almost a necessity, but the way in which his plans were completed by
Wellington would hardly have satisfied Canning. He had died, leaving
unfinished in the hands of his successors one of the most difficult
diplomatic questions which he had undertaken. For six years a war,
marked by extreme barbarity, had been carried on between the Turks and
their Greek subjects. It will be remembered that on this point the Czar,
who regarded himself as the natural protector of the Greeks, and who
nourished the traditional desire of conquest on the side of Turkey, had
found himself at variance with his own principles. His mind was divided
between a wish to seize the opportunity offered of extending his
influence over Turkey, and his love of legitimacy, which, as chief of
the Holy Alliance, he constantly upheld, and which seemed to forbid him
to take the part of insurgents against their legitimate sovereign.
Lengthened conferences between the representatives of the sovereigns of
Europe had been held at St. Petersburg, where France and Austria,
bitterly opposed to the English policy, both with regard to the
constitutionalists of Spain, and the acknowledgment of the independence
of the South American colonies, had shown themselves eager upon the side
of legitimacy, and where Austria especially had expressed a constant
wish that the Greeks should be treated merely as insurgents. Supported
therefore by the advice of Austria, and trusting to the well-known
feeling in favour of the Mahomedan rule in Turkey which existed among
the Tories in England, the Porte had refused to listen to any offers of
mediation. Nor did it seem possible that the English ministry, anxious
at once to prevent Russia from attacking Turkey and yet to save the
Greeks, could intervene with any hope of honourable success. At last, in
1824, an opening occurred, and the hope was raised in Canning's mind
that these two apparently contrary objects might be obtained. The
provisional government in Greece in its despair made a formal appeal to
the English, and showed itself quite as fearful of the warlike views of
Russia as Turkey itself, in the belief that the outbreak of a war with
Turkey would ensure its own immediate destruction. The English minister
now thought it possible to bring the conferences, from which he had
hitherto held quite aloof, under his own hand in London. The course of
events tended to assist his plan. In 1825 the conferences at St.
Petersburg broke up without action, the other powers having refused to
join Russia in mediation. It was the conduct of Metternich, who dreaded
before all things any tampering with the principles of legitimate
sovereignty, and constantly abetted the obstinacy of the Porte, which
had rendered the mediation futile. Thus thwarted in his plans, and
feeling that his failure was due to Metternich, the Czar found a point
of union with Canning in their dislike to the Austrian minister. England
was represented at Constantinople by Sir Stratford Canning, and by his
skilful management the ambassadors of the two courts there began to draw
together; and at last, in November 1825, Canning had a triumphant proof
of the success of his policy and of the importance of England, when all
the ministers of the great powers in London confessed that they saw no
way out of their difficulty but by English intervention. This
favourable state of things was for the moment crossed by the death of
Alexander (Dec. 1, 1825). The view which his successor Nicholas would
take became in the last degree important; Canning, with great wisdom,
chose Wellington--opposed indeed to his policy, but personally
acceptable to the Russian Czar--as his special ambassador to take the
royal congratulations upon the new Emperor's accession, and to continue
the negotiations if possible. The appointment met with universal
approbation; even Metternich believed that in the hands of Wellington
the question must be settled in accordance with his views. It was with
much surprise and anger that the Turks and Austrians heard that, on the
4th of April, an arrangement had been arrived at between the Courts of
England and Russia. Taking advantage of the very moderate claims of the
Greeks, who demanded no more than to be placed on the same footing as
the Danubian Principalities, remaining as self-governing but dependent
vassals of the Turkish Government, the English minister had succeeded in
procuring the signature of a protocol embodying a plan for peaceful
intervention.
[Sidenote: Enthusiasm for Greek independence in England.]
[Sidenote: Turkey refuses the armistice demanded by the allies. April
1827.]
[Sidenote: The Treaty of London consequently signed.]
