Page images
PDF
EPUB

they would still be allowed to profess it. The sole object of Turkey, from first to last, has been to reduce them to subjection. The whole the partizans of Greece can say on this point is, the Greeks are Christians, and the Turks are not; but religion forms in no degree the object of contention on either side. This is perfectly decisive against the right of other nations to interfere on the score of religion. Catholic France, Austria, &c., have just as much right on this score to make Ireland independent, by force of arms, as Britain, France, and Russia, have to interfere between Greece and Turkey.

We have already said sufficient to dispose of the point touching the manner in which the Greeks have been treated by Turkey. If other nations had a right to interfere on this point, any confederacy of foreign nations has a right to render the West India slaves, or the East India subjects of this country, independent; or, such a confederacy has a right to overturn almost every continental government. It is ridiculous to draw distinctions in despotism and slavery by the rule of more or less; and to argue that one despot, or keeper of slaves, has a right to make war on another for being more despotic, or treating his slaves more harshly, than himself. The doctrine of interference on this point, strikes at the foundation of all national independence, and at the existence of all national government. If it be admitted, any nation or combination of nations can, at all times, plead a right to dictate to, and overturn, the governments of other nations at pleasure. The partizans of Greece have always been the loudest, when the Greek question was not in sight, in enforcing the principle of non-interference in insisting that one nation has no right to interfere in the internal concerns of another. Applied to the case before us, this principle declares that foreign nations have no right to interfere between Turkey and her Greek subjects.

As to what has been said against the mode in which the war has been carried on, it in truth applies as much to the Greeks as to the Turks. The one side has been as cruel as the other The worst of the cruelty was, however, abandoned years since. The assertion that this mode justified other

nations in interfering, not only to humanize it, but to make the Greeks independent, is below notice.

The three nations which are now acting the part of national plunderers and pirates, have, however, in assertion, gone much beyond even the Greek Committee, and the very Lon-don-Greek newspapers. In their treaty they represent that the war injured other States. A treaty concluded for purposes of piracy and spoliation could not well have any other basis than falsehood. Did the war involve the rights and interests of any other State? No. Did it endanger the internal or external tranquillity of any other State? No. Putting aside the piracies of the Greeks, no other nation suffered in the least from the war, in either right, interest, or apprehension. The piracies were committed solely by the Greeks, and not a charge was ever made against Turkey for trenching in the smallest degree on the property and rights of other countries. Did these Greek piracies give to other nations the right to dismember Turkey and make Greece independent? We will insult no man's common sense by giving the reply.

It has indeed been alleged by the Treasury scribes, in defence of the treaty, that if this treaty had not been concluded and acted upon, Russia could scarcely have been prevented from invading Turkey. The defence is worthy of its parents and their cause. Why did Russia wish to invade Turkey? Had she been injured or insulted? Had she wrongs to re-. dress, or dangers to avert? No. She had received from Turkey neither injury nor provocation; the war affected in no shape her lawful interests and tranquillity.

She could not invent, and her degraded British apologists could not invent, a single pretext for her attacking Turkey on her own account: her sole pretence was the independence of the Greeks for their own sake; her real object was-her own rapacious and lawless aggrandisement. This cannot be denied by the partizans of the Greeks-by the menials of Government-or even by that, Lord Dudley, whose name is affixed to this eternally infamous treaty of piracy and spoliation.

The threat, therefore, of the Russian despot and his barbarians, that they would invade Turkey in defiance

of every principle of national law and right, was a sufficient cause for England to league herself with them to dismember Turkey, in defiance of every principle of national law and right; it was a sufficient cause for Britain to league herself with them to do in reality all they threatened to do, and to furnish them with pretexts for doing it. The mere threat, independently of right and wrong, justice and injustice, was a sufficient cause for her to league herself with them. Had she no alternative? Had she no interests to protect, no honour to consult-no duty to listen to? The threat of Russia did not alter, in the least, the nature of the contest between Turkey and Greece; and to justify the treaty by it, is to proclaim the Ministers of Britain to be destitute of sense and honesty, and to sink British honour to the lowest point of degradation.

