Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

between Russia and the Porte, in this manner:-"With their dependencies, small islands, such as described in the treaty between the emperor of the Russias and the Ottoman court in 1800." That reference was only for description, and not for pointing out the destiny of Parga at this time. Its destiny could not be determined by that treaty, which by the way, had been observed only so long as was convenient for the parties. We were bound before 1815 in good faith, in generosity (a part of our character in the estimation of the Parguinotes), to protect the inhabitants of Parga. We were not to refer in a posterior treaty contrary to a transaction which had taken them into our embraces. In the treaty of 1800, Prevesa, Bucintro, Volizzo, and Parga were ceded to the Turks. Even if that treaty were binding upon us, we could unanswerably reply" True, we engaged to give those places to you, and you engaged to preserve their privileges inviolable. Where now are Prevesa, Bucintro, and Volizzo? [Hear]. They are in desolation. Those places, when delivered up to you, enjoyed peaceful tranquillity, the cross stood in their churches, Christianity flourished among them. They were overrun by you: you broke all stipulations in their favour, and you spared the lives of any Christians only to do you menial offices. Restore those places to their former condition, and then we shall consider it our duty to consign Parga into your hands: but we never can give up to you the last European place that erects the Cross of Christ, when we see Prevesa, Bucintro, and Volizzo, in the greatest desolation." [Much cheering.] England had, as it were, given to the Parguinotes a guarantee of future protection, by having the military occupation of their city for a long time. She ought not now to disappoint the hopes which her conduct had raised. He had no wish to take up the time of the House further, but he could not but think that it was the intention of our government to give up the Parguinotes to the power of Ali Pasha, for, by the treaty of 1815 it seemed that the treaty of 1800 was so far recognized, as that compensation should be allowed to those who might wish to leave their country. If the noble lord put that construction upon the treaty of 1815, he ought at least to have gone the whole length of the treaty of 1800, and not adopt part of it to the prejudice of those people, without giving them the

benefit of the whole. There was nothing
which they dreaded
more than to
be given up to the power of the Turk:
and here he would again ask, what right
the Turk had to demand this cession? If
he founded his claim upon the treaty of
1800, he should show that he had himself
fulfilled that treaty, that he had afforded
protection to the other cities which were
then placed under his care. What had
he done towards them from which it could
be hoped that he would act with justice
towards those unfortunate people? From
all which had transpired of the conduct
of this cruel tyrant towards those people

from the confidence they had reposed
in this government, and from the protec-
tion we had afforded them, it would be
unjust, and a breach of faith on our part,
to deliver them up to their greatest enemy.
The hon. baronet then recapitulated the
substance of his leading arguments, and
again maintained, that if we were not dis-
posed to afford those people our fur-
ther protection, we ought at least to place
them in the situation in which they were
when they applied to us for our assistance.
We ought to allow them to struggle for
themselves, and give them the same means
they had before of defending their liberty.
In looking to the condition in which those
unfortunate people were placed; in re-
membering the situation in which they
had been; in recollecting the bravery with
which they had defended themselves; and
in considering the state to which they were
now likely to be reduced, he was strongly
reminded of that passage in which the
poet described Eneas as relating to Dido
his departure from Troy with his son and
father, at the destruction of that city :-
"Hoc erat; alma parens quod me per tela,
Eripis, ut mediis hostem in penetralibus, utque
per ignes.
Ascanium, patremque meum, juxtaque Creu-

sam,

Alterum,in alterius mactatos sanguine cernam?
Arma, viri, ferte arma; vocat lux ultima victos.
Reddite me Danais; sinite instaurata revisam
Prælia. Nunquam omnes hodie moriemur

multi."

The hon. baronet concluded, amidst loud cheers, by moving, for "1. Copies of Instructions of general Campbell to sir Charles Gordon, or any other British officer, respecting assistance to be given to the inhabitants of Parga against the French and Turks in 1814, with copies of any requisitions sent to him, or to captain Hoste of the navy, by the inha

