in the affairs of the Levant, and particularly of Greece.

In the course of the debate, Lord Palmerston eulogized the general ability and financial talents of Count Armansperg. His lordship described the Count, who was in a minority during the first eighteen months, as having been impeded by his colleagues, and therefore unable to distinguish himself. Let us see what financial abilities Count Armansperg displayed, when these impediments were removed.

According to Lord Palmerston's statements, the expenditure in 1833 amounted to thirteen millions. This was the first year of the Regency, when every thing was to be created, and the whole organization of the country commenced, and when the expenditure might naturally have been the greatest. In the second year, when M. de Maurer and M. d'Abel were expelled, the expenditure was millions. The third year, when the King came to his majority, and when Count Armansperg was made Archchancellor, it was 16 millions; and this year, (1836) 15 millions.

If, therefore, Count Armansperg had proceeded even with the economy of a preposterously extra

vagant government, viz., the first, but whose extravagance was excusable on account of their position, there would have been a decreasing excess of expenditure of from 6 to 4, thence to 3, and this year to 2 millions. But, if any one is to be responsible for the extravagant expenditure, even of the first year, it is Count Armansperg, who, by a private arrangement among the Regents to distribute the labour, was charged with the financial department: and, further, we should be inclined to suspect that all the waste of the public funds during that first year is traceable to him alone, as we observe in subsequent years expences augmented instead of decreasing.

It must be observed that Count Armansperg has undertaken none of the works of which Greece stands so much in need. Neither roads nor communications have been made. No works of public utility have been undertaken. The marshes of the country have nowhere been drained. No army has been organized, no fleet equipped, no regular troops formed, and, in fact, none of those objects for which the loan had been contracted have been effected. But the most extraordinary part of this Greek question is, that, notwithstand

ing the length of time which has elapsed since Greece applied for the third instalment, no Budget of the public expenditure has ever been made, nor any account given to the Greek Nation of the expenditure of sums for which it has been rendered responsible by the Convention.

Count Armansperg's integrity respecting money matters does not stand above suspicion; but one would think that, when such an insinuation was publicly made through means of the press in Germany, Count Armansperg's honour was concerned in publishing a statement which might at least be intelligible. It is rather extraordinary that we should find Count Armansperg, who is said to be such an accomplished financier, and who has had able financial assistants sent out to him from Germany, has never been able to make a clear account of the items of the revenue and expenditure of a state whose revenues, after all, do not greatly surpass the annual income of the Duke of Buccleugh.

But it was said that, if the English share of the third instalment be withheld, we must take upon ourselves the responsibility of plunging Greece again into anarchy.

This has been ever the argument by which we were led on step by step to support Capodistrias in an antinational career which led to his assassination.

The country is not to be saved from anarchy by our supporting a government which cannot conciliate the nation; which is obliged to throw itself on foreign support and protect itself by a party of Capitani, with their irregular Palikari, who have been ever the instruments or the causes of all the anarchy of Greece.*

Moreover, anarchy is the certain and inevitable result of the separation of the Three Courts. It was shown to be so by the unfortunate events of 1832, when the three Powers, professing to act in accordance, allowed money to be given separately, and the historian of that day terminates the sad history of that epoch by accusing the Conference

*The Capitani mentioned in Sir Edmund Lyons' despatch of April 6th, (see page of Parliamentary papers 18), are some of them Klephtic chiefs, who were implicated in the conspiracy of Colocotroni, and have been invariably celebrated throughout the history of Grecian anarchy as the chiefs of the Russian faction.

Zavellas was made responsible for the British property which he destroyed at Patrass, which is to be repaid, with other claims of British subjects, out of this very instalment. See "Portfolio," No. 25.

of London of having plunged Greece into a state worse even than that in which the war of the Turks, or the devastation of the Arabs, had left it.

In our preceding numbers, we showed the effect of the Powers favouring a disunion in the council of the Regency, and thus creating individuals in that council round whom the friends of anarchy could rally. We have shown how this produced anarchy in the country. But how much greater will be the chances of the independence and internal tranquillity of Greece being sacrificed and the stability of the throne being subverted by a measure which affords a precedent for annulling the Conference of London, and allows each of the contracting Powers publicly to avow that they act independently, and as their separate interests dictate, is obvious to any person who reasons on the subject with impartiality.

1.

Such a course must necessarily lead the Three Courts, more undisguisedly than they have hitherto done, to encourage factions in the state, and to teach the Greeks no longer to consider themselves as subjects of King Otho, and citizens of the Greek state, but as partizans of England, France, and Russia.