When this country acknowledged the independence of the South American republics, she declared she did so on the ground, that they had practically secured their independence, and established within themselves regular government. What was the case with the Greeks on these matters when the treaty was concluded? Nothing worthy of being called law, order, and government, could be found among them. As to their independence, all confessed that they were utterly unable to conquer it, and that, without foreign assistance, they would be compelled to submit. The treaty does not even hint that it was possible for them to acquire their independence by their own efforts; on the contrary,; it speaks only of the probability that they might be reduced to subjection by Turkey. With consistency in fiction perfectly incredible, it states that the termination of the war, "through the means at the disposal of the Sublime Porte, appears still remote." While

we admit that nothing but deplorable ignorance could have led Lord Dudley to affix his signature to an assertion so outrageously at variance with truth, we deeply lament that an Englishman could be found so deplorably ignorant. At the time when Lord Dudley and his colleagues were giving being to the assertion, their own newspapers were proclaiming to the world that

Grock cause was hopeless, that

the contest was virtually ended, and that the Greeks could offer no farther resistance. When the treaty was concluded, the Greeks were in reality subdued; had it not been formed, the war before this would have been terminated "through the means at the disposal of the Sublime Porte."

We are not quarrelling with partialities and wishes in favour of the Greeks. They have nothing to do with the question before us. This question is-ARE BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND RUSSIA, SANCTIONED BY NATIONAL LAW AND RIGHT, IN INTERFERING AS THEY HAVE DONE IN THE

CONTEST BETWEEN GREECE AND TURKEY? If the reply be in the negative, such partialities and wishes will not diminish in the least the criminality of the interference. It has been said by a Treasury print, that the interference was forced upon the respective governments by national feeling. On the part of our own country, this is wholly untrue; it is refuted by the fact, that the nation is unanimous, almost beyond precedent, in reprobating the interference. The Greek Committee-most unexceptionable witnesses-can testify, that no public enthusiasm ever existed in favour of the Greeks; the papers in their interest loudly vituperated the public for its apathy in the matter. In so far as public feeling went with the Greeks, it only amounted to cold, careless opinion; and it was always strongly opposed to any intermeddling on the part of Government. national enthusiasm had been carried to the highest point in favour of the nterference, Ministers would have deserved impeachment had they obeyed it, without any reference to its justice. Every honest man will abhor these abominable attempts to give the decision of questions of law and right to popular enthusiasm. They strike at everything dear to the individual, the nation, and the human race.

But if

On this point we may observe, that, as a people, the Greeks have had the fewest possible real claims on the sympathy of the people of this country. In moral character, they rank, as a whole, almost lower than any other people upon earth. They have exhibited, throughout the contest, a natural disposition of the worst description.

[ocr errors]

They have fought from personal interest and animosity; but nothing has been seen among them that could be mistaken for genuine patriotism. Their chiefs, their military commanders, their statesmen, their rulers, have displayed the most revolting selfishness, falsehood, cupidity, knavery, and contempt for their country. Of late, they have been almost a nation of pirates; their piracies have been carried on on such a scale as to involve in the guilt both government and people. Their repayment for all that the British people and British Government have done for them, has been-robbery! While this country was squandering her blood and treasure, and trampling on public law in fighting their battles, they were almost, as a people, warring against her ---plundering her ships, and maltreating her seamen.

We have shown, that, up to the time, and at the time, when the treaty was signed, nothing could be found to justify the interference. We will now glance at the treaty.

The three great powers-or, to speak more properly, the three great national pirates bind themselves by it to offer their mediation to the Ottoman Porte, and to accompany the offer with a demand for an immediate armistice between the Turks and the Greeks. This armistice is to be the indispensable condition to the opening of any negotiation.

Now, as affectation of honour may occasionally be found among thieves, it might have been expected that the three powers would, in their piratical manifesto, affect to place the bellige rents on an equality. As the most nefarious treaties generally abound the most with professions of justice and impartiality, it might have been expected that this treaty would be filled with bombast in favour of justice and impartiality, from beginning to end. The three pirates, however, shamelessly acknowledge in it, that their object is to compel one of the beiligerents to submit to their own terms, for the benefit of the other. The offer and demand are to be made to Turkey; but nothing is said of the Greeks. They bind themselves to offer their mediation. Amidst honest and honourable nations, the term mediation means an endeavour to make

peace between two belligerents, on terms equally fair to both-on terms giving no unjust advantage to either; but it appears that the term has a very different meaning amidst piratical and lawless nations. By their treaty, the mediation of the three great piratical and lawless ones is thisthey place before Turkey the most insolent, unjust, injurious, revolting, and degrading conditions-conditions to which the Greeks have not the smallest claim-and, on the score of mediation, they allow her no alternative. The Greeks are vanquished; they have nothing before them but almost immediate unconditional submission, and, when they are in such circumstances, the three powers demand from Turkey, that she shall resign all sovereignty over them, with this exception-she shall receive an annual fixed tribute from them, and have some undefined veto in the choice of their authorities; they demand, moreover, that all Turks shall be perpetually banished from Greece, and that the Greeks shall take possession of their property, on giving an indemnity.

