Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

to the Russian court had charged them with a breach of faith in thus sacrificing to France the independence of the Septinsular Republic. The Russians having recommended to the Parguinotes to secure a good understanding with the French, completely abandoned them. The Pacha, seeing that France had obtained possession of the Ionian Islands, entered into a negociation with the French General (Berthier) for getting Parga ceded to him. The Parguinotes, seeing these negociations between the French General and the Pacha, prepared for their own defence, and at the same time made strong application to the French General for assistance. The French General refused to give them up, and promised to report to the Emperor that they were a free people, and every way worthy of favour. He at the same time sent them a French flag and troops to defend them This was in 1807, and the cession was finally refused by the Emperor. In 1809 and 1810, Admiral Collingwood commanded in the Mediterranean, and took measures to resist the further progress of the French. Sir John Stuart furnished land forces, and Lord Collingwood ships, for an expedition to reduce the Ionian Islands. Lord Collingwood instructed the captain, that on their landing on any of those islands, the Septinsular, and not the British flag, should be hoisted, the inhabitants should be required to take arms, and the fortresses should not be garrisoned by British troops, their own troops being sufficient for that purpose. Five of the islands were reduced. Corfu, the head of them all, was not reduced, there not being troops sufficient to effect its reduction. The commander of the expedition, in his dispatches, said, that he had great satisfaction in stating that their efforts were attended

with complete success. The government of the Ionian republic, it was now determined, should be restored : but the British flag was set up together with the Septinsular flag, and British troops were stationed to defend the several posts till the various offices were properly filled up. When the Parguinotes, whose ancestors had bled for their country, who themselves were ready to bleed for their country, who had been respected by Russia and by France, when they saw this example of British generosity, when they saw the islands reduced by British valour, and restored to freedom by British generosity, could it be supposed that they did not unanimously throw themselves under British protection? On the one side they saw their friends slaughtered by the Turks; on the other, they saw the Septinsular government restored in the most magnanimous manner. Could they hesitate as to the course to be adopted? This was in 1809 and 181o. We were afterwards too much engaged by the war in other places to carry our successes further in this quarter, and it was vain to attempt the establishment of an independent government without Corfu. In 1814, the Pacha made an attack on Parga. The Parguinotes applied for aid to the French General, who replied, that he could afford them no assistance; that he had no troops for the purpose; and, if he had, that he could not, without instructions from his government, send them to their assistance. They determined, notwithstanding, to make no cession: they made all the resistance possible in the neighbourhood of Parga, and at its walls. The Pacha's army of 20,000 men was repelled, and his nephew, who commanded it, slain. The Pacha retreated; he was repelled, not routed. They had not num

bers enough to pursue him. Seeing that they could get no assistance from the French, they sent a deputation to General Campbell, with an offer to withdraw their fortunes from France, and to place themselves under British protection, to follow the destinies of the Ionian Islands. He granted their request, and sent Mr Foresti's (the English ambassador's) son and Sir Charles Gordon with a strong detachment, to assist in forcing the French out of Paxo, which was opposite to Parga, on the terms that an English garrison should be received, and that Parga should follow the destinies of the Ionian Islands. Captain (afterwards Sir William) Hoste arrived there at the same time with two frigates. They sent a deputation to him, who received them well, but replied that he could do nothing for them, that he could not attack the fortress; but that if they could get the British flag hoisted, he would draw up his fri gates under it at all hazards. They got the British flag conveyed into the fortress by an old woman under her clothes; the inhabitants, who had formerly fought against the Pacha, at the same time attacked the sentinels. The British flag was hoisted, the frigates were drawn up under the fortress, and the garrison were made prisoners. The place was in tranquillity in two or three hours after the first movement. This brought him to the point. The Parguinotes were now under British protection. The object of his motion was to obtain the paper which contained the conditions on which the commanders, by sea and land, gave assistance to the Parguinotes. This document must have been sent home to Ministers. He also wished to obtain the answer of our Government, if there was any, authorising what political government was to be

placed over Parga by the Governor of the lonian islands. Of the first paper he had a copy, but a motion could not be regularly founded upon it. He would read, however, from this copy, the instructions from General Campbell to Lieutenant Breton, respecting Parga. The date was May 1815. Parga was to be considered an appendage to the Ionian Islands, and more particularly as an outwork of the garrison of Corfu; it was wisdom to retain it. Such were the instructions then given respecting Parga. If, then, Parga was considered as included in the dependencies, it must follow the Ionian Islands, and be free and independent. Reference was made in the treaty of Paris, 1815, to a treaty in 1800 between Russia and the Porte, in this manner-" with their dependencies, small islands, such as described in the treaty between the Emperor of all 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, to protect the inhabitants of Parga. We were not to refer to a posterior treaty contrary to a transaction which had taken them into our embraces. In the treaty of 1800, Prevesa, Bucintro, Vonitzo, 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 Vonitzo? They are in desolation. Those places, when delivered up to you, enjoyed peaceful tranquillity: the

cross stood in their churches, and 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 of fices. 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 Vonitzo, in the greatest desolation." 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. The honourable Baronet concluded by moving that an humble address be presented to His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, praying that he might be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before the House a copy of the instructions sent by General Campbell to Colonel Gordon in 1814, respecting the occupation of Parga; also a copy of the instructions sent to Lieutenant Breton on the same subject; likewise a copy of any communications from British officers to the Parguinotes, assuring them of protection, and the communications of the Parguinotes to which those were a reply.

