Page images


THE papers which were presented a few days ago to the House of Commons on the subject of the Greek Loan are entitled to the most serious consideration, not only of every member of both Houses of Parliament, but of every Englishman who retains the slightest interest in the honour of his country, and in the character of her foreign policy.

It will appear, on an attentive perusal of the Convention of May 7th, 1832, inserted in this number, that the questions involved in the correspondence now laid before Parliament have a more or less direct bearing on the international interests of England, Russia, France, Bavaria, Greece, and Turkey. It is matter, therefore, of regret that his Majesty's government should have postponed to so late a period of the session a question the solution of which is thrown entirely upon the responsibility of the Legislature, whilst the means of judging of its

importance have been very imperfectly furnished by his Majesty's ministers.

To enable our readers to understand the merits of the question, we must first point out to them the various instances in which the Convention of May the 7th has been violated, either by the nonfulfilment of some of the stipulations, or by the perversion of others.


ARTICLE VI stipulates that the Protocol of the 3rd of February, 1830, was to be converted into a definitive Treaty, to which the King of Greece was to become a contracting party.

Now, this Treaty has never been framed, and the only Treaty that exists regulating the relation in which the Greek Monarchy stands towards the Three Courts is that which we are commenting on, and in it, besides the Three Powers who were parties to the Treaty of the 6th of July, we observe only the name of Bavaria, whose Monarch could not stipulate any thing in the name of Greece, which by these presents was to be erected into an independent Monarchy, (Article 4,) nor, consequently, in the name of its sovereign, whom he

had emancipated from paternal authority, by allowing him to be placed at the head of an independent kingdom.

We shall observe hereafter the consequences that the violation of this article has entailed.


"The majority of the Prince Otho of Bavaria, King of Greece, is fixed at the period when he shall have completed his 20th year; that is to say, on the first of June, 1835.”


"During the minority of the Prince Otho of Bavaria, King of Greece, his rights of sovereignty shall be exercised in their full extent by a Regency composed of three councillors, who shall be appointed by his Majesty the King of Bavaria.”

In the Protocols which accompanied and explained the Treaty, it was stated that Count Armansperg, M. von Maurer and General Heydeck, were to be the "permanent and definitive government of Greece," until the majority of the King. They were constituted an independent power, yet the King of Bavaria, in July, 1834, removed one



of the councillors, and substituted another in his place. This was a complete violation by a foreign Potentate, who was himself a party to the convention, of the independence of the Regency, and consequently it was the subversion of the independ ence of the sovereignty of Greece.


"The Three Courts shall announce to the Greek nation, by a joint declaration, the choice which they have made of his Royal Highness the Prince Otho of Bavaria, as King of Greece, and shall afford the Regency all the support in their power."

We have shown in our last number how that support was given to a minority in the Regency against a majority; whereas one of the Protocols determined that "the majority of votes in the council of the Regency thus constituted should decide on all state affairs."

It is singular that the Monarch of a kingdom, which has so few interests in common with those of Greece, was allowed to interfere in the affairs of that country unimpeded by the allied Courts, who had promised the Regency the whole of their support.

If, therefore, that sovereign has acquired the power of interfering on one occasion, what guarantee is there for his not interfering again? If there be no guarantee, as it would appear that there is none, is not the independence of Greece at an end, without the formal union of the two crowns on one head, which the negotiators seemed so very anxious to prevent? And if no guarantee for its independence, what guarantee for the money advanced by the three powers being applied to objects Bavarian and not Greek?


"The Sovereign of Greece, and the Greek state, shall be bound to appropriate to the payment of the interest and sinking fund of such instalments of the loan as may have been raised under the guarantee of the three Courts, the first revenues of the state, in such manner that the actual receipts of the Greek Treasury shall be devoted, first of all, to the payment of the said interest and sinking fund; and shall not be employed for any other purpose, until those payments on account of the instalments of the loan raised under the guarantee

« PreviousContinue »