A treaty like this-a treaty distinguished as much by absurdity as by depravity-could never have been drawn in any civilised and educated country; it is evidently the composition of some of the Russian barbarians. We will not disgrace any member of even the present imbecile ministry, by charging him with writing a sentence of it. It was, doubtlessly, sent hither by the Northern Autocrat, with the gracious message-Sign it, or my armies shall march to Constantinople! And Lord Dudley and his colleagues obeyed in terror, without reading it. Its conditions are more injurious and degrading to Turkey than a demand for the complete independence of Greece would have been. It makes her responsible to other nations for the actions of Greece, while it takes from her all control over these actions; it makes her answerable for all the Greek government may do, while it deprives her of all influence over the conduct of this government; it gives her a vague negative in the nomination of the Greek authorities, while it prohibits her from interfering in the administration of Greek affairs. The tribute and veto are worthless, when weighed against

the contingencies inseparable from them; and it would be more advantageous to Turkey to grant the Greeks absolute independence, than to accept them.

We will here ask, why do the three powers give to Turkey a share like this in the nomination of the Greek authorities? What benefit can she draw from it? If she have the smallest right to it, she must, of necessity, have an equal right to share in the general government of Greece. It is, we think, the most preposterous provision that folly ever blundered upon. To her it is utterly worthless, and it must be a source of perpetual animosity and strife between her and Greece.

The people whom the piratical powers thus render independent, do not possess anything worthy of being called a government. They are divided into conflicting, unprincipled fac tions, and they are in a great measure lawless. It is almost matter of certainty, that the elements for forming a reasonably efficient government, do not exist among them. To what an extent they have carried piracy, is sufficiently known; and his Majesty's Ministers have solemnly proclaimed to the world, that their government is unable to prevent their piracies. If Turkey submit to the conditions of the treaty, how is her tribute to be paid? How is the exercise of her veto to be enforced? How are the Greek pirates to be suppressed? Who is to establish a government in Greece? How is Turkey to act, and how is she to be treated, if her Greek tributaries, and feudal vassals, attack, or are attacked by, other nations? Nothing exists in Greece which can be relied on for paying the tribute, allowing the exercise of the veto, respecting the rights of other states, and discharging the obligations which the treaty would impose on her.

That the conditions of the treaty are to Turkey what we have statedthat they are of the most insulting, injurious, and degrading character, that they are such as she should reject with scorn, if she have any alternative to compulsory acceptance-will be confessed by all men, save him whose grovelling soul never felt the holy glow of British pride and independence. These conditions are placed

before her, with a demand for an immediate armistice. The three lawless nations command her, at the moment when she has subdued the Greeks, to cease hostilities, and to abandon Greece, with the absurd reservation we have named; and they threaten to acknowledge Greece as an independent nation, if she refuse. This they call an offer of mediation!

It might have been expected that even an "offer" of this kind would be made according to the regular forms of diplomacy; but no, it was graced with the company of a huge fleet of British, French, and Russian ships of war. Why was this fleet sent? The treaty represents that Turkey had a right of refusal; and it binds the three powers from taking any part in the war, in case of her refusal. Why then was this fleet sent? It could only have been sent for offensive purposes for purposes flatly at variance with the terms of the treaty.

This fleet, on its arrival, is put under the command of a British admiral. The treaty says, the "offer of mediation" was to be made to the Porte; and every one knows that the Turkish generals and admirals had no independent character, and could not disobey the Porte; it might therefore have been expected that "the offer of mediation" would be left solely to the care of the regular ambassadors and the Turkish government. The lawless powers and their agents were, however, determined that their atrocious proceedings should not display one redeeming speck of honour and fair dealing. The British Admiral-we regret from our souls that we are compelled to call him one

discovers that it will utterly disgrace his own great talents to content himself with acting as a mere admiral; he blazes out into an ambassador-a sovereign, holding despotic authority over the subjects of Turkey. He takes into his hands the "offer of mediation;" deems the opinion of the Turkish Government a thing of no consequence; commands the Turkish commanders to receive orders from him; and then destroys the Turkish fleet.