The cause of Greek independence had already excited enthusiasm in
England, many volunteers had joined the armies, and money had been
subscribed for them. In this enthusiasm Canning in his heart fully
joined; from early youth one of his favourite dreams had been the
independence of that race to which as an ardent lover of the classics he
felt he owed so much. But, true to his principles, and determined to
maintain the strict neutrality of England, he had done his best to check
any active assistance to the insurgents. According to his view it was
necessary that England should intervene with clean hands, and as the
friend of both parties. He was also in constant dread of the
watchfulness of his Tory enemies, fearing lest any sign of too great
favour to Russia should enable them entirely to thwart his plans.
Nevertheless the knowledge of the approaching intervention gave a great
impetus to the feeling in favour of Greece in England, and men and money
were poured in considerable quantities into the peninsula. Lord
Cochrane, the most dashing and adventurous of English sailors, had
joined the insurgents with an American frigate, General Churchill took
command of their armies, yet their destruction seemed imminent. The
Egyptians, under Ibrahim Pasha, had come to the assistance of their
enemies; their fleet, which was little better than a body of pirates,
was swept from the sea; Missalonghi was for the third time taken, and
in spite of General Churchill's efforts, Athens and the Acropolis had
fallen. If the protocol was to be of any use the time for acting upon it
had arrived. The allies received a great accession of strength when,
after a visit of Canning to Paris in the spring of 1826, the French
Government and the King himself entered heartily into their plans. It
was plain that for the second time Canning had struck a severe blow at
the principles of the Holy Alliance. In April 1827 the three powers
proceeded to act with renewed strength. They demanded an immediate
armistice, pointed out that the war did not seem to be approaching its
conclusion, that it caused interference with the traffic of the world,
and that in the interests of Europe it must cease. Almost of course the
Turks, still trusting to Austria, and still unable to believe in the
changed posture of England, rejected this demand. Therefore, in
accordance with the expressed wish of the French, which no doubt agreed
with Canning's own wishes, the protocol was changed into a treaty known
as the Treaty of London, signed on the 6th of July by Lord Dudley, Count
Lieven, and the Prince of Polignac. In strict accordance with the terms
of the protocol, it set forth the necessity of European action, it
stated the terms which must be given to Greece, and which went no
further than establishing its self-government under Turkish supremacy
and saddled with a tribute to the Porte, and declared that none of the
parties to the treaty sought territorial increase or commercial
advantages. Fear of Russian aggrandizement was thus withdrawn, the
intervention was at first to be purely friendly; but secret articles
went on to say that, if the intervention were rejected, more stringent
means must be used to oblige its acceptance both by one party and by the
other, and that it would be necessary to show countenance to Greece, by
acknowledging her as a belligerent power, and establishing consuls at
her ports. It was not expressly stated what the further means of
coercion were to be. A month was given to the Porte for consideration of
the terms offered. If no answer, or an unfavourable answer came, the
secret articles were to be put into execution. If the armistice was
refused by the Turks, the allied squadrons then in the Mediterranean
were to unite, to enter into friendly relations with the Greeks, and to
intercept all ships freighted with men and arms destined to act against
the Greeks, whether from Turkey or from Egypt. At the same time they
were carefully to avoid hostilities. It is doubtful whether Canning
could have succeeded in carrying out this his last measure of peace
policy and non-intervention without having recourse to war. When the
affair had reached this point he died, and the completion of his work
fell into weaker and less competent hands.
[Sidenote: Attempt of the allies to compel the armistice.]
[Sidenote: Battle of Navarino. Oct. 20, 1827.]
In August, a joint note having been again sent, and all satisfactory
answer having been entirely refused by Reis Effendi, the Turkish
minister, consuls were appointed according to the treaty, and the fleets
ordered to compel the armistice. The execution of this delicate duty was
intrusted to Admiral Codrington on the part of the English, to the
French Admiral de Rigny, and to Count Heyden, who commanded the Russian
fleet. Twenty-eight Turkish and Egyptian ships of war lay in Navarino
Bay awaiting fresh reinforcements from Egypt. Had the union taken place,
the combined fleets of Turkey and Egypt would have entirely destroyed
the Greek Government then in the Ionian Islands, and have swept away
what remained of the Greek fleet. The allies appeared before Navarino,
explained to Ibrahim Pasha, who was in command, the negotiations which
were proceeding, and declared that the Turkish fleet should not sail.