bitants, upon which such assistance was | placed by former treaties, he would mainsent: 2. Of the Dispatches of the na- tain that we ought not to construe those val and military officers who announced treaties to the very letter, against a peothe occupation of Parga by the British ple whose liberty they might abridge. forces in 1814 to the government at They ought to be construed in the most home, with the conditions upon which favourable manner possible. It would be that occupation was given by the inhabi- a stain upon a free people, such as we tants, and any engagements, or assur- were, to become the instruments, in any ances of protection, entered into with the degree, however remote, of consigning a inhabitants, or given to them by the said small but spirited set of men, whose officers: 3. Of such parts of any Instruc- greatest ambition was freedom, to the tions sent out to the commander in chief dominion of a tyrant. The House should in the Ionian islands, since the occupation consider the character of the man to of Parga in 1814, as refer to that occupa- whose despotic sway this little state was tion, as announced by the commander in to be consigned: he was a rebel, and had chief: 4. Of Instructions of general been so all his life, and his acts were toleCampbell to lieutenant Bretton, when the rated because it was not in the power of latter went to take the command at Parga, the Porte to subdue him: his conduct had in May 1815." been stained with acts so atrocious as no Turkish minister had been found to be guilty of. The hon. member said, he had been in the country, and was acquainted with many of the evils which those people had to deplore; and he was aware that there was nothing which they dreaded more than being placed in the power of a man from whose despotic sway they had every thing to dread and nothing to hope. It was, he maintained, the interest of this country, to preserve the rights of those people: they had strong claims upon our protection, which they deserved, and which he trusted the decision of that night would afford. He trusted the members on both sides of the House would see the justice of acceding to the motion of his hon. friend. It was not by an indiscriminate support of ministers that the affec tion of members was shown for them. There might be instances and occasions when it might be for the advantage of the minister to oppose him, where it was seen, he had inadvertently fallen into error. If such had been the case in the present instance-if, through some oversight or unintentional neglect, the interest of the Parguinotes had been forgotten, he trusted that, before it was too late, the error would be acknowledged, and the evil to which it would lead prevented. After the manly avowal of error in another place, and after the recent example of a right hon. gentleman in that House, in retracting erroneous opinions, he trusted that there would be no difficulty on the part of his majesty's ministers in admitting that they had been mistaken in their conduct towards that brave and independ ent people.

Mr. Maxwell rose to second the motion. He conceived that if no other principle operated upon the British government but gratitude to those people, that alone was a claim which should entitle them to protection. In looking to the present situation of the Grecian islands, he felt that the noble lord opposite had done a great deal for their regeneration, and as an individual he thanked him for it. Care had been taken to have proper persons sent out from this country, whose constant attention watched over their best interests. He admitted that great benefits had already accrued to the islands from this protection; but while he did this, he should maintain, that we were called upon by motives equally strong to extend our protection to Parga. She had trusted to us for protection. In her confidence she had opened her gates to our troops, to the exclusion of those of another nation by which they had been previously occupied. We yielded to the wishes of the people, in taking military possession of their city; and the relationship which was established, was one of dependence on the one side, and not only implied but avowed protection on the other. That protection, he contended, we were bound in good faith not to withdraw. Parga was a small, but it was a free state. For three or four centuries it had cherished the spirit of liberty, while the countries around had been nearly enslaved by despotism. The liberty and independent spirit of ancient Greece were nourished here, he might almost say, upon this little spot; but if the House did now not interfere, its last ray would become extinct. In looking to the situation in which this city had been

Lord Castlereagh said, he felt disposed

wards make of it, the English government could not guarantee. The negotiations of 1815 had been formed on the 8th article of the treaty of 1800, by which the authority of the Porte over those places had been acknowledged. As to the, desolation and destruction of other towns, and the scenes of distress to which the hon. baronet had alluded, he deplored them as much as any man; but he would not say that some part of the conduct of the Parguinotes was not of a nature to justify Ali Pasha in having recourse to hostilities. The object of his majesty's government was, to afford to the Parguinotes a free option of remaining in the country, or of leaving it if they chose, they getting a proper indemnity. To all those who left, that indemnity would be secured; and all who remained would be entitled to the good offices of their country and to enjoy all they would have enjoyed under the treaty of 1800. This was all they had a right to expect. Never till this night had he heard it maintained, that we had a right to maintain this place as against the Porte. He had thought it proper to say thus much in explanation of some parts of the hon. baronet's speech, but would reserve himself to a future occasion for further detail.

