Lords Sitting of 30 June 1863

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl Brownlow, after the Death of his Grandfather.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Railway Companies Borrowing Powers.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Sheep and Cattle (Scotland)* (No. 144); Postmaster General (Sale of Land)* (No. 168).
Select Committee—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Bill—Viscount do Vesci and Lord Silchester added.*
Committee—Sale of Mill Sites, &c. (Ireland)* (No. 105); Oaths Relief in Criminal Proceedings (Scotland)* (No. 72); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (No. 154).
Report—Volunteers* (No. 159); Regimental Debts, &c.* (No. 141).
Third Reading—Waywardens' Contracts* (No. 148); Inclosure (No. 2)* (No. 161); and severally passed.

POLAND—GENERAL MOURAVIEFF.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that some time ago the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had stated, on the authority of the Russian Government, that the rumour that General Mouravieff had ordered certain ladies in Poland to be flogged for wearing mourning was devoid of foundation. He perceived from the papers of yesterday that this order of General Mouravieff was somewhat modified in its terms. It was now stated, that in the first instance the order imposed a penalty of from twenty-five to one hundred roubles for wearing mourning; but it went on to say, that if the penalty was not paid, the wearers would be subject to punishment by the knout. It was also stated that this punishment had been inflicted in some instances, and that there had been an insurrection in Wilna in consequence. He wished to know, then, from the noble Earl, Whether he had received any confirmation of the statement that General Mouravieff had issued such an order; and, if so, whether it had ever been carried into effect?
  EARL RUSSELLwas understood to say, that our Ambassador at St. Petersburg had been instructed to make inquiries on this subject, and he reported that General Mouravieff had imposed a penalty upon the wearing of mourning; but the account contained no statement, that if the fines were not paid, the ladies would be subjected to the knout.

AMERICA.—QUESTION.
LORD CAMPBELLdesired to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if the public interest permitted him to reply, Whether, since he answered a similar Question asked by the noble Marquess (The Marquess of Clanricarde) three or four days ago, he had received from the French Government any communication, documentary or verbal, designed, or calculated, or showing any disposition to promote a common line of action between the two Governments with a view to the termination of hostilities in America? That very day the Paris Correspondent of The Times had asserted, with the greatest emphasis and exactness, that such a document as that to which he referred was in existence; an assertion which derived support from statements made in other quarters. Under these circumstances, he thought it was desirable their Lordships should have some information from the Government on the subject.
EARL RUSSELL: The only answer I can give to my noble Friend is that the French Ambassador called on me about an hour ago at the Foreign Office, and stated, that having heard many rumours to the effect that he had been ordered by his Government to show a communication on this subject to the British Government, he wished to say that he had received no such order.

IONIAN ISLANDS.

  QUESTIONS. MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, in rising to make the Motion of which I have given notice—for, Copy of the Proclamation issued by Sir Henry Storks for the Annexation of the Ionian Islands to Greece—it is not my intention to enter at any length into a discussion with regard to the policy of the contemplated cession of the Ionian Islands. At the same time, I desire emphatically to protest against the language reported to have been used by the noble Viscount at the head of the Government in another place, to the effect, that as it is not a proposal to cede any part of the British possessions, but only the Protectorate of those Islands, it was a matter with which Parliament had nothing to do. Now, my Lords, I do not think I shall hear that language repeated in this House. Fortunately, the noble Earl the
  1720
  Foreign Secretary gave us notice last night that he does not consider it any part of his business to vindicate any course which the noble Viscount at the head of the Treasury may think fit to pursue. That certainly seems a new doctrine for a Secretary of State towards the head of the Government of which he is a Member; but still, when I consider the noble Earl's antecedents, I can hardly doubt his entire sincerity in making that statement, or that it will be adhered to with the most scrupulous fidelity. Now, I lay down this position—and I do not think that the noble Earl will contradict me—that whether a question of cession of territory or not, every act done by the responsible Ministers of the Crown having any political significance is a fit subject for comment, and, if necessary, for censure, in either House of Parliament. I said I would not enter into a lengthy discussion of the proposed cession of the Protectorate. At the same time, I must say I have a very strong opinion as to the inexpediency and impolicy of that measure. I think it is a measure likely to be disadvantageous to this country. I do not think it is likely to confer any benefit on the people of Greece. I feel certain it will be eminently disadvantageous to the Ionian Islands themselves, and not likely to contribute to the general good understanding of European arrangements. The noble Earl has expressed himself with romantic generosity upon this subject. He says "it is not for us to consider what may be the selfish interests of this country—the object of the Protectorate was exclusively to benefit the Ionian Islands—and it would be monstrous for this country to refuse to do that which is desired by the Ionian Islands themselves merely because it is the interest of England to retain that Protectorate;" and in the despatch addressed by the noble Earl to Lord Bloomfield, which has been laid on the table in the last day or two, the same representations are made. The 5th article of the Treaty of Paris of the 5th November 1815 is quoted, and the noble Earl goes on to say—
  "It appears clear from these provisions that the intention of the high allied Powers was to found in the Seven Islands a free, independent State, which, by the protection of so powerful a country as Great Britain, might develop its resources without fear of external aggression or internal anarchy."
  No doubt that is one object of the treaty; but the 5th article states another object—