Lord Castlereagh felt disposed to give every credit to the motives of the honourable Baronet in bringing forward this motion, and was glad of the mode in which he had placed it before the House. As the honourable Baronet had only called for information, he had no difficulty in acceding to his motion. His Majesty's Ministers 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 regulation by which their interests might be better secured. It was the general feeling of the Powers in 1815, that the most liberal policy should be extended towards that people, and this was supported by what he conceived was the duty of this Government, that they (the Parguinotes) should have as good a settlement as pos sible, consistently with the general regulations of the other powers. But with this disposition on the part of Government towards that people, he did still think that they had no other claim upon us than for our good offices. Every thing which could be done for them in that way his Majesty's Ministers felt disposed to do. On the subject of negotiation, he begged distinctly to state, that there was no convention of any kind respecting this city since the treaty of 1815. There was a species of correspondence between a commissary of Great Britain and one of the Porte, but it did not refer to the possession of Parga. Any negotiation which could be carried on would be with the Porte, and not with Ali Pacha: if the place were to be surrendered, it would be to the former. What use he might afterwards 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 honourable 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 Pacha 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, on getting a proper indemnity. To all those who left it, that indemnity would be secured; and all who remained would be entitled to the good of fices of this 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 asserted, that we had a right to maintain this place against the Porte.

After a few words from Mr Scarlett and Sir James Mackintosh, the motion of the honourable Baronet was put, and carried unanimously.

On the 15th of June, Lord Castlereagh brought up the papers relative to Parga, which had been previously ordered. On this occasion, Sir Charles Monck, in some degree, departed from the ground he had previously taken, by admitting the revival of the treaty of 1800; from which it follows that the Parguinotes had no further claim to British protection, than what was founded on humanity, and that the cession of Parga and its territory to the Porte was rendered indispensable by the positive stipulations of that treaty, revived, and re-enforced by the treaty of Paris in 1815. For this reason, and because, in the interim, intelligence had arrived that the evacuation had actually taken place, and the town and territory been ceded, the honourable Baronet withdrew his further motion relative to the cession

VOL. XII. PART 1.

of this insignificant rock, which had been made the subject of much senseless clamour and ignorant declamation.

On the 13th of May, the Attorney-General rose, to move for leave to bring in a bill to prohibit enlistments in foreign service, and the equipment of vessels of war without licence. The law of our country on this subject, founded on a statute of George II., made it an offence amounting to a felony to enter into the service of a foreign state. The object of that law was to prevent his Majesty's subjects from engaging in the service of any state at war with another state with which he was not at war. But it was important to the country, that if neutrality was to be preserved, it should be preserved between states that claimed to themselves the right to act as states, as well as between those that were acknowledged to be states. The words of that statute might, however, raise a doubt how far it was intended to embrace those entering into the service of states not acknowledged to be such. The learned gentleman stated, that the object of his bill, in a certain degree, was to amend the statute, by introducing after "king, prince, state, potentate," the words "colony or district who do assume the powers of a government." The intention of introducing these words was to make enlisting in the service of unacknowledged powers, the same as enlisting in the service of those that were acknowledged. But to make the law consistent, it was his first object, by this bill, to reduce the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanour, that is, that the penalty on the first offence should be for a misdemeanour, and on the second for a felony; and to make the law equally applicable to acknowledged and to unacknowledged powers.

[ocr errors]

In

the second provision of the bill, two objects were intended to be embraced, namely, to prevent the fitting out of armed vessels, and also to prevent the fitting out or supplying other ships with warlike stores in any of his Majesty's ports. Not that such vessels might not receive provisions in any port in the British dominions; but the object of the enactment was to prevent them from shipping warlike stores, such as guns and other things obviously and manifestly intended for no other purpose than war. These were the objects of the bill; and unless it appeared to the House that they ought to distinguish between legitimate states and those self-constituted states that were unacknowledged, he could not anticipate any objection to it. He then moved for leave to bring in a bill to prohibit enlistments in foreign service, and the equipment of vessels of war without licence.

The learned gentleman proved to be mistaken in his anticipation, that no serious objection would be made to the bill which he now proposed to introduce. In all its stages it was keenly and powerfully opposed; and, as we will see immediately, was carried through some of its stages by very small majorities. On the present occasion, and after a warm discussion, the motion of the Attorney-General was agreed to, without a division. The bill was accordingly brought in and read a second time on the 3d of June. On this occasion, the measure was strenuously opposed by Sir Robert Wilson, Mr Denman and others, and as vigo rously defended by the AttorneyGeneral, Mr Wynn, and Lord Castlereagh. Ultimately, however, the bill was ordered to be committed on the 10th.

Before the House went into the committee, Colonel Davies took the

opportunity of contradicting certain circumstances which had been mentioned by the supporters of the bill on the last occasion that the question had been argued. The noble Lord had then laid great stress upon this country being bound by treaties to do Spain every service that lay within her power, and had argued in such a manner as would have led any inconsiderate person to believe, that Spain had not merely always acted in such a manner towards us, but had even strained every nerve to put a favourable construction upon such of her institutions as were hostile to our commercial intercourse with her subjects. But was such a statement reconcileable with facts? Would any body, except the Noble Lord, pretend to argue that the conduct of Spain had not been one continued series of unwarrantable aggressions against this country? that she had not violated almost every treaty which she had ever made with us? that she had not committed the most gross and unjustifiable outrages against our national honour? that she had not imprisoned the bodies, confiscated the property, and annihilated, as far as depended upon herself, the commerce of British merchants? He would mention one or two of the facts on which he principally rested his assertions. The treaty upon which all our commercial transactions with Spain rested was made in the year 1667, and was afterwards confirmed by the peace of Utrecht. This, with some slight fluctuations, continued till the year 1783, when another treaty was formed between the two countries. That remained in force till the year 1796, when it was again altered. In 1806, when Spain was at the feet of Buonaparte, duties absolutely prohibitory were imposed by the King for the avowed purpose of annihilating the commerce of Great Britain. In

« ПредишнаНапред »