fere in the affairs of Greece, has naturally expected to share in the benefit of arrangements, to which, although not a contributor, he was a contracting party. Consequently the funds of the Alliance, instead of going out to the King of Greece, took the road to Munich, and in this manner the King of Bavaria became master of the destinies of the kingdom of his son.

Is it then to be wondered at, that the Greek nation, defrauded of that capital for the payment of which and its interest Russia may at any moment seize upon its first revenues, should look upon the Bavarians with the most hostile feelings, while at the same time means, so enormous for that country, are placed in their hands for the purpose of political corruption and partizanship?

But as if to fill up the measure of Russia's success in this transaction without a parallel, we find Russia from the moment that France and England consent to the advancement of this money, making objections to its payment!

Was ever a more ingenious method invented for confirming the delusion of the Cabinets, and leading them, in the very fulfilment of her wishes, to conceive that they triumphed over her policy?

And what are the conditions that she places to her consent to the advancement of the loan? Why that of re-uniting the Greek Church to the Patriarch of Constantinople, now completely under her control, and rendering the King of Greece himself subject to the same foreign religious supremacy. But how was it that the Church of Greece ever became detached from the Patriarch of Constantinople? Was it not by the act of M. von Maurer whom England was led to eject from Greece, on the plea of his being a Russian? If M. de Maurer's act then was in the Russian sense, how comes it that the abrogation of that act by which his name is and will be connected with Greece, is now the condition placed by her to the advance of the third series of the loan?

This important and remarkable question we shall treat in detail in the exposure which we propose to lay before our readers of the late events of that country. In the mean time we refer those who are anxious to inquire into the subject, to an article on Russian Policy in Greece in the Foreign Quarterly Review of January last.

If our voice can reach the Governments of France and England, we would conjure them to pause on VOL. III. NO. 21.

N

a measure that we conceive to be fatal, not only to Greece, but even to the Turkish Empire.-Events are threatening on so many points, that we cannot escape from the belief that the crisis is very near at hand. An indication of its proximity we read in the very conditions suggested by Russia for the advancement of the loan. In 1834 Russia attempted to separate Greece religiously from Constantinople, with the view of connecting it with St. Petersburgh. M. von Maurer fortunately interposed and established the Greek independent Synod. In 1836 Russia endeavours to reconnect Greece religiously with Constantinople. We cannot conceive that these observations can suggest a new idea to any one who has perused that condition. We cannot conceive how any one can doubt that, having so long convulsed Constantinople from Greece, she now thinks the time come when she will command Greece from Constantinople. Is our money and is our influence now for the last time to be made the means of insuring her success?

But the next unaccountable fact is the amount of the money which has thus been handed over for the use of Greece.

Under the Presidency of Count Capodistrias the

annual expenditure of Greece did not exceed £250,000. Now the whole personal expenditure of King Otho does not exceed £7000. a year, and yet Count Armensperg, the Arch-Chancellor of Greece, has managed, in the short space of three years, to exceed the revenue of Greece by an annual expenditure of more than £350,000.-that is to say, more than the sum total of the revenue under Count Capodistrias, which was considered by the Greeks as abusive and extravagant in the extremeand yet, with all these resources at his disposal, what has been the state of Greece? One continued series of conspiracies, rebellions, civil wars, treason and anarchy.

The foreign loans have given to Greece a sum of money, which, calculating the population of the country at the various periods of transmission, gives to each individual man, woman, and child the monstrous sum of £10.* The reader must also take into account that the financial system of those countries is very different from ours, that the civil and financial organization has hitherto been almost wholly gratuitous, and that money goes at least

* What will the honourable and learned Member for Kilkenny say to this?

three times as far as in Europe. In proof of this assertion, we may quote the instance of Servia, which, after a struggle of much longer duration than that of Greece, but hitherto untortured by European diplomacy, issued from the contest for its independence, with a sum in its treasury exceeding half a million sterling, and where a population, exceeding by one-third that of the free state of Greece, is now administered for less than one-fifth of the expense of the Greek state.

Although we cannot devote more space to the subject at present, yet we should regret that any one should peruse these pages without carrying away a feeling of conviction of the melancholy truth which we have endeavoured to shadow forth, of our influence and our money having been devoted to the degradation of the Greek people in Greece, and to the furtherance of the projects of Russia throughout the East, by means of Greece.

In our last number, in exposing an unwarrantable assertion, and an unaccountable fallacy of the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth, set up as a defence for the miserable conduct of this Government in 1829, we showed how Capodistrias, by the employment on the heights of Roumelia of an army,