The case of Don Pacifico, which led to the following masterpiece of
Lord Palmerston’s eloquence, is an example of how in the relations
of states small matters may at a touch loom large and involve
great issues. The collection of a bill of damages for household
furniture, a mere entry in the vast budget of British governmental
business, is seen to assume a serious, or, if one remembers the
pedestrian character of the details, a tragi-comic import when it
is known that on the event hung the chance of an European war.
Now the case, reduced to its bare details, is as follows: Don
Pacifico, a Jew of Gibraltar, and a British subject, had taken
up his residence at Athens, where, in the spring of 1847, he
comes out of obscurity into momentary international fame, becomes
with his petty affairs almost a _casus belli_ between two great
Powers, and then sinks to oblivion again. In the new kingdom of
Greece, then only since a score of years galvanized into a nation
by the protective agencies of France, Russia, and Great Britain,
foreigners and their rights had met with no nice consideration at
the hands of King Otho and his officials. Certain Ionian subjects
of the Queen had suffered insult or damages; a midshipman of
H. M. S. _Fantôme_, landing by night at Patras, had been forthwith
arrested; and England had already reasonable right to complain,
when the case of Don Pacifico permitted her, in Lord Palmerston’s
opinion, no longer to hesitate.
On April 4, 1847, during the celebration of the Greek Easter,
certain riotous Athenians, prohibited that year from indulging
in one feature of the _fête_,--the hanging of Judas Iscariot in
effigy,--and consequently enraged at Jews in general, made an
attack upon the modest house of Don Pacifico. It was alleged at
the time that sons of the Minister of War were among the mob;
it is agreed that both house and furnishings were ruined. The
establishment, we have said, was modest; but, although the Jew
filed an extraordinary bill of claims (one bedstead he valued at
£150), the principle involved was such that the incident could not
be ignored by an English foreign secretary. Thus the matter at once
became the subject of the most strenuous diplomatic correspondence;
but Greece being like Turkey one of the countries of “To-morrow,”
nearly three years dragged away without satisfaction for Don
Pacifico, until at last, with patience exhausted, Lord Palmerston
sent the following instructions to the British Minister at Athens:
“F. O., December 3, 1849.
“MY DEAR WYSE:
“I have desired the Admiralty to instruct Sir William Parker to
take Athens on his way back from the Dardanelles, and to support
you in bringing at last to a satisfactory ending the settlement of
our various claims upon the Greek Government. You will, of course,
in conjunction with him, persevere in the _suaviter in modo_ as
long as is consistent with our dignity and honor, and I measure
that time by days--perhaps by some very small number of hours. If,
however, the Greek Government does not strike, Parker must do so.”
The fleet arrived at the Piræus promptly, proclaimed a blockade, and
seized some Greek vessels, both national and merchant. It was at this
moment that the first element of danger entered into the incident.
Of the already imperfect “Concert” which had installed the kingdom of
Hellas, Russia became at once uneasy at the aggressive steps of Lord
Palmerston; but France, the third party, aflame with jealousy and
distrust, from now on almost made the Greek cause her own. Ostensibly,
however, she came forward with proposals of arbitration; and England
saw it her affair to accept the good offices, at the Greek Court, of
Baron Gros. The arbiter nevertheless, soon finding the British and the
Franco-Greek positions incompatible, gave up his task; the blockade,
with seizure of vessels, was renewed; and it was in the minds of men
that once more would England and France stand face to face. Meanwhile
Greece seemed to have become flurried at her situation as the focus
of events, and at last submitted to Palmerston’s pressure, under the
following terms: a letter of apology to be presented for the _Fantôme_
incident; an indemnity of 180,000 _drachmai_ to be paid for damages
to Don Pacifico and others; no compensation to be received by her for
detention of vessels, which should then be released.
Thus, in the face of Greek delay and of probable French intrigue,
Palmerston had gained his real point. But with it the second perilous
moment arrived. In France the action of Greece was learned with a
mixture of dismay and _Chauvinisme_; in England the Opposition saw
its opening. The French Ambassador, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, was actually
recalled; and it did not seem that war could be averted. Under these
circumstances, on June 17, 1850, Lord Stanley introduced in the House
of Lords this resolution of censure:
“That while the House fully recognizes the right and duty of the
Government to secure to her Majesty’s subjects residing in foreign
states the full protection of the laws of these states, it regrets
to find, by the correspondence recently laid upon the table by her
Majesty’s command, that various claims against the Greek Government,
doubtful in point of justice or exaggerated in amount, have been
enforced by coercive measures directed against the commerce and people
of Greece, and calculated to endanger the continuance of our friendly
relations with other Powers.”
Which was carried by a majority of 37.
The Government’s answer was the counter-resolution introduced by Mr.
Roebuck in the Commons, June 24th:
“That the principles on which the foreign policy of her Majesty’s
Government have been regulated have been such as were calculated
to maintain the honor and dignity of this country; and in times of
unexampled difficulty, to preserve peace between England and the
various nations of the world.”
The debate that followed is described as having been one of the most
brilliant of the century--covering a period of five nights and engaging
the most vigorous speakers then in the House. On the second night,
Lord Palmerston rose, about to deliver the remarkable effort of his
life. Speaking for nearly five hours and without MS., he held the
continuous attention of both parties. Other speeches followed; but it
seems certain that this was the pronouncement that led the Commons, in
division on the fifth night, to declare for the Palmerston policy by a
majority of 46.
The effect on the country, on the foreign Powers, and on Lord
Palmerston’s personal prestige was signal. Viewed internationally the
whole affair between France and England had been a game of bluff; and,
by the agency of Lord Palmerston, the English bluff had won. In due
time France returned her Ambassador to St. James; and all was as before.
As to the speech, there is no doubt but that it must be regarded as one
of the most emphatic expositions extant of the aggressive theory of
foreign policy--of what many would call the Jingo idea. Contemporary
opinion--even of the Opposition--we know to have been moved by such
stalwart doctrines, so manfully laid down; for even Sir Robert Peel
is quoted as saying, “It has made us all proud of him.” Palmerston
himself writes to a friend: “The attack on our foreign policy has
been rightly understood by everybody, as the shot fired by a foreign
conspiracy, aided and abetted by a domestic intrigue; and the parties
have so entirely failed in the purpose, that instead of expelling and
overthrowing me with disgrace, as they intended and hoped to do, they
have rendered me for the present the most popular minister that for a
very long course of time has held my office.”
Strong words--but not overweening for one whose conduct of his
country’s interests had won for him from Lord John Russell a title of
which any Premier might be proud,--“Lord Palmerston, a Minister of
England.”