to give every credit to the motives of the hon. baronet in bringing forward this motion, and was glad of the mode in which he had placed it before the House. As the hon. baronet had only called for information, he had no difficulty in acceding to his motion. If the motion of the hon. baronet had been for the discussions which had taken place between this government and the Porte, he should have felt it his duty to have refused them, on the ground that a premature disclosure of pending negotiations might destroy their own end and object. The motion of the hon. baronet had kept free from such discussions; he would therefore consent to it, and reserve his observations until such time as the hon. baronet should call the attention of the House to the information laid before it. It was but justice to his majesty's ministers to have said, that they entertained the most liberal views with respect to the Grecian islands. The question of their occupation arose out of the treaty of 1800. It was very largely discussed, though not settled at, Vienna and at Paris, during the debates on the treaty of 1815: and it was then understood that this government had no right to hold Parga in favour of the inhabitants as against the Porte. This, however, would not be a bar to any future regula- Mr. Scarlett was happy to hear that tion by which their interests might be the noble lord had no objection to the better secured. It was the general feeling motion of his hon. friend, as it was likely of the allied powers in 1815, that the most to lead to a more full discussion of this liberal policy should be extended towards important question. He looked upon the that people, and this was supported by surrender of Parga as an act as treacherwhat he conceived was the duty of this ous and perfidious as had ever disgraced government, that they (the Parguinotes) modern diplomacy. He was not aware should have as good a settlement as pos- of all the circumstances of the case, and sible, consistently with the general regu- should therefore reserve his more detailed lations of the other powers. But, with opinion till the papers were before the this disposition on the part of government House. But he should say, that unless towards that people, he did still think some new and extraordinary light were that they had no other claim upon us, thrown upon the matter, he should doubt than for our good offices. Every thing whether Parga ought to have been ceded which could be done for them in that way at all. One thing he thought was clearhis majesty's ministers felt disposed to do. that we were not bound by the act of On the subject of negotiation he begged 1815, or that of 1800 between the Turks distinctly to state, that there was no con- and Russians: or if it were conceived vention of any kind respecting this city that this latter were binding, we ought to since the treaty of 1815. There was a have it all or none. The beneficial part species of correspondence between a com- of it ought not to be taken from those to missary of Great Britain and one of the whom it applied, while that which opePorte, but it did not refer to the posses- rated against them was suffered to remain sion of Parga. Any negotiation which According to the papers to_which his could be carried on would be with the hon. friend had alluded, the Parguinotes Porte and not with Ali Pasha: if the themselves seemed aware that, under the place were to be surrendered, it would be treaty which would consign them to the to the former. What use he might after-power of the Turk, they could enjoy no

(VOL. XL.)

(3G)

privileges, and all seemed determined to leave a country where they could not enjoy their former freedom. The consequence was, that if we consented to this surrender, we should be giving not a little state or city, but a piece of barren and desolate land.

Sir J. Mackintosh accepted the consent of the noble lord to the motion of his hon. friend, as a pledge against the enactment of as perfidious a transfer as could ever disgrace any free country. There was, he contended, nothing in the treaty of 1815 which could oblige us to consummate so treacherous an act. How, he would ask, could we be bound by the convention of 1800? In what part of the law of nations was it discovered, that we had a right to insist on the fulfilment of a treaty against a people towards whom all its contracts had been broken? The Turks had forfeited all claim to benefit from any clause in that treaty: they had themselves violated and shamefully neglected the duties to which it had bound them. If this were so, how could we be bound by the treaty of 1815? He denied any such inference, and the cession of Parga, would be, he maintained, the most abominable that ever was made of or by a free people. There was no example among nations where faith was kept of giving up a free and christian people to a Mahometan tyrant. If the treaty of 1815, was said to renew that of 1800, why not renew it all? Why should one half be kept in favour of a Mahometan tyrant, and the other thrown aside as advantageous to a Christian people? When the papers should come before the House, he would be prepared to show that it was the duty of the legislature to interfere to prevent so gross a violation of the privileges of a free state.

Mr. Goulburn did not mean to follow the example of the two last speakers, by entering at present into a discussion on the merits of this question, with a warmth which he conceived uncalled for at present. Those who had attended to the speeches of the hon. members must feel surprised that they should first condemn the cession of Parga, as an act of perfidy, and in the next sentence admit that they were not in possession of facts on which to ground their opinions. How could gentlemen, arguing in support of justice, adopt such a line of conduct, without having facts to go upon? When the measure came to be discussed, as it must be,

if any motion was brought forward upon it, he would be prepared to meet the arguments of those who questioned the conduct of ministers on this occasion. The motion was then put and carried.

FRAME-WORK KNITTERS BILL.] Mr. Mansfield moved the second reading of this bill.

Mr. Hume objected to the bill, on the ground that by preventing the manufacture of cheap hosiery it would throw upwards of 3,000 individuals out of employment. If it was necessary to encourage the manufacture of hosiery of a better sort, let a mark be fixed upon them by law. If his objections could be removed in a committee, he was willing to support the principle of the bill: if not, he should oppose it altogether.

