HC Deb 15 June 1819 vol 40 cc1177-82
Lord Castlereagh

, in bringing up certain papers relative to the cession of Parga, said, he wished to undeceive the House as to the part which our government had acted; we had never delivered Parga up to the Turks; all we agreed to in the treaty was, to withdraw our troops from the town, and leave the inhabitants to themselves. The only object the Parguinotes had, was, that the British government should make the best terms which it could for them. No authority had been given to any British officer to hold out to these people the prospect that this government would take them under its protection. No officer had given them any promise by which the good faith of the British government could be compromised; for the terms of our treaty had been fulfilled by the withdrawing of our troops. In the Ionian islands they could be protected by our government, and there they would be treated with every attention to their interests by sir T. Maitland, who had always conducted himself with distinguished ability and humanity.

Sir C. Monk

was ready to admit, that all the treaties between Russia and Turkey, and those between France and this country, particularly the treaty of Amiens, bad been revived; but still he thought the case stood in favour of the Parguinotes— in favour of our defending them. If the treaty of 1800 was revived, and we, in terms of it, were obliged to deliver up Parga to the fate to which that treaty consigned it, the noble lord entirely overlooked the power which the inhabitants retained in that treaty to provide for themselves. If we revived the treaty in favour of one party, we were surely bound to enforce the provisions which it contained in favour of the other. By a supplementary treaty, the Ottoman Porte agreed to the independence of the Parguinotes, on condition of their allowing a Turkish superintendent to reside in their town; but that arrangement had been overthrown by the unfortunate state of things between Russia and Turkey. Let those, therefore, who were in a beneficial state before the treaty was broken, be restored to their former condition, when the treaty was again recognized. The Parguinotes, in virtue of former treaties, had a claim on Turkey. The effects of the arrangement to which the noble lord had agreed, were, that he had forfeited the good will of Greece, and given up the key to supplies from the Albanian continent. In connexion with this question, we ought to consider the influence which France, Russia, and Austria, were gaining in the divan. Every one knew that the Turkish trade was of great advantage to this country; and if we had cultivated the good will of the Grecian islands which we took under our protection, we should have had an additional security and facility for that trade. At present, however, we had only laid ourselves under the difficulty of protecting islands that were not able to maintain themselves. He should have entered into the question at greater length, but for the calamitous news which had reached this country, and which rendered any thing he might say useless.

Mr. Maxwell

thought that the Parguinotes had a strong claim on our protection.

Lord Compton

said, it was natural there should be a strong feeling in favour of men circumstanced as the Parguinotes were. There was one part of the subject on which he could not help putting a question to the noble lord—he meant with regard to the sufficiency of the sum proposed as an indemnity to that people for the loss of their property and the surrender of their territory. The sum granted was only 150,000l., which, according to the estimate of their property, was not by any means adequate. There ought to be some inquiry into this subject. Their property had been estimated some time ago at 500,000l.

Lord Castlereagh

said, that the valuation had been made by commissioners appointed by both parties. The estimate of 500,000l. was ex parte, and highly exaggerated. He could only add, that every thing which could be done for that people would be done; that great kindness was entertained towards them; that they would never be lost sight of, and that they would be treated like those American loyalists who had fought our battles, and whose interests, when persecuted on account of their attachment to us, we had protected.