Ibrahim, nothing daunted, while asserting that he would take orders from
his own sovereign only, pledged himself, on the 25th of September, that
the fleet should remain quiet for twenty days to enable him to receive
an answer from Constantinople. In spite of this promise, Codrington, who
had withdrawn, heard on the 1st of October that the fleet had left
harbour. He at once went to meet it, and turned back the first squadron
he encountered. On the 13th the combined fleets were in front of
Navarino. Then Ibrahim in anger let loose his troops on the wretched
people, and before the eyes of the allies terrible scenes of barbarity
were enacted. Codrington, though with difficulty, kept himself in
restraint, but on the 20th his fleet sailed into the harbour, to say
that they would convoy the Turkish ships to Turkey, the Egyptian ships
to Egypt. They found the Turks and Egyptians drawn up in the form of a
horseshoe and ready for battle. Strict orders were given not to fire
unless the enemy proceeded to hostilities, and Codrington, bringing his
ship close to that of the Turkish admiral, opened communications with
him. Meanwhile, a boat from the Dartmouth was fired upon, and a cannon
shot was fired against the French flagship. In spite of this Codrington
went on parleying till his pilot was shot by his side and a broadside
fired upon his ship. The battle then began in earnest, and in four hours
the hostile fleet was entirely destroyed.
[Sidenote: Goderich's inaction renders the victory nugatory.]
[Sidenote: Wellington retains his alliance with Turkey. 1828.]
The news of the victory was received with delight in France and Russia,
and at first with triumph in England, where at the instant Sir Edward
Codrington met with the full approval of the Government. None the less
did it present to the weak and tottering Cabinet of Lord Goderich
difficulties of the gravest kind. The peaceful policy of their late
chief had ended in a fierce and destructive battle; they hardly knew
whether to accept the whole responsibility of it or not. At all events
they did not follow up the blow or act with any vigour under the
circumstances. The effect of this delay was to strengthen in
Constantinople the belief that the union between the three powers was
not hearty, and to encourage the Turks in their obstinacy. The foreign
merchants in Constantinople were apprehended, the Porte determined on
war, demanding that the allies should refrain entirely from interfering
on the Greek question, pay the fleet, and indemnify the Sultan for his
losses. In spite of the efforts of the ambassadors, before they had left
Constantinople, which they did upon the 8th of December, nothing could
be gained beyond an offer of a general amnesty to the Greeks. Had the
allied fleets proceeded at once to Constantinople, which was the wish
both of Sir Stratford Canning and of Codrington, it is probable that
they might have put an end to the war with Greece, and have succeeded in
carrying out at least one part of the London Treaty, by saving Turkey
from the invasion of Russia, which now became inevitable. As it was,
England had in fact only handed the country up, weakened by the loss of
its fleet, to the hands of that power. The weakness of the Goderich
Government prevented such efficient action, and the accession of
Wellington to office rendered it still more impossible. True to his Tory
traditions, while pretending to continue the policy of Canning, he fell
back upon the words of the London Treaty, which were no doubt intended
to be pacific. The speech at the opening of Parliament, on the 29th of
January 1828, mentioned the battle of Navarino in somewhat disparaging
terms as "the untoward event," which it was hoped would not be followed
by further hostilities, and the Duke himself declared that the
preservation of the Ottoman Porte as an independent and powerful state
was necessary to the wellbeing of this country. In fact, he suffered the
matter again to fall back into negotiations. England kept out of war,
and Russia was allowed to overrun Turkey, to take Adrianople (Aug. 20,
1828), and from thence to dictate terms which left the Porte for ten
years at least defenceless in their hands. Among the terms demanded by
Russia was necessarily the independence of Greece. The limits were
arranged by the three powers in London. Neither Turkey nor Greece were
allowed a voice in the matter; the frontiers were fixed, and a
monarchical form of government established; the crown for a while went
begging; it was declined by the Saxon Prince John, and by Prince Leopold
(May 1830), subsequently King of the Belgians, nor was it till the year
1832 that Otho of Bavaria, a lad of eighteen, was found to undertake a
post which offered almost insuperable difficulties and but very little
honour.