Mr. Mansfield said, that if the effects of the bill were such as the hon. member apprehended, the House would scout it. He hoped he was not the man that would introduce such a bill. No man felt more than he did for the distresses of the people: their present misery was painful to the feelings of every humane heart. The bill was intended for their relief, and he hoped the hon. member would change his opinion on the subject in the committee.

Mr. John Smith said, that the bill was an experiment, and unfriendly as he was to legislative interference on subjects like the present, he would support it, because he felt that the people were reduced to a state of such terrible distress, that it was proper to agree to any measure of alleviation that would afford them consolation.

Mr. Wilson supported the bill, on the ground that it was necessary to support the character of our manufactures on the continent.

Mr. Ricardo said, he did not altogether agree in the principle of the bill, but he would reserve his observations for a future discussion.

Mr. Peter Moore contended, that the bill, so far from having the effect of turning persons out of employment, would have directly a contrary effect.

The bill was read a second time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, May 27. GRAMPOUND Bribery IndicTMENTS.] The House, on the motion of lord J. Russell, went into a committee on the

within the first four days of the last term. He had, however, received no instructions to that effect, and he supposed the reason, of this was, that the matter was under the consideration of that House. There had been no communication between him and Mr. Teed respecting the propriety or impropriety of bringing the parties up for judgment. Early in April he had ceased to be employed by Mr. Teed, with whom, however, his account was not yet settled. Other persons had been concerned in the prosecution, and from them he had received part of his charges. The names of these persons his professional duty did not allow him to disclose. He could not tell whether the demand at present against Mr. Teed was large or small; it certainly was more than 100l., and less than 2,000l. He believed that those twenty persons would have been brought up for judgment, had it not been for the proceedings before this House relative to the borough. Witness had ceased to be agent for Mr. Teed before the Grampound election committee was appointed.

Grampound Bribery Indictments. Alex-| ander Lamb was called in, and examined. The examination was conducted by lord J. Russell, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Scarlett, and Mr. M. A. Taylor. The witness stated, that he had been an agent at the last election for the borough of Grampound. He was employed by Mr. Teed, one of the candidates. A list of voters had been put into his hands, which also contained an account of the sums of money which particular individuals among them had received. It was certainly his belief at the time that the sums so marked had been received. It was proposed by Mr. Teed, to put the bribery oath to some of these persons, but several gentlemen remonstrated against it, saying it was of no use, and could only lead to the commission of perjury Mr. Teed then consented to withdraw it.-The witness was here ordered to withdraw, whilst the committee considered whether the poll book was admissible evidence. It being, after a short conversation, resolved in the affirmative, the witness, not having the book in his immediate possession, was ordered to produce it on his next attendance. In continuation of his testimony he added, that the township of Grampound had threatened to pelt those who should tender the bribery oath to them before the returning officer. Amongst the gentlemen who had objected to pressing the oath was Mr. Shaw, one of the candidates. He was not aware of any division or opposition of parties prevailing at that time. He had accompanied Mr. Teed on his canvass, and told the voters, that he knew certain sums of money had been distributed amongst them, and that he had evidence to prove it. He was examined before the grand jury, when bills of indictment were preferred against several of the electors. Twenty of these persons had been subsequently tried and convicted; seven or eight more, in consequence of information which they had given, not being brought to trial, although bills of indictment had been found against them. The list with which he was furnished in the first instance contained the names of those who had not, as well as those who had, received sums of money in consideration of their notes. Witness did not recollect the number of the latter. He had been employed to carry on the prosecution, and knew, that if the parties convicted were to be brought up for judgment, it should have been done

Here the evidence of this witness closed, and John Edwards was called to the bar, and examined by lord John Russell. Witness stated, that he was present at the last election for Grampound, in the character of a solicitor; that he had been requested to attend in order to support one of the candidates, but that he had no interest himself in the election. He then detailed the proceedings which took place at the election. He had conversed with three or four of the electors, who had told him that more than twenty of the electors had been bribed. He then, apparently with some reluctance, mentioned the names of those persons with whom he had conversed, and stated his belief that they would not have taken bribes previously to the election. He did not ask them directly if they would take the bribery oath, but he insinuated a question to that effect; and they appeared to understand him, but did not say whether they would or would not-they certainly did not say they would not. Mr. Shaw demanded the bribery oath to be tendered, but it was withdrawn from a conviction of the state in which the electors were.-Examined by Mr. Scarlett. Witness had been acquainted with the electioneering proceedings at Grampound for the last 24 or 25 years. He never advised the electors at any previous election, although, on seeing them singly, or in small parties, he had

« ÖncekiDevam »