We need add but little to what has been said of the battle of Navarino, for the country has already pronounced its verdict. The verdict is the three piratical powers, in this battle, were guilty of a most outrageous violation

of public law, and it has imprinted an antite stain on British honour. We wi avere, gaance at a few of the CICONIISTANCES COnnected with it.

The Admiral gives a "protocol of materence" which he and his bromer Amira's held-in these jack-ofa-this time, even Admirals must have tacir protocols-in which the Adminis say, they met before Name for the purpose of concerting the means of effecting the object speaned in the sand treaty (the treaty of the three powers), viz. an armistice, de fum, between the Turks and Greeks." Now, according to the treaty, the ambassadors of the three powers were to demand an armistice of the Turkish Government, and this Government was to have the right of refusal; no compulsion was to be resorted to. What right then had the intermeddling Admirals to take any steps for effecting" an armistice? The protocol says that Ibrahim Pacha, after consenting to a provisional suspension of hostilities," violated his engagement, by causing his fleet to come out with a view to its proceeding to another point of the Morea." His doing this was, it seems, an act of hostility! Now the term "provisional" evidently proves, what, in truth, no man can doubt, that Ibrahim's engagement was a conditional one; every one must be sure that the agreement imposed obligations on the Admirals as well as on himself; and every one will admit that their violation of their engagements released him from his. Why, then, have not the terms of this armistice or agreement been published It may be regarded as certain, that the Admirals would stipulate to him that the Greeks should likewise suspend hostilities. Did the Greeks do so? No. They have never yet suspended hostilities. While the Admirals acted thus to the Turks, they suffered the Greeks to continue the war without molestation. If ever the truth appear, we suspect it will be found that it was not the "boasted Ottoman," but the three blustering Admirals, whose word of honour was basely sacrificed.

It was not to be expected that Ibrahim would hold himself to be bound from hostilities, while the Greeks were suffered to continue them. Such an "armistice" was in exact keeping with the whole conduct of the law

less piratical powers, but it was not one calculated to bind even a Turk. His refusal gave mighty offence to the Admirals; and they resolved to “ take a position with the squadrons in Navarinx" This position was taken with hostile intentions, and the taking it was an act of hostility. The Turkish fleet would only have acted on the defensive, had it fired on the allied one, to prevent its being taken.

[ocr errors]

The British Admiral, in his dispatch, says, he gave orders that, in taking the position, no guns should be fired, unless guns were first tired by the Turks." He says further, that the battle began, because a boat, sent from the Dartmouth to one of the Turkish fire-ships, was fired on by the latter with musketry. He does not say that the boat bore a flag of truce; neither does he state why it was sent to the Turkish vessel. His silence on this important point is alike suspicious and reprehensible. The Morning Post gives the following explanation on this point, as from authority: "The Dartmouth chose to place herself about thirty yards from the Turkish firebrig. The pinnace of the Dartmouth was manned, with orders to take possession of the fire-brig. The first lieutenant, Mr Smith, with two midshipmen, (Harrison and B. Smith,) and fourteen picked men, went in her when in the act of boarding the Turkish brig, the first lieutenant and Mr Harrison were wounded, and midshipman B. Smith killed, by being blown up; two of the men were also killed. The Turks, after a short fight, fired their brig, and jumped into a boat alongside. Lieut. G. W. H. Fitzroy, and eight men, were then sent in the Dartmouth's cutter to tow the brig clear of the Dartmouth; he attacked the Turkish boat, in which there were about 18 men; he was shot dead by the Turks in the boat, and brought alongside the frigate. The fire-brig was then towed clear of the Dartmouth, and afterwards went down when within 30 or 40 yards of the Turkish frigate, in the attempt to tow her on the Turkish frigate."

It must be remarked, that the Admiral is wholly silent touching the sending of the pinnace. The boat ho alludes to is the cutter sent under Lieutenant Fitzroy !

The Morning Post, we say, states

« PreviousContinue »