[Sidenote: Character of Wellington's Government.]
[Sidenote: Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. May 1828.]
The Duke of Wellington had been no doubt first called to the Premiership
for the purpose of continuing as far as possible the system of the
Tories. His conduct as head of the Government was so peculiar that it
would scarcely have been tolerated in a less influential man. He
regarded his office as he would have regarded a military command,--a
trust not lightly to be laid down. He fought till his opponents became
irresistible and then suddenly retreated, without thinking it necessary
to resign office on account of his defeat. This view of his duty had the
same practical results as the most determined place-hunting, and reduced
his Government to that most dangerous form of weakness which consists in
driving opposition to irresistible extremes, and then suddenly yielding
to pressure. This peculiar tendency to give up his opinion and yet
retain office was visible at the very outset. He had taken the
Premiership, although a few months before he had declared himself wholly
unfit for it; he had formed a mixed Government, though his views and
those of the King were in favour of a united one. His next concession
was upon the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. In the first
session of 1828, Lord John Russell moved for a Committee upon those
Acts. Canning had always withstood their repeal; the Duke and Mr. Peel
were known to share the late minister's opinion. But when a majority of
forty-four in a full House decided in favour of Lord John Russell's
Committee, the leaders of the Government accepted their decision, and
declared themselves satisfied with the substitution of a declaration
that the incoming office-holder would do nothing to injure the Church,
instead of the old sacramental test. After a lengthened and bitter
opposition, led by Lord Eldon in the Upper House, the Bill was carried.
The old Chancellor's view of the conduct of Government was very
unfavourable. "They began in the Commons," he said, "by opposition, and
then ran away like a parcel of cowards."
[Sidenote: The Corn Bill passed.]
The second important Bill of the session was the Corn Bill, to be
substituted for that which Wellington had himself succeeded in throwing
out in the preceding session. Here again he yielded to circumstances.
Entirely leaving his previous standing-ground, the Premier now supported
the Bill on exactly the same principle of duties on a graduated scale as
that he had previously thwarted. The fixed point in the scale was a few
shillings higher, but in principle the Bill was identical.
[Sidenote: The resignation of Huskisson and his friends. May 1828.]
No doubt the necessity for such concessions was very irksome to the
Duke, and, as before mentioned, an opportunity soon occurred for ridding
himself of the more liberal members of his Cabinet, whose pressure he
had been unable to resist. On a trivial question as to the disposition
of the seats of two disfranchised boroughs Huskisson had thought it his
duty to vote against his colleagues. It had been before settled that the
question should not be a Cabinet one; but Huskisson, while still under
excitement, thought it right to send the Duke a letter offering to
retire should the Premier wish it. The Duke seized his opportunity,
treated the letter as an absolute resignation, would listen to no
explanation, and obliged Huskisson to resign. With him went Palmerston,
Dudley, Lamb, and Grant; their places were filled with Tories, and the
Government seemed at length thoroughly homogeneous.
[Sidenote: The Catholic Emancipation question.]
Yet the establishment of this Tory Cabinet was followed almost
immediately by a far greater concession than any of the preceding ones,
in the passage of the Catholic Emancipation Bill. The Government had
been constituted as far as possible on a Protestant basis. It was known
that the King was strong in his anti-Catholic propensities. Although a
small majority in the Commons had, on the 8th of May, declared in favour
of bringing the question to a settlement, and although both the
Chancellor and the Prime Minister had confessed, while opposing the
motion successfully in the Lords, that they saw no way at present out of
the great difficulty, thereby apparently implying a wish for a
settlement, the declarations both of Wellington and of Peel gave little
hope of any relaxation of the disabilities. But meanwhile events were
occurring which rendered some settlement obviously necessary. There was
indeed a general and growing feeling that a question which in the last
thirty-five years had ruined more than one Cabinet, which was in fact
uppermost in all men's minds at the time of every new ministerial
arrangement, and which had kept Ireland permanently uneasy, could no
longer be left uncertain. Events were now occurring in Ireland which
would have rendered the further postponement of the settlement little
short of madness.
