviens, instead of applying
themselves to the development of their own resources, had
been worked upon by intriguers who sought to pick quarrels
between the Ser vian and Turkish populations, and contending
that to throw the blame of what followed entirely on the
Turks was to adopt a line of argument totally at variance
with the facts of the case. Now (continued the hon. gen-
tleman) what we say is that we should like to see the posi-
tion of the Christians improved ; that we should wish them
to have the full enjoyment of their properties, to be allowed
to profess their religion unmolested, and to be as well go-
verned as possible. That we believe to be a surer way to
better their condition than to permit them to be worked
upon every year by intriguers, and exposed to be put down
by Turkish or European intervention. You say we are
always interfering in Turkey ; but all we ask is that no one
else should interfere. Then we shall have no wish to do so.
We have no desire to throw back these populations for years
and years, instead of allowing the Turkish people to im-
prove their condition. What has happened within the last
few years in Montenegro ? She has lost some of her best
men, has been thrown back 50 years, and has gained no-
thing. It she had taken our advice instead of rising in so
hopeless a manner, all this would not have happened. My
conviction is, then, that the policy pursued by the Govern-
ment is a fair policy, and it is the best, not only for the
Christians themselves but for Europe at large, which can
be adopted. (Cheers.)
Lord J. MANNERS condemned the policy of British
Ministers, as having in every way failed to maintain the
honour and dignity of England; and contended that through.
out the printed correspondence laid before the house there
was no evidence of any such intriguing on the part of the
Russian Government as had been imputed by the hon.
Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Layard). The
noble lord referred to the correspondence at some length in
support of his argument. He did not think the present was
a convenient time to go into the question of the cession of
the lonian Islands—(hear)—but he should state that he en-
tirely differed with the hon. member for Galway with regard
to it. From whatever point of view, whether European or
English, he considered the cession of the lonian Islands, he
could not but regard such an act upon the part of the Go-
vernment of this country as highly impolitic; and, further,
he looked upon the safeguards with which they attempted
to hedge round the cession as illusory and ineffectual. The
Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs had given them a
minute account of everything that happened all over Eu-
rope; but of Greece he said nothing. The English Go-
vernment had been dangling the bauble sceptre of Greece
before the unenraptured eyes of every German, and it might
be of every Scandinavian prince, but it so happened that
one and all declined to accept it. He knew the noble lord
opposite was fertile in resources, and that when he made
up his mind to carry out a project he would do it. As the
case now stood, it may be that as a solution of the difficulty
the crown of Greece would slip through the wearied fingers
of the noble earl the Foreign Secretary, in which case Greece
would obtain a constitutional monarch---;hear)—and this
country lose, for a time at least, one of the most rash, most
impulsive, and most meddlesome of her statesmen.
Mr. H. SEYMOUR said, although he did not think her
Majesty's Government were entirely without blame, still he
thought they did not merit all the criticisms lavished upon
them by hon. gentlemen opposite. Her Majesty's Govern
ment were not so free from blame on other points of the
negotiations, and he should like to know if King Ferdinand
was consulted before the crown of Greece was offered to
him ; and if not, was that a careful consideration for the
Greeks in case he should refute ? He also asked why the
Duke of Coburg was announced at Athens before the nego-
eiations were half concluded, a course that had tended to
bring the Greeks into contempt more than anything else.
He regretted the bungling manner her Majesty's Govern-
ment had gong about the matter, and he asked to be informed
what had been done lately, and who was now in the field ?
The Greeks, who had behaved admirably, felt deeply the
manner in which the English Government had negotiated
the matter. The Greeks having placed the choice of their
king in our hands, it was necessary that it should be made
quickly, though he was unable to find any signs of motion.
The state of Greece was daily growing worse in consequence,
and as no man in Europe was more interested in the matter
than the noble Premier, Greece being one of his children,
which he called into existence 30 years ago, he called upon
the noble lord to act in this emergency. He considered there
was a strong parallel between Greece and Sardinia, and he
condemned the advice given by the Under Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs both to Greece and Turkey. In
reference to Turkey, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Seymour)
complained that her Majesty's Government had not used
that peremptory language which they ought to have done,
and have enforced the promised reforms under the treaty of
1856. He rejoiced at the course taken by her Majesty's
Government with regard to the lonian Islands, which were
placed under our protectorate in 1816.

Lord H. SCOTT was unable to approve of the policy
pursued by her Majesty's Government. If they had as
distinctly announced to the people of Greece as they did
diplomatically to their agents that Prince Alfred was not
to become King of Greece, then this unfortunate enibroglio
would not have arisen. He considered her Majesty's Go-
vernment acted wrong in dragging the names of two emi-
nent members of royalty before the public without first
having their sanction for so doing. As the whole matter
now rested with the English Government he hoped there
would be no more delay, but it appeared to him that her
Majesty's Government had been animated more with a
desire to exclude certain persons from the throne of Greece
than obtain a sovereign for that country.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH pronounced the policy of the Go-
vernment on the subject of the election of Prince Alfred to
have been wanting in frankness to the Greeks. At the same
time, their present policy towards Greece was most incon-
sistent with their general policy on the Eastern question.
He entirely repudiated the right of the crown acting upon
the responsibility of Ministers, and without the sanction of
Parliament, to cede any portion of the sovereignty of Eng-
land to another State, and therefore the offer of the Govern-
ment to make ever the lonian Islands to the kingdom of
Greece was much to be reprehended.
Mr. CAVE said it had been assumed that evening—and,
indeed, it was so whenever mention was made of the
lonian Islands in that house—that the lonians were
generally desirous of separating from England. Now, he
believed that to be an entirely erroneous impression.
(Hear, hear.) It was true, perhaps, that in their house
of Representatives, resolutions had been more than once

passed to that effect ; but it was very much to be doubted
whether the lonians were represented there at all. lie

was at Corfu at the time the announcement was made

hat England was willing to renounce the protectorate;

and, certainly, it was not too much to say that the news
was received with universal consternation. (Hear, hear,

and laughter.) He could not do better than repeat the
language of an intelligent islander, who assured him that

every lonian who had a pair of breeches was in favour of
the Protectorate. (Laughter.) The lonians were never
more prosperous than they were at present, and all the diffi •

culties which had sprung up under Lord Seaton's constitu•
tion were fast disappearing under the energy of the present
Chief Commissioner. At the same time it could not be de-