THE STATE OF GREECE. (Hansard, 2 June 1856)

§ MR. JAMES MACGREGOR

said, in bringing under the notice of the House the present state of Greece, he must state that it was his opinion that the subject was germane to the question of Supply, inasmuch as the financial mismanagement of the Greek Government entailed upon this country a charge of £47,000 a year for interest on the Greek loan. The present Viceroy of Ireland (Lord Carlisle), who had recently visited the East, said the Government of Greece seemed to him to be the most inefficient, corrupt, and, above all, contemptible Government with which a nation was ever cursed. It was to diplomacy alone that they had trusted for many years to release this country from the guarantee into which it had entered on behalf of Greece, the hope of such a release being founded on the possibility of a better administration of the public funds by the Greek Government. In 1845, in answer to the late Lord Beaumont, Lord Aberdeen said that England, in conjunction with France and Russia, 853 had created the State of Greece, guaranteed the independence and integrity of its territory, and guaranteed also the interest of a loan; and the Greek Government would do well to recollect that those Powers could enter into possession of any of the Greek revenues for the repayment of the interest of the loan so contracted. The same noble Lord added that the provinces were infested by robbers, and the then state of Greece was such as to give pain to all who wished for the welfare and prosperity of the State. The exercise of diplomacy for eleven years had left the condition of Greece the same as Lord Aberdeen described it in 1845. But since the war with Russia commenced, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had taken military possession of the Piræus, and he wanted to know what was to result from that military occupation? Were the people of England, through the instrumentality of this military occupation, to be relieved from the payment of £47,000 a year? Was King Otho to be supported in carrying on a Government described by the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) as destitute of administrative talent, and by Lord Carlisle as the most corrupt with which a country was ever cursed? He therefore wished to know what course would be taken by the Government in behalf of this country or in conjunction with its Allies? When the late respected Lord Dudley Stuart brought the subject under the consideration of the House, in August, 1851, the noble Lord now at the head of the Government stated that Greece had stipulated by treaty to apply the first produce of the Greek revenues to the payment of the interest on the loan, but, he was sorry to say, that they had from first to last disregarded that engagement. If the Greek Government had properly managed its financial affairs there would have been ample means to meet all the charges upon it. It had failed to do so; the liability had fallen upon the Powers which guaranteed the loan, and representations innumerable had been made upon the subject to the Greek Government, but without effect. It was, however, intended, he supposed, again to endeavour to make some impression upon the sense of right and justice of the Government of Greece. The Congress of Paris were of the same mind as the noble Lord in 1851, and desired to make some impression on the sense of right and justice of the Government of Greece. He 854 therefore hoped that he should elicit from the noble Lord a statement of the policy or coercion which it was intended to exercise towards that puny and imbecile Government. It was no doubt the intention of the noble Lord, in creating the kingdom and appointing a king, to found a constitutional Government in Greece; and if that constitution had worked well in Greece it would have had great influence upon the civilisation of the East. But Very little progress had been made with it, and it was his impression that the non-compulsion of the payment of interest on the loan had been a real disservice to the Greek Government, because it had left the means of corruption in their hands. He was quite aware that in asking what was the policy of Her Majesty's Ministers he might meet with the declaration that no policy was so distinct as the occupation of territory by a military force. The conduct of the King of Greece was certainly most treacherous; and, although only 6,000 French and a regiment of British troops had been sent to the Piræus, who could estimate the value of that force if it had been available for the siege of Sebastopol? The necessity for coercion had arisen, and he hoped to hear that the noble Lord would feel it consistent with his duty and with the interest of this country, that coercion would be applied with a definite object—either to lessen the extravagant expenditure and corrupt practices of the King of Greece, or, if he would not listen to sound advice, to reduce him to the condition in which the noble Lord found him—that of a German Prince.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, with regard to the general condition of Greece, I have nothing to add to those opinions which the hon. Gentleman has quoted as having been expressed by me on former occasions. I adhere entirely to them, and I am sorry to say the course pursued since by the Government of Greece only confirms the justice of anything I may have said in condemnation of it. With regard to the occupation of Greece by detachments of French and British troops, that occupation took place in consequence of measures of aggression either instigated or permitted by the Government of Greece against the Turkish territory. The Governments of England and France thought, and justly thought, that when they were engaged in a war with Russia for the defence of the Turkish dominions, it was not fitting that a small State like Greece, 855 which was essentially bound by obligations to neutrality, should attack on the one side that empire which the two Governments were defending against the assaults of a larger Power on the other. For that purpose the Piræus was occupied by the forces of the Allies, and during the occupation the aggressions which led to it have ceased. I wish I could say that the occupation had produced any improvement in the system of the government of Greece, or the internal tranquillity of the country. I cannot state that; for the system of government is just what it has been considered to be hitherto, and those disorders commonly called "brigandage," such as carrying off people for their ransom, of pillage, of robbing villages and highway travellers, continue to take place to a great and lamentable extent. The real fact is, that the Government and Court party have been ever since the accession of King Otho in a state of conflict with the representative system. The three allied Powers of England, France, and Russia, when they made their arrangement with Turkey for the independence of that territory which constitutes the Greek kingdom, issued a proclamation to the Greeks, promising them a representative Government, and that was delayed until the King attained his majority. He was then called upon to fulfil his engagement, but he evaded it. At last, in 1843, an insurrection broke out, which extorted from the King the representative constitution that he was unwilling to give; and from that time to the present there has been a perpetual endeavour to get rid of the constitutional Government by corrupt and indirect means; and that money which ought to have been appropriated to the payment of the debt of Greece was appropriated in corrupting the electors, and afterwards those who were elected, so as to make the Greek Parliament a mere shadow of the substance. With regard to enforcing the payment of the debt, as the guarantee was common to the three Powers—England, France, and Russia—it has always been held that no one Power can rightfully enforce this claim without the concurrence of the other two; because it is clear that if the surplus revenue will only pay one-third of the debt, one of three Powers, by taking the whole, would naturally deprive the other two of that which would give them a fair share of the surplus. That view of the case has always been taken by the Government of this country. With 856 regard to the future policy which England, in conjunction with France and Russia, may think proper to pursue, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will perceive that would be an anticipation of the future which it would not be proper for me to enter upon.