  1721
  "In order to insure without restriction to the inhabitants of the United States of the Ionian Islands the advantages resulting from the high protection under which these States are placed, as well as for the exercise of the rights inherent in the said protection, His Britannic Majesty shall have the right to occupy the fortresses and places of those States and to maintain garrisons in the same."
  Now, if there is one thing clearer than another it is that, as mutual jealousy prevented the other European Powers undertaking the protectorate, their object was to place the Ionian Islands under the dominion of a great Power like Great Britain, and to enable Great Britain to fulfil the trust by giving her the military possession of those States. Assuming that the object of the other Powers was exclusively to benefit the Ionian Islands, the noble Earl can hardly suppose that Great Britain accepted the protectorate merely for love of the Ionian people, and not for any advantage which she might politically or in a military point of view derive. No doubt the object of Great Britain was to secure herself against the military occupation of those Islands, and more especially of Corfu, which for a considerable time she had been vainly attempting to capture, and to occupy herself a position esteemed by both naval and military authorities to be of great importance at a time of European war and especially of naval war. It has been said that circumstances have changed, and that, in consequence of the introduction of steam, the possession of a fort and harbour at Corfu is of less importance than before. I am inclined to think that the introduction of steam has rendered it of greater importance, because we require close to the scene of operations a constant supply of coal and of the materials of war, and it is of consequence that we should have a port in that quarter, where ships can refit and prepare for action, much more than it was when war was only carried on by sailing vessels. We know the importance which the first Napoleon attached to the possession of Corfu by knowing how resolute he was to retain it, and how perseveringly and successfully it was defended against us for a period of two years; and whatever value and importance were attached to its possession in former times, the importance and value must be as great, if not greater, under the circumstances of the present time. Then, I say, this uncalled for cession of the protectorate is unnecessarily and gratuitously weakening our power in the
  1722
  Mediterranean, and exposing us to serious loss, while positively conferring great advantage on some other Power. To Greece the possession of these islands will not be of importance or advantage. It will be very convenient, no doubt, to have the finances of Greece recruited by the surplus revenue which, under the management of Great Britain, has been obtained from the Ionian Islands, more especially as, by the arrangement to which I shall have a word or two to say presently, a considerable portion of that revenue is to be devoted to the civil list of the new monarch. I will assume that the Kingdom of Greece is sincerely anxious to carry out the programme sketched by the noble Earl as the sine quâ non of the cession. The programme is:—To establish a constitutional monarchy; that is done. To accept a Prince against whom there can be no reasonable objection; that also is done, because they have certainly selected a Prince to whom no reasonable objection can be made, except that from his great youth and inexperience it is impossible to foresee what kind of a ruler he will make, and how he will be able to maintain his authority and make head against popular feeling. It is also stipulated that Greece shall abstain from all foreign aggression and all ambitious designs to obtain territory at the expense of neighbouring Powers. Now, I cannot but think that in giving Greece a numerous and restless population, who avow their admiration of the aggressive principle, the abandonment of which on the part of Greece is a sine quâ non of the cession, political disadvantages will accrue which will more than overbalance the benefit derived from the revenue received from the Ionian Islands. With regard to the Ionian Islands, I have not the slightest doubt that they will themselves be material sufferers by the change. I do not deny that there is a strong feeling among the more restless and more disorderly portion of the population in favour of being united to the Kingdom of Greece; but reflecting men in those Islands are well aware that in losing the protection of a great and powerful country like Great Britain, and being attached to a country in such a state of disorganization as Greece now is, they forfeit material advantages, and are placed in a much less advantageous position than that they have hitherto held. It may be quite true that there is a feeling of nationality among a considerable number of the Ionian Islanders; but it is equally true that under the protectorate

  1723
  of Great Britain they have enjoyed a large amount of material prosperity, and that life and property have been as secure in those Islands as in any part of the world, at a time when on the adjoining coast, in the country to which they are now to be attached, the insecurity of life and property has been a matter of notoriety for years. Again, they have been under the protection of a well-organized and well-disciplined body of soldiers. Those soldiers are to be withdrawn, and if any portion of the army of Greece is to be substituted for them, I wish the Ionian Islands joy of the change. I firmly believe that the feeling is gradually and surely growing among the more intelligent, the more educated, and the more wealthy of the people of these Islands, and that before long they will express firmly and openly their sense of the mischief which is about to befall them. Again, I do not think that the union of the Ionian Islands with Greece is likely to be permanently for the advantage of Europe. I know not what arrangements have been made, or in what position it is contemplated to place this new kingdom—whether its possessions or its neutrality are to be guaranteed—but I know this, that unless some arrangements of the sort are made—if the Government of Greece is encouraged to place a false confidence in the support which it would receive from other Powers—in the event of a quarrel with a powerful nation, the very first step that powerful nation would take would be to seize on the strong post of Corfu, in spite of all that we could say, and it would be very difficult afterwards to induce that nation to give up the possession. I suppose there is no man insane enough to believe that we should have spent enormous sums in the fortification of that post, and that we should have gone to the expense of the military protection of those Islands, unless we had some direct interest in doing so. That we should have done so for pure love of the Ionian people is a supposition so absurd, that unless it had been seriously put forward by the noble Earl, I should not have thought it possible that it would enter into the imagination of any statesman. I do not wish to introduce anything personal into this discussion, otherwise I might say that I have every reason to believe that the opinions which I have expressed are or where up to a very recent period shared by some of the most considerable Members of the Government. I
  1724
  might quote the strong language used by the noble Duke the Colonial Secretary as to the impossibility of this country under any circumstances surrendering so important a position; and I might quote also the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Still I cannot help thinking that the change of opinion which must have taken place in many Members of the Government has been somewhat sudden—rather more sudden, perhaps, than on a question of this importance is likely to be followed by the people at large, or by those who have paid much attention to the subject. The principal point, however, on which I wish for some explanation is the position in which this country stands at the present moment, and the course of proceeding which the Government propose to adopt with regard to it. The Greek revolution broke out in the month of October, and on the 12th of December, there being then no regular Government in Greece, and everything being in confusion, the noble Earl takes the opportunity of writing thus to Mr. Elliot—
  "If the new Assembly of the representatives of the Greek nation should prove faithful to this declaration, should maintain Constitutional Monarchy, and should refrain from all aggression against neighbouring States, and if they should choose a Sovereign against whom no well-founded objection could be raised, Her Majesty would see in this course of conduct a promise of future freedom and happiness for Greece. In such case Her Majesty, with a view to strengthen the Greek Monarchy, would be ready to announce to the Senate and Representatives of the Ionian Islands Her Majesty's wish to see them united to the Monarchy of Greece, and form with Greece one united State; and if this wish should be expressed also by the Ionian Legislature, Her Majesty would then take steps for obtaining the concurrence of the Powers who were parties to the treaty by which the Seven Ionian Islands and their dependencies were placed as a separate State under the protectorate of the British Crown."
  In pursuance of those instructions Mr. Elliot proceeded to Athens, where he made known the mission with which he was charged. I pass over the long and fruitless endeavours of the noble Earl to find a Sovereign for the Greeks; but at last he was fortunate enough to find a young Prince who, not without some demur, though more on the part of his elders than of himself, was willing to accept the responsibility of the Greek throne, but on conditions. Those conditions, to my surprise, I find embodied in a protocol, which anticipates the whole decision which the noble