[Sidenote: Renewed agitation in Ireland.]
[Sidenote: Election of O'Connell for Clare. June 1828.]
The agitation in that country, which had almost subsided during the
administration of Canning, a well-known supporter of the Catholic
claims, and which had only slightly revived during Goderich's
administration, broke out again in full force when the hostile ministry
of Wellington came into office. The law for the suppression of the
Association would expire in the coming July, and meanwhile, keeping
within the limits of the law, for all practical purposes the
organization remained alive. The last general election had opened the
eyes of the leaders of the Association to a new and irresistible source
of power; it had proved that the power of the priests was in some cases
stronger than that of the landlords. In their eagerness to secure their
parliamentary influence, the landlords had followed the disastrous plan
of breaking up their estates into small forty shilling freeholds, taking
advantage of the low franchise which existed in Ireland. Several
instances had occurred in which the tenantry had broken loose from their
landlords, and at Waterford, among other places, they had proved
themselves too strong even for the great Beresford interest. What had
then been done in a few instances it was the intention of the
Association to carry out in a large scale, and great efforts were made
to secure the votes of those who were known as the Irish "forties" in
the coming general election. The anger of the proprietors thus assaulted
in their strongholds was very great, and class animosity reached a
terrible pitch. The power of the Association was soon brought to the
test. With the rest of the Canningites, Grant, President of the Board of
Trade, had resigned; his place had been given to Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald,
member for Clare, whose re-election thus became necessary. Aware that,
even if they succeeded in excluding the Government candidate, the
election of a Protestant representative would be of no great value to
them, the Association determined to strike a great blow, and to bring
forward O'Connell himself to dispute Mr. Fitzgerald's seat. His triumph
was complete; after a few days' polling Mr. Fitzgerald withdrew. But
more wonderful and more terrible than his mere success was the admirable
discipline and order with which it was obtained. Lord Palmerston thus
narrates the event:--"The event was dramatic and somewhat sublime. The
Prime Minister of England tells the Catholics in his speech in the House
of Lords that if they will only be perfectly quiet for a few years,
cease to urge their claims, and let people forget the question entirely,
then after a few years perhaps something may be done for them. They
reply to this advice, within a few weeks after it is given, by raising
the population of a whole province like one man, keeping them within the
strictest obedience to the law, and by strictly legal and constitutional
means hurling from his seat in the representation one of the Cabinet
ministers of the King. There were 30,000 Irish peasants in and about
Ennis in sultry July, and not a drunken man among them, or only one, and
he an Englishman and a Protestant, O'Connell's own coachman, whom
O'Connell had committed upon his own deposition for a breach of the
peace. No Irishman ever stirs a mile from his house without a stick, but
not a stick was to be seen at the election. One hundred and forty
priests were brought from other places to harangue the people from
morning to night, and to go round to the several parishes to exhort and
bring up voters.... All passed off quietly. The population of the
adjoining counties was on the move, and large bodies had actually
advanced in echelon, as it were, closing in upon Ennis, the people of
one village going on to the next, and those of that next advancing to a
nearer station, and so on." The sheriff and his assessor declared that
the election was legal, the only obstacle to O'Connell's appearance in
the House being the oaths he would have to take on his admittance. It
was determined to follow up the success. O'Connell declared that
Catholic representatives must be elected for all the counties of
Ireland. The funds of the Association, which assumed its old form in
July on the expiration of the suppression law, were partially devoted to
the support of those on whom the vengeance of the landlords fell; and
not content with declaring the necessity of the election of Catholic
members, the Association drew up certain pledges to be required of all
future Catholic candidates. These consisted in a promise to be the
determined opponents of the ministry of Wellington and Peel till it
granted Catholic emancipation, to support religious and civil liberty,
to procure a repeal of the Subletting Act (which was an attempt to
restrain the minute subdivision of property), and to support a reform of
Parliament.
[Sidenote: Influence of the Association.]
[Sidenote: Resignation of Lord Anglesey. Jan. 1829.]