Sir James Mackintosh

professed himself desirous of not troubling the House long, though he owed it to himself, and the consistency of his own conduct, to state his reasons for adhering to his former opinions, notwithstanding the observations and explanations with which the noble lord had prefaced his motion. He would wave the question of policy which this cession involved, he would wave all consideration of the treatment which this people would receive in their removal, as he would hold it to be a libel on the character of the gallant officer under whose conduct it was to take place (whom he knew well to be a humane and honourable man), and a libel on the character of the country, to doubt for a moment that the utmost humanity and indulgence would not be shown them in the deplorable calamity which they were doomed to endure. Two questions arose which it was more particularly his object to discuss: 1. whether the Ottoman Porte had any right by treaty to the cession of Parga; and 2d, whether we had treated the inhabitants of that place, in ceding their territory to the Turks, in the same manner and with the same favour as the inhabitants of those places that were ceded to each other by treaties between civilized states? To the last of these questions he would first advert. What, then, was the difference between a cession made in Europe or America, and that made of Parga to the Ottoman Porte? In the former the transfer of a small estate from one master to another was slightly felt in comparison of the change that was effected in the present treaty. They all nearly lived under the same law; they enjoyed the same state of civilization; they held one form of a common religion. Take the case of a West India island, for instance, and it would be found that its transfer from one state to another created little alarm, and produced a comparatively trifling change of security or property. The number of persons who in consequence expatriated themselves was extremely small. The case of the American loyalists was not at all in point; they were individuals who had been exiled from their country by the persecution of their enemies for their attachment to us, and we had indemnified them for their losses. But the people of Parga were to be driven from their country, and an attempt was to be made to compensate them for their country. Where did we ever hear before of a whole people removing from their homes because their territory had come under the dominion of another state? But this was to take place in the case of Parga. Out of 3,500 persons, of which the population consisted, only 30 or 40 of the most worthless were to remain behind. This horrid treatment of a whole community—this tearing up by the roots of a nation, and casting of it on a different soil, could not be compared with the exile of a few individuals banished on account of their political conduct. The American loyalists had received compensation for their sufferings; but what indemnity could be given to a people for the loss of their homes? Was it thus that Britons felt? Were we to tell these people, "You are to be paid for your olive trees, you are to be paid for the stones, and bricks, and mortar of your houses, and you are to consider yourselves as then sufficiently indemnified; you are to consider only as so much stone and mortar the homes which your fathers inhabited, the churches in which you and they performed worship, and which you have consecrated by shedding your blood in their defence? He would say nothing about the cession in this case; it was not an ordinary transfer to remove a whole people from their native land, and only to grant them indemnity for their olive trees and vineyards. Returning to the first question, what right the Ottoman Porte had to the cession of Parga? the hon. gentleman contended that it had none. The noble lord had said, that the treaty of 1800 was in force in 1815; but the treaty of Bucharest did not recite that treaty, which it ought to have done to keep it in force. Russia and Turkey had forfeited their rights before that time. Russia had received Parga under its protection, and had violated a treaty by ceding it to France in 1807. Turkey had also forfeited her rights, by destroying the three towns on the Albanian coast, which had been delivered up to her in the convention of 1800. The argument of the noble lord was singularly inconclusive. He had contended, that, because Parga was excluded from the Septinsular republic by the treaty of 1815, therefore it ought to be given up to the Porte; whereas, it seemed more natural to argue, that as that power had forfeited its rights, Parga ought to remain free. It became us to protect that people who had wrested their liberties and independence from the hands of their oppressors—who, by tearing down the French flag, had planted that on which they had unfortunately relied for protection—who had shown how they could defend themselves against their barbarous aggressors, and to whom now, as the reward of their fidelity to us, we were securing a more liberal alms, and a kinder treatment from an abominable barbarism [Hear, hear!].

Mr. Bathurst

contended, that unless we had agreed to this treaty, we must have taken upon ourselves the military defence of Parga. The question was purely one of compassion and generosity. We had procured for them indemnity on leaving their homes, because they could not rely on their own means of self defence. If we were bound to maintain them in their territory, he was willing to allow that no pecuniary compensation would be adequate for the loss of it. But it ought to be proved that it belonged to the Ionian islands, and that therefore we were bound to protect its inhabitants; whereas the treaty of Paris had distinctly separated the two possessions. If they could rely upon their own resources, we might retire and, leave them to defend themselves.

Lord John Russell

said, that when we accepted the submission of the Parguinotes, it was upon condition that we would protect them. We bad held it for upwards of three years, and it was too late to say to them, "You have been defended by the Venetians, you have been defended by the French, you have even defended yourselves, but we have discovered your position to be indefensible, and therefore we surrender you to the Turks." The plain fact was, that the treaty of 1815 referred only to one part of the treaty of 1800, and that reference merely for description. It afforded not a pretence for the cession. Their having received our troops into their city was as binding as a formal stipulation to protect them.

Ordered to lie on the table.