  1725
  Earl had wisely left for future consideration and deliberation. The acceptance of the throne of Greece by Prince William of Denmark is there made conditional on the cession of the Ionian Islands, and on the transfer of a certain amount of their revenue to the civil list of the King. That is recorded in the protocol. It states that Prince Christian William of Denmark accepts the hereditary sovereignty of Greece, but on the express condition that the Ionian Islands shall be effectively united to the Hellenic Kingdom. Then comes a deputation from Greece; the King of Denmark accepts for Prince Christian William the throne, and the new King actually accepts the homage of his new subjects—yet during the whole of this time, however, the preliminary condition was not complied with, that we should not make any cession of the Islands until the inhabitants should, through their representatives, specially elected for the purpose, give their consent to that arrangement. I have no doubt that the Parliament to be convened will be ready to give to it their sanction, but that sanction should surely have been demanded before the arrangement was concluded. And now let us see in what position this mode of proceeding places the Powers which signed the original Treaty of 1815, establishing the British protectorate of the Islands. France was not one of them, but she subsequently gave to the treaty her assent; and it is quite true that France and Russia were parties to the arrangement under which the throne of Greece was accepted by the Danish Prince. But the two remaining parties to the Treaty of 1815—namely, Austria and Prussia, were not taken into the counsels of the protecting Powers in that matter; and Austria at all events may have considerable objections to urge to the proposed cession of the Islands. Turkey was not consulted in the case; but although Turkey was not a party to the original treaty, she gave to it her subsequent adherence in the same way as France; and her interests are more at stake than those of any other Power in the proposed addition to the territory of Greece. I say that this course of proceeding is not consistent with good faith to Austria, Prussia, and Turkey; neither is it consistent with the programme which the noble Earl himself not long since laid down. There are one or two other points connected with this matter which are of some importance, and to which I desire to direct your Lordships' attention. I find
  1726
  the noble Earl undertakes, on the part of the Ionian Parliament, that they shall make over to the civil list of the new King a certain amount of their revenues. Of course, that will have to be submitted to the Ionian Parliament, and their assent will be necessary. I wish to ask the noble Earl one important question. We are going to make over these Islands with the assent of the protecting Powers and the Ionian Parliament to a foreign Prince who is to take possession of the Greek throne; and I wish to know from the noble Earl whether he has taken any precaution in the arrangements he has made for securing the payment of those pensions and allowances which, on the faith of the British Crown, have been charged on the Ionian revenues for the benefit of certain persons who have served this country faithfully during the Protectorate? I am not aware that any such arrangement has been made. You are going to sell the estate; but you cannot sell it except subject to the mortgages upon it. It can hardly be argued that you have a right to cede these Islands, and leave it entirely to the consciences of those who come after you whether they will maintain the engagements which have been entered into on the part of the British Crown. I hope I shall have a distinct declaration from the noble Earl, that in any cession of the revenues of the Ionian Islands to the new King of Greece he will require an obligation in the strictest terms that the payment of the pensions and allowances granted to those persons who have served this country faithfully shall he made a first charge on those revenues prior to the civil list or any other claim. There is another point of minor importance on which I should like some information from the noble Earl. I presume, that when we cede the Islands, we shall not hand over the extensive works which we have constructed at Corfu at so much expense. Those works will probably be demolished; for it is obvious that the Greek army, which I am told consists of 8,000 men and 4,000 officers, will find it rather difficult to garrison those extensive works. I presume, therefore, that these works will be demolished; but I want to know what you mean to do with the guns, the ammunition, and the military stores of all kinds which have been placed there, not by the Ionians, but by us, and which are, in every sense of the word, the property of the protecting Power. What are you to do with

  1727
  them? I do not want to put this forward as a very important part of the case; but I think it requires an answer. There is another question, respecting which I do not know whether it has escaped the attention of the noble Earl; but in a constitutional point of view it is worthy of attention, and I should like to know whether the noble Earl has consulted the Law Officers with regard to it. Some years ago a loan was made to Greece by this country. The interest of that loan was not regularly paid; but after some time an arrangement was come to, whereby certain amounts were to be paid at particular periods. Now, the money so lent to Greece was advanced out of the public funds of this country; it was raised in this country, it belongs to this country. My Lords, this money was raised with the sanction of Parliament, and the interest of the loan, and the repayments of the loan, are as much the property of this country and as much subject to the control of Parliament as any portion of the revenues of England. Yet I find the noble Earl contracting with the other protecting Powers to endow the King of Greece with a sum of £4,000 a year for his civil list. This is a portion of the arrangement upon which it will be impossible to take steps without the consent of Parliament. The Legislature must be asked to sanction this portion of the arrangement, if not any other, and therefore I think it is one on which the noble Earl should give us some information. I do not wish to enter further into this discussion, but I should not have been satisfied without recording my own conviction of the impolicy and inconvenience of the proposed cession. I think it will be advantageous to none of the parties concerned; and I further think that the mode in which it has been carried out—for I suppose it must be considered as un fait accompli—has not afforded to the other parties concerned a fair opportunity of stating their opinion and recording their objections. I first of all wish to ask the noble Earl, Whether he has made any provision to secure the rights of those entitled to charges on the Ionian revenue, guaranteed to them on the faith of the Crown? I next wish to ask what arrangements have been made with regard to the fortifications of Corfu? I would then ask him to explain to your Lordships what is proposed with regard to the Kingdom of Greece—whether it is proposed that its neutrality and integrity shall be guaranteed
  1728
  by this and the other Powers; and, lastly, I ask him to state whether the engagement to endow the King with £4,000 a year has been entered into without any understanding as to the payment of the interest of the loan made by this country? And to move for, Copy of the Proclamation issued by Sir Henry Storks, for the Annexation of the Ionian Islands to Greece.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Earl is, no doubt, perfectly right in saying that this or any other act of the Government of the day is open to the opinion, control, and if necessary, to the censure of Parliament. The noble Earl did not say—what almost every one else of his party has said—that the Ionian Islands are a mere possession of this country, a part of the dominions of Her Majesty, and may be ceded, but not without the consent of Parliament. My noble Friend did not contend for such a position as that, because, no doubt, he was aware that a reference to the treaties which have reference to the Ionian Islands would dispel any such notion. Before I come to the questions put by the noble Earl, I must refer to some of the observations which he made in the course of the speech which he has addressed to your Lordships. He seems to think it strange and Utopian that the Powers which met at the Congress of Vienna should have had regard to the welfare of the people of the Ionian Islands.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I did not say that; I said "regard them exclusively."
  EARL RUSSELL: Well, I would suppose that these Powers did mainly consider the welfare of the people of those Islands. I do not think that I at all exaggerate when I say that it does not appear that the British Government were anxious to acquire the Protectorate. The Emperor of Austria, however, was anxious on the subject, and the result was that the Ionian Islands were assigned by treaty, as an independent State, to the Protectorate of the Sovereign of Great Britain. At the same time, it was provided that they should have a constitution, and that the language of the Islands should be Greek. These, and others, are provisions which would appear to have been made mainly in the interests of the people of the Ionian Islands; and it can be no disgrace to Her Majesty's Government that they wish to provide for the welfare of the Ionian Islands according to the views and sentiments entertained by the people themselves. The noble Earl thinks that

