§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether instructions have been sent to our Naval authorities off the coast of Greece to refuse protection to the Ionian subjects of Her Majesty; and whether, as the 8th Article of the Treaty of Paris, November 5, 1815, invites the accession of the Ottoman Porte to that Convention, as well as that of the Powers which signed the Treaties of May 30, 1814, and of June 9, 1815, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to invite the Porte to attend the Conference about to be held on the proposed cession of the Ionian Islands to Greece? With regard to the second Question, the noble Lord had stated the other night that inasmuch as Turkey was not a party to the Treaty of Vienna, she had no right to be consulted, and would not be. The Treaty by which the Ionian Islands were placed under the protectorate of great Britain contained only the signa- 1162 tures of the Representatives of Great Britain, France and Russia: but by the 8th Article of the Treaty of Paris, Turkey was named among the Powers whose accession was invited; and by the Act of the 24th of April 1819 Turkey formally adhered to the first-named Treaty, and by virtue of which she is entitled to take her place at the proposed Congress.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONWith regard, Sir, to the first Question, no Instructions of the nature mentioned by the noble Lord have been sent to the Naval or Military authorities or Diplomatic Agents of Her Majesty, and for this plain and obvious reason, that no change has taken place in the relation of the Ionian Islands to the Crown of Great Britain—they are still under the Protectorate of England; and therefore there can be no reason why, in anticipation of an event which has not yet happened, that protection to which the Ionian Islands are entitled should be withdrawn from them. With regard to his second Question, the noble Lord is partly right and partly misinformed. It is true, that by the Treaty between England, France, and Russia, it was stipulated that the accession of Turkey and of the two Sicilies should be invited. But though Turkey was named in the invitation at that time, the Sultan, for views of his own, was disinclined to connect himself with any European transactions, and declined to be an acceding party. There was a Convention two years afterwards, but it had a different object in view. A negotiation had been going on with regard to the protection of Parga, which had formerly belonged to the Ionian State; but the English Government then agreed to renounce all claim to it, and acknowledged it to be part of the Turkish territory. In return for that, the Sultan did not accede to the Treaty by which the Ionian Islands were placed under the Protectorate of Great Britain, but acknowledged those Seven Islands as a British possession, and engaged to treat the Ionians with all the privileges of British subjects. It was not a Treaty confirming the Protectorate of the Ionian Islands under Great Britain, but acknowledging it as an established fact, and deducing from that fact the concessions which were due to the Ionian subjects. Consequently Turkey is not entitled as an acceding party to the Treaty to be a party to any Conference for the transfer of the Ionian Islands to Greece.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSIs the noble Lord aware that the Treaty to which he has referred is actually headed the Act of Accession to the Treaty of 1815?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONI have had occasion to look over it with some care, and I think the noble Lord will find it such as I have described.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEPerhaps the noble Lord can tell us whether the events which have recently occurred at Athens are likely to lead to delay in the arrival of the King?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONThe King must determine for himself when he will go. But if I am asked whether I see any reason in what has happened for delay, I say I see none certainly.