  1729
  this proposal to unite the Ionian Islands to Greece, was a very precipitate one on the part of this country. But the House will remember, that the recent revolution in Greece completely changed the state of things with respect to those Islands. In 1832 Greece was constituted by treaty an independent kingdom, and Prince Otho of Bavaria was placed on the throne of that country; but in the autumn of last year that arrangement entirely fell to pieces. The opinion of the Greek people was universally that the sovereignty of King Otho ought to cease; and the King himself felt it was so useless to struggle against the popular will that he left his kingdom and retired to Bavaria. The protecting Powers agreed, I believe without any sort of hesitation, that it was not for them in any way to attempt to restore him; they thought that as he had fallen in accordance with the wishes of the Greek people, they ought not to interfere to disturb or reverse that decision. Much anxiety was naturally felt by the protecting Powers that the kingdom should not lapse into anarchy and disorder. Her Majesty's Government were not ashamed to say that they wished for the prosperity and freedom of Greece; they wished to see her at peace, and on terms of amity with all her neighbours, and they thought that these objects would be best secured under a constitutional monarchy. That being the state of affairs, Her Majesty's Government interested themselves in the choice of a Prince, and in the maintenance of order and freedom in that country; and Her Majesty's Government informed them, that in case they appointed a constitutional monarch, they would be willing that the Ionian Islands, should form a part of their State. The noble Earl seems to imagine that the union of the Ionian Islands with Greece had never been thought of before; whereas, in the first place, the Minister of Greece had informed me some years ago that the Greek nation and Parliament were desirous that the people of the Ionian Islands should be united to them; and, in the next place the Ionian people, in their Parliament, had more than once expressed their wishes for a union. I confess that appears to me to be a natural desire on both sides, and this is the view taken by Her Majesty's Government; for, as I ventured to state in my despatch, "a love of independence in union with a kindred race has in itself claims to regard from a nation which prides itself on its love of freedom." The noble Earl states,
  1730
  as a reason which should prevent us from ceding those islands, that as a naval and military station they are extremely valuable to this country. I do not wish to depreciate their value in that point; but, at the same time, I am apt to think that a country may have possessions indistant quarters which in time of war it would not be very convenient to defend. There may be distant possessions of Her Majesty which, owing to the circumstances under which they became connected with this country, and owing to the fact of their being occupied by Englishmen or the descendants of Englishmen, it may be a point of honour with us not to abandon, and the surrender of which would not be unattended with danger; but the Ionian Islands are not in that position, because, though under our protectorate, they are an independent State. They wish to join the Kingdom of Greece; the Kingdom of Greece wishes to join them; and therefore the occasion presented itself when, without any objection of principle, and without any real diminution of strength, we might make a settlement based on the separation of the Ionian Islands from this country. I do not profess to be any authority on military subjects; but I confess I think it would be rather an advantage in time of war to have only one great station in the Mediterranean waters for our ships, stores, and coal. When you consider the army which this country keeps up in time of peace, how utterly inadequate that army would be at the commencement of a war, and what an immense strain it would be upon the resources of this country if we were called upon to send out 50,000 or 60,000 men to defend a position which we could not defend at less cost, I own I do not think we are diminishing the strength of Great Britain by giving up these islands. The main consideration, however, is that if a country connected with Great Britain is desirous of severing that connection—if it is likely to be free and happy when joined with another Power—it is not unworthy of this country to exhibit a disinterested spirit, and show to the world that it has not that grasping spirit, that craving after dominion, which so ill becomes a great nation. We should not be in a better position if there came from the Ionians repeated requests to join with Greece, and from Greece constant agitation and intrigue in order to obtain these Islands, until at length, finding the position difficult to maintain, this country from mere lassitude, and a feeling that

  1731
  we were too much troubled by these appeals and intrigues, at last gave up the Islands. It is far better, in my opinion, that you should do this when you are not in any way forced, when you can say that you are acting voluntarily, when there is no Power in Europe which asks for this cession, and when Greece does not and could not attempt to force it from you. The noble Earl blames the Government for not having formally consulted the Powers who were parties to the original treaty. Why, as soon as the Cabinet had intimated their opinion upon the subject, the very first thing I did was to send to the representatives of the Powers who were parties to that treaty, and request them to inform their respective Courts that such a measure was in contemplation, and that in the course of time I proposed that there should be conferences upon the subject. Austria certainly did not like the proposition, and would have been glad if we had kept the Ionian Islands as they were; but Austria was never so unreasonable as to say, that if it suited us to part with the Islands, and Greece to accept them, still she, for the sake of what she supposed to be Austrian interests, would insist on England retaining them. Neither Austria nor any other of the protecting Powers has said anything so preposterous; and in all the conferences with the Powers most interested in Greece—because this question mainly concerns Greece—in all my interviews with the Ambassadors of France and Russia, I have found them most ready to consider and agree to any plan which should be for the benefit of Greece and the Ionian Islands. From the commencement, the Emperor of the French declared that he had no candidate for the throne of Greece, and when the candidature of Prince William of Denmark was proposed the Emperor of Russia favoured that arrangement with all his influence. From the other protecting Powers, also, Her Majesty's Government have received every assistance in making a settlement of Greece and of the Islands, which would render those countries free and happy, and at the same time make them an element of order and not of disturbance in Europe. I beg to observe, that although order has been preserved in Greece, yet that the question itself was one of very considerable anxiety. The sudden disappearance of King Otho, whose dynasty had been guaranteed by the great Powers, the possibility that a republic would be proclaimed, the danger that Greece would be
  1732
  split up into ten or twenty different communities, and the chance that the ambition of one of the Powers of Europe might induce it to favour one Prince rather than another gave rise to considerable apprehension. These dangers are, I hope, in the way of being removed; but noble Lords must not, because they have been successfully got over, suppose that there has been no danger, and that it was not possible that the Greek revolution should have been the source of much evil. However, by the harmony of the different Powers and their willingness to consider everything in a fair and friendly spirit, these dangers have been, to a great extent, averted. The great Powers, having been consulted in this way, though all did not approve of the change, consented to come to a conference, and the next thing was to obtain the requisite power to treat. That was obtained, and the terms are recorded in the protocol. Prince Christian, the father and guardian of Prince William, thought that the union of the Ionian Islands to Greece was a necessary condition before his son's acceptance of the throne. The consequence would be, that if the people of the Ionian Islands through their Parliament declared their repugnance to join with Greece, and their determination to remain under the English protectorate, and if the Powers who were parties to the treaty also expressed their desire that the Islands should so remain, Prince William would not, after all, ascend the throne of Greece. In such a case it would be open to the Prince to say, "The condition under which I accepted the throne has not been fulfilled, and I must therefore decline to continue King of Greece." But I imagine that the Ionians will consent to the union with Greece, and that the great Powers will adhere to the plan of union when it is proposed. As the noble Earl says, there are various questions to be considered; and first come the engagements made on the part of the Ionians—the various debts contracted, and pensions and annuities granted. All these engagements must be fulfilled, and of course the Lord High Commissioner will receive directions to make the necessary statement to the Ionians on this point—because it would be impossible for the Government to consent to abdicate their protectorate unless these engagements are kept with fidelity. The next question is as to the forts, the guns, and the stores. That, again, must be a matter of arrangement. With regard to all those

  1733
  cannon and stores which we have placed there, and which have been paid for out of the British Treasury, they no doubt might be removed, and would be removed by us if we thought it necessary to do so. With regard to the fortifications, it is doubtful whether some of them should not be destroyed, because Greece maintains a very small army, and therefore large fortifications in the Ionian Islands would be only a temptation to a foreign Power to take them. The next question is with regard to this £4,000 a year. Of course, anything which requires any Vote in Parliament will be submitted to Parliament by Her Majesty's Government. But the nature of the arrangement is this:—Sir Thomas Wyse, with the representatives of Russia and France, made an arrangement at Athens by which a part of the interest and a part of the capital owing should be paid from year to year by the Greek State. Before that time nothing whatever was paid by Greece, and it would therefore have been useless to ask the consent of Parliament to a Vote of the money which the Greeks did not pay. Our portion of the sum to be paid by Greece is more than £12,000 a year—it was at least three times that amount; but the arrangement was that a smaller sum should be paid, and that as Greece became more wealthy the payments should be increased. The Minister of Greece assented to that arrangement with the three Powers. What we now propose is, that as long as £4,000 a year is paid to the King as a personal dotation, so long the three Powers will be content to receive £8,000 a year, instead of £12,000. The original agreement rests upon protocols of the years 1860 and 1861, by which they pledged themselves to maintain a strict execution of the treaty. The arrangement now proposed is, that instead of receiving £12,000 a year, we shall only receive £8,000 during the life of the present King. This sum is not a large one under any circumstances; but if these monetary arrangements should tend to the establishment of a stable monarchy in Greece, to make that country happy, to enable the King of that State to maintain undisturbed peace, and if by it we shall give encouragement to the capacities of the Greek people for order and well-being, I do not think £4,000 a year is a great sacrifice for us to make to obtain such results. The noble Earl has very properly asked for inquiry upon these points. I have not a word to say in objection to the questions he has asked, nor to
  1734
  the inquiries which he proposes to make. But at the same time he and others ought, in regard to this subject, to make some allowance for the difficulties attending it. They should reflect that the Greek revolution was not made by the agency of the British Government, nor in consequence of any suggestion from it. As a general principle, I consider it would be unbecoming in us to undermine the stability of any foreign Government or to promote disaffection among the subjects of any monarchy or State; but when a country has shown an unmistakable desire to be free and independent—when it has formed a State which is likely to maintain a character for loyalty and good faith and freedom—then I do not think it is unbecoming in this country to lend our aid to maintain that State; and, for my own part, I can only say, that if such be the result in the present case, I shall always be happy to think that I have been able in any way to contribute, not to the formation, but to the reformation which makes Greece free and independent.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that his notice was for a copy of the Proclamation of Sir Henry Storks for the annexation of the Ionian Islands to the Kingdom of Greece; but when he gave notice, he was told that no such Proclamation had been issued, He should therefore wish to amend his Motion by asking for "Copy of the Proclamation issued by the Lord High Commissioner respecting the annexation of the Ionian Islands to Greece." He must observe that assertions were still made that such a Proclamation as he had referred to had been issued, and he should be glad, if there were any such document, that it should be laid on the table, so that they might see precisely what it was.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, it would be impossible to produce a Proclamation which had no existence. When the noble Earl gave notice of his Motion, he had ventured to question the fact of such a Proclamation having been issued; but he felt it to be his duty to telegraph immediately to Sir Henry Storks, requesting him to furnish him with information with regard to this supposed Proclamation. Sir Henry Storks, in reply, telegraphed that the statement was untrue, and that he had sent a despatch containing an account of the events which occurred on the day when the Proclamation was said to have been issued. That despatch arrived yesterday, and the facts appeared to be these:—That when the intelligence of the new King of

  1735
  Greece having been proclaimed reached Corfu, a deputation waited upon the Archbishop, who ordered a Te Deum to be performed in the principal church upon a subsequent day. In the mean time, some persons, wishing to make a demonstration, went round the town to invite the inhabitants to illuminate. Sir Henry Storks, knowing the excitable nature of the people, and being aware of the enthusiasm which such a demonstration would produce, wrote to the Archbishop, warning him to take precautions for the preservation of order, as he would be held responsible for any disturbance that arose in consequence. The Archbishop, in reply, undertook that no disorder should arise, and expressed his confidence that no evil result would follow; and he invited Sir Henry Storks, as the representative of a Sovereign and a country to which Greece owed so large a debt of gratitude, to attend the celebration. Sir Henry Storks, having received no official information of the event they were about to celebrate, felt that it was impossible for him to attend; but, in order to mark the interest which England felt in the welfare of the Greeks, he directed the Secretary, Sir D. Woolff, and his aide-de-damp to attend. They did attend, in plain clothes; and so far from any demonstration hostile to England taking place, they were received by the whole population with loud vivas for the Queen of England and for the Lord High Commissioner. In the church, where the air of "God save the Queen" was played, the whole congregation rose and cheered enthusiastically; and upon the return of the procession the same demonstrations were renewed. That was what really took place upon the day when it was alleged a proclamation of annexation was issued, and it showed how favourably the action of England had been viewed in the Islands. He would also take an opportunity to correct a mistake of the noble Earl opposite, who imputed to him a statement, that "not under any possible circumstances would he consent to the abandonment of the Protectorate." The occasion upon which he had spoken upon that subject was in reply to a question of a noble Marquess. He had referred to the report of his speech, and his words were—
  "I tell him distinctly we are prepared to uphold the Protectorate, and the Government does not shrink from the responsibilities attaching to them under the Treaties of 1815."
  The noble Earl, surely, could hardly contend that that was a statement that under
  1736
  no possible circumstances would he consent to the abandonment of the Protectorate. He said this in answer to questions put by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Normanby). Subsequent to that he stated that there existed no intention, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to withdraw from the responsibilities imposed by the Treaties of Vienna. That was very different to the declaration that had been imputed to him; and, in fact, he could not have made such a declaration, because for some years he had been of opinion that the time would come when Greece would be in a better state, and when the Ionian Islands might be given up, although he felt there would be formidable difficulties in connection with the fortress of Corfu.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, he did not desire to protract the debate; but having been connected with the affairs of that part of the world to which the noble Earl had called attention, he wished to say a few words. He could hardly understand what induced his noble Friend (Earl Russell) to enter upon the scheme which was to end in the surrender of the Ionian Islands; but he supposed that, with the noble Earl, he must regard the surrender as a fait accompli. It was impossible not to admire the sentiments which had actuated his noble Friend upon this occasion, and he sincerely hoped that both with regard to the population of the Ionian Islands and to Greece his generous anticipations would be fulfilled. He must say, however, that what experience he had had did not justify him in supporting the propositions of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, but led him rather to concur with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby); and he must say that he thought the noble Earl had rendered great service by expressing those opinions in the presence of Parliament. He very much questioned whether we were rendering a service to Greece in making this premature addition to her territory. Up to this moment, owing either to her fault or her misfortune—and rather, he believed, to her misfortune than her fault—she had not justified the confidence which was reposed in her by Europe at the time that the Greek kingdom was established. If the fault was with King Otho, he had paid dearly for that fault; and if there were among the Greeks those remains of their ancient character which he was willing to believe, it would depend upon them to obtain the good opinion

  1737
  of Europe, and redeem the time which had been lost. But he must say, that at the present time he did not think that it was either to the advantage of the Ionian Islands to be annexed to Greece, or that it was likely to be for the benefit of the Greeks themselves to have such an extension of territory until their Government had given proofs of greater capacity for its management than it had hitherto displayed. He thought that we were bringing the Ionians and the Greeks into more immediate connection with each other than the history of other countries either in ancient or in modern times would justify. The Republic of the Seven Islands was of recent construction, and did not exist in ancient times. The peoples of the several islands formed separate States, and were never mixed up, except by wars and rivalries, with the population of the Greek continent. It was true that they had their origin from Corinth; but that was all. They were often opposed in war to the country which gave them birth, and they were at all times separate, except when under the Macedonian, Roman, or Byzantine rule. They all knew, that for four centuries anterior to the period at which they were formed into the Ionian Republic, these islands were under the government of Venice, and that the manners, the laws, and all but the religion of that State were introduced into them. These circumstances were not calculated to produce any concert or intimate relationship between the Islands and the Kingdom of Greece—on the contrary, it might lead us to expect that difficulty would be experienced in realizing the union of the two States, and to fear, that notwithstanding the demonstrations of enthusiasm at the present moment, the time would arrive when they would repent the connection. There were other considerations connected with this cession. He would not enter into the question of form, which had been so completely dealt with by the noble Earl opposite—more especially as he understood that the Foreign Secretary admitted the correctness of the noble Earl's position as to what was due to Parliament, and to the Powers which were parties to the settlement of 1815. No doubt interest in the prosperity of these Islands had something to do with the measures which were adopted with regard to them; but he believed that the real and main object of the Powers who were represented at the Congress of Vienna was to provide for the maintenance of tranquillity in that part of the world; and he
  1738
  was not surprised to hear from his noble Friend that Austria showed some reluctance to consent to the arrangement which was now proposed. Austria, above all other Powers, was interested in having that part of the world protected. At this moment he acknowledged with gratitude that appearances in the immediate neighbourhood of these islands were favourable to peace; but such was not the case in many other parts of the world. The evidences of confusion were everywhere, and we knew not what might happen from one month to another; and he must say, that if there was to be a war, of which the seat was to be in any degree the waters of the Mediterranean, in the present state of Italy and the views of France, we should greatly miss Corfu as a naval station. The loss which we should incur in giving up the results of our expenditure on that island was of comparatively little importance, although the fortifications had been greatly augmented since the period when they were held by the French, despite our great naval ascendancy, and one portion of them, at least, was so efficiently and beautifully constructed as not to escape the attention even of an unlearned person like himself. No person could feel a deeper interest in the stability of Greece than himself. He might say that he had at one period of his life a considerable share in averting the calamities that overshadowed it, and laying the foundations of the kingdom which had just transferred its allegiance. His hand was the first to write on paper the scheme for its establishment, and to bring it into such a shape as met the approval of the Government of that day. He did not repent that act, because he believed, that if attention had been paid systematically to that part of the world, and if there had not been an unfortunate choice of a governor, Greece would at this moment have been in a very different position from that which she now occupied, not by an enthusiastic aspiration threatening the peace of Turkey, but advancing steadily from the basis of her own prosperity, developing her resources, and acquiring the confidence of Europe by the integrity of her transactions and the steadiness of her pursuits. These things would be done still, and his voice, feeble as it was, and his heart, which strongly beat for the Greeks, would accompany every step of their progress; but he did not wish that progress to be gained at the expense of an unnecessary sacrifice of the interests of this country, or the

  1739
  diminution of our influence in the Levant, which had hitherto been employed to keep together the remains of the Turkish empire. That that influence must be to some extent diminished by these transactions, there could be no question. By the abandonment of these islands we opened the flank of the Turkish empire, and should likewise incur the risk of increasing the national inclination of the Greeks to outstrip the progress of nature, and to arrive at their object by illegitimate means. This was not a mere fancy of his own. There had been proofs of it during the last few years, even during the Crimean war. On one occasion a commander of the Turkish troops, who had been sent to defend the southern provinces of the empire against invasion, obtained from the generosity of the Governor of Corfu the means of giving effect to the instructions of his Government. He might address their Lordships at greater length on the subject, but he had, he trusted, said sufficient to show that there was in the proposed arrangement that which might occasion regret, and, at all events, required in carrying it into effect the adoption of adequate safeguards against evils which were but too obvious to call for any more detailed explanation on his part.
  LORD TAUNTONsaid, his attention had, during the time when he presided at the Colonial Office, been very much directed to the consideration of the connection subsisting between England and the Ionian Islands, and that he had then come to the conclusion that this country ought to omit no honourable opportunity of relinquishing the duty she had undertaken in reference to those islands. He heartily rejoiced, therefore, to find that the Government had seized upon what appeared to him to be a singularly favourable occurrence to take that step, and in doing so they had, he thought, rendered an important public service. When we originally became connected with these islands, Greece was under the Turk, and it was therefore comparatively easy to govern them; but from the moment that there was a free Greece it was natural that the affections of the Ionians should be turned towards that Government. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had observed that he was convinced the Ionian Islands would be better governed under England than by the new Greek Government; but he should remember that mankind, in choosing who should be their rulers, were sot always influenced by their
  1740
  material interests, but were often guided by feelings and aspirations which had as great an effect upon the human heart. He might add, that though he felt satisfied that successive English Administrations desired to govern these Islands well, yet that great difficulties stood in the way, as was always the case when the wishes of the great body of the people were opposed to any particular rule. He did not feel at all sure, therefore, that in the circumstances in which we were placed, we had not made occasional mistakes to the prejudice of the Ionian Islands. It had, indeed, been said that the feelings of persons of property in those Islands were favourable to the English connection; but having taken a good deal of pains to ascertain what was the actual state of things in that respect, he was induced to think, that except those who expected good places, there prevailed among the Ionian people no warm sentiment of loyalty to English rule, while the mass of the population was the prey of every demagogue who sought to arouse their passions. For his own part, he used to read with humiliation the despatches which constantly came from those islands, intimating that the Assembly had met and passed an Address requesting that the connection with England might be severed, and had then been adjourned. He could not, under those circumstances, conceive how any English Government could sit down quietly and not feel anxious to get rid of the relationship between the two countries; and he thought it therefore most fortunate that the present opportunity had arisen, and that the Government had taken advantage of it. It was said that a diminution of England's power would be the result of the proposed cession. He, for one, doubted the soundness of that view. It would be, he thought, in the event of a war waged in the Mediterranean, a most unfortunate thing if we were obliged, as we should be while we held those islands, to maintain in Corfu a very large military force—for a small one would not answer our purpose—and at the same time to provide for Malta and Gibraltar. He, at all events, was glad that we were likely to be extricated from the difficulties consequent upon such a position.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY, referring to the explanation given by the noble Duke the Colonial Secretary as to certain words which he had on a former occasion used, quoted some passages to

  1741
  show that he had made a statement which amounted to an assurance that the English Government were determined to maintain the Ionian Protectorate.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLErepeated, that nothing he had said would hear the construction that had been put upon his words.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, it had always been held that the defence of the Ionian Islands meant the defence of Corfu; and it was understood that in the event of war the orders were that all the troops in the Ionian Islands should retire to Corfu, which place the Government had laid out a large sum of money upon, so as to make it almost impregnable. It had always been considered of advantage to have more than one post in the Mediterranean; and when the Foreign Secretary said that it was desirable to have only one post there, which one were we to keep? Was Gibraltar a post in the Mediterranean? Malta was; and no doubt it was regarded by military and naval men as a most important centre for western operations; but Corfu had been considered equally important in the East. If the fortifications at Corfu were destroyed, the island would be more easily taken, especially by Turkey in any moment of disturbance; for the Turks would have no difficulty in crossing over seven miles of water, and the Greeks would require a very large force to stand against any military attack from Turkey. King William had now been declared King of Greece, but he had declared that he would not accept the crown unless the islands were ceded; but now the Parliament of the Ionian Islands was to say whether the Danish Prince should be King of Greece, for if the decision should be in favour of remaining with England, it was understood that such decision was a veto on his acceptance. He thought that the Ionian Parliament ought not to have been placed in such an invidious position.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

IONIAN JUDGES—CASE OF SIR G. MARCORAN AND SIR A. XIDIAN.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CHELMSFORDrose to call the Attention of the House to the Papers laid upon the table as to the Removal of the Two Ionian Judges of the Supreme Council of Justice of the Ionian Islands; and to put a Question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon the Subject
  1742
  of the Pensions to which Persons may have become entitled in those Islands. The noble and learned Lord said, that some time ago he called attention to the subject, and his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies made a statement in answer to him, which did not, however, convey the information which he required. The papers which had been laid on the table gave no insight into the reasons or motives for the course which had been adopted, and he felt that the public were entitled to the fullest information of the circumstances connected with the transaction. On the former occasion, exception was taken to his expression that these Judges were "removed" from their office, and it was said that it was not a removal, but only a non-re-appointment. But he pointed out at the time, that since the introduction of British Judges, and the maxims and principles of British jurisprudence, the necessity of keeping the Judges in dependency through a precarious tenure of office had ceased, and the practice had been virtually abolished. He stated then, and he now repeated it advisedly, that from the date of the Charter in 1817, down to the year 1862, there was only one instance of the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Council of Justice, and that was in the year 1834. On that occasion, the English Judge who was removed appealed to the Secretary of State, and was reinstated, and the two Ionian Judges did not appeal, they being both above the age of eighty and entitled to retiring pensions. Therefore, although the Judges were liable to be removed, they were regarded as practically irremovable. The two Judges whose case was before the House had been on the Bench, one twenty, and the other twelve years. One had been four times and the other twice re-appointed; they were men of great ability and unblemished character; yet, without any reason assigned, they first received intimation that they had ceased to be Judges by the official announcement of the appointment of their successors. This being so, he thought he was entitled to an explanation of the circumstances. On the former occasion when he brought forward the subject, the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) said he did not mean to insinuate anything against the character of these two Judges, but the Senate had formed a strong opinion that their removal would be conducive to the ends of justice, that the administration of justice was complained of, and

  1743
  that a change was necessary, with a view to create confidence in the minds of the people. The noble Duke went on to say that the Ionian Islands suffered from the action of demagogues, the worst of whom professed to be the fast friends of England and the protectorate, and that the two Judges were not the only persons removed on this occasion. If the noble Duke did not mean to insinuate anything against the character of these two gentlemen, he was singularly unhappy in his choice of language, for nothing could more seriously affect the character of a Judge than to have it said that his mode of administering justice was such as to destroy the confidence of the people. From the vague and ambiguous insinuations of the noble Duke, it might be assumed that there were two grounds upon which they were removed—firstly, faulty performance of their judicial duties; and secondly, having played the part of political demagogues. With regard to the first charge, he sincerely wished his noble Friend had reflected before, he adopted the suggestions which were made to him on the subject. The Court was composed of two British and two Ionian Judges. It was impossible that corruption of the two Ionian Judges could prevail unless it was participated in by the English Judges, and they both expressed themselves in the highest terms with regard to the character and conduct of their late colleagues. Only a month before the removal of these Judges the Lord High Commissioner expressed to the Chief Justice his satisfaction at the mode in which justice was administered in the court; and it would be derogatory to the high character of the Lord High Commissioner to suppose that he was dissembling his real sentiments for the purpose of concealing the blow which was intended. Mr. Gladstone, who was sent on a mission to the Islands in 1858, for the purpose of ascertaining what abuses prevailed, and who received complaints from all quarters, expressed a very strong opinion that this Court was one of the best and soundest of Ionian institutions, and reported that the British as well as the Ionian Judges had obtained the favour and confidence of the whole community. Was it possible, if this were the character given of the Court in 1859, that the same persons who composed it should in 1862 have so degenerated as to forfeit the confidence of the public; and that the Lord High Commissioner should have been so far deceived in these Judges
  1744
  as to declare, within a month of their removal, that he approved of the manner in which they had conducted their business? He thought he was entitled, therefore, to say that the charge of dereliction of duty was entirely without foundation. The next ground given was that they were political demagogues. Now, that was an epithet which was often used by an adversary without any meaning; but the noble Duke on this occasion probably meant that they had acted as factious leaders of the people; but for that charge also, if there were any truth in the statements which had reached him, there was not the slightest foundation. Let them speak for themselves. Sir A. Xidian said that from the earliest period of his life he had been in favour of constitutional progress and reform; that from 1843 to 1849 he was Attorney General under Lord Seaton and his successor, and was instrumental in bringing in the great measures for the freedom of the press and the trial by jury; and that from 1850, when he was raised to the bench of the Supreme Council of Justice, he had ceased to be a political man, unless so far as he was of the party of constitutional government. Again, Sir George Marcoran said he had never belonged to any political coterie or party, never harangued the people, never published any political pamphlets or inserted any political paragraphs in any journal, and that he had always observed the greatest reserve since he was raised to the bench. Let their Lordships look to the character given to them by Mr. Lushington, one of their colleagues. Mr. Lushington, who sat on the bench with them for many years, said he had always considered it to be an honour to sit on the same bench with them; and, with regard to Sir George Marcoran, he said that a more ingenuous, high-minded man, more exclusively devoted to his own proper duties, or more alien from any taint of political manœuvre, never sat on the English bench. But if they were political demagogues, how was it that they had been permitted to remain on the bench, one twenty, and the other twelve years? The true secret of their removal was to be found in the speeches of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Newcastle) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the other House. The noble Duke said that the worst demagogues, and those who misled the people most, were those who professed to be fast friends of the British protectorate; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Sir George

  1745
  Marcoran made no secret of his being in favour of the British protectorate. The only inference to be drawn from that language was that these two gentlemen, lovers of their country, and sincerely apprehensive that its separation from England would be productive of evil consequences, were removed from the bench because their opinions did not coincide with those of the Government of the day. If this principle were to be acted on, Judges who wished to retain their seats would find it very difficult to keep pace with the Government in its change of views. Their Lordships would perhaps recollect that in 1861 the noble Duke, in approving Sir Henry Storks's prorogation of the Ionian Assembly, which had declared the British protectorate to be at the root of all the evils under which they groaned, said, "I believe that before long the Ionian people will separate themselves from their demagogue theorists who have misled them so long." Who were the demagogues of 1861? Why, those who were hostile to the protectorate. And who were the demagogues of 1863? Those who were—[The Duke of NEWCASTLE: Professed to be]—professed to be the fast friends of the protectorate of England. A Judge, to preserve his seat under such a régime, must be a chamelion, and must change his opinions with every varying change of colour in the opinions of his Government. From one end of these papers to the other there was not a hint that those Judges had been corrupt, or had failed in the performance of their duties. But in Sir Henry Storks's letter to the Secretary of State there was a reason given for their removal which he could hardly approach with sufficient gravity. Sir Henry wrote that the Senate considered, that after forty-eight years of public service—twenty of which were in the lucrative post of member of the Supreme Court—after having reached the very advanced age of seventy, and after a longer enjoyment of public employment than any other citizen, it was time to make a change in the person of Sir George Marcoran. Their Lordships would remember that the abandonment of the protectorate was now the order of the day. The Senate was in the hands of the Lord High Commissioner. He appointed the President, who held office for two years and a half, and he appointed two members of the Supreme Court from the community at large, and two who must be taken from the Legislative Assembly. It was in the power of the Lord High Commissioner
  1746
  to prevent the removal of those gentlemen by refusing to appoint their successors; and therefore he must be held accountable for their removal. He was sorry to say that from a perusal of the papers one must come to the conclusion that the proceeding had also received the sanction of his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office. He regretted this, because he believed a more fatal blow had never been struck at the independence of courts of justice. He trusted that their Lordships would not think lightly of this matter because it was possible that the tie which united us to the Ionian Islands might soon be severed. He trusted we should not act as careless and bad tenants were in the habit of doing when their lease was about to terminate, regardless of the obligations which we had undertaken, and of the waste that might be committed. He hoped we should think that our responsibilities increased more and more as the term of our protectorate drew to an end, and that we should feel the strongest anxiety to deliver up the trust that had been committed to our protection not only unimpaired, but improved.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he was at a loss to see what object was to be effected by bringing this subject again before the House. Such a course was certain to do no good to those in whose behalf the noble and learned Lord had addressed their Lordships. His noble and learned Friend did not seem to aim at any particular result, for he had not concluded with a Motion or a Question. He regretted, too, the different tone in which his noble and learned Friend had treated the matter on the occasion from that which had characterized his speech on a former evening. The quibbles of the noble and learned Lord on words which he had used were such as might frequently be heard in Nisi Prius Courts, but such as their Lordships very seldom heard in that House. The noble and learned Lord said that in 1817, at the commencement of our protectorate, the tribunals in the Ionian Islands were so corrupt that the provision for the removal of the Judges might have been necessary, but that things had so changed since then there was no longer any occasion for it; and he repeated what he had said on a former occasion—namely, that though the law authorizing the removal of those Judges was in existence, it had been virtually repealed. He must tell the noble and learned Lord that there was no ground for this latter

  1747
  assertion. In the year 1834 three Judges were removed. [Lord CHELMSFORD: One of them was reinstated.] It was true that the English Judge, who appealed to the Secretary of State, had been reinstated—perhaps he had been improperly removed; but that did not show that the case was not one in point. The two Ionian Judges did not appeal, and they were not reinstated; and what made the case one in point was that those Judges were removed without their consent. On two recent occasions attempts were made to alter the law, and to render the Judges irremovable. In 1838 the Lord High Commissioner of the day made a proposition to that effect, and his proposal was met with a refusal by the Secretary of State. Again, in 1844, another Lord High Commissioner made a similar proposal, and he met with a refusal from the noble Lord opposite, who was then Colonial Secretary.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: He did not apply to me in the first instance, but applied to the Senate.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: That was true; but when the Bill to render the Judges irremovable was brought under the notice of the noble Earl, he did not sanction it; on the contrary, he gave the Lord High Commissioner orders to withdraw it; and therefore there was no pretence for saying that the law had been repealed. It was not correct to say that the Senate was in the hands of the Lord High Commissioner because he appointed those five officers. There were person in the Ionian Islands whose constant habit it was to make deceptive statements to others in this country. Thus a statement was made in the other House of Parliament, upon the authority of such persons, that the Senate had to attend every morning at the office of Sir Henry Storks; but he had the assurance of Sir Henry Storks that the statement was quite untrue, and further, that the idea of appointing two new Judges originated with the Senate, and that all the Lord High Commissioner did in that matter was, as the constitution prescribed, to approve and carry into effect the suggestion. Reverting to the argument of the noble and learned Lord, that the Act was virtually a dead letter, he would remark, that if that were so, then the constitution itself could not be maintained. The letter of the law was clear, and the question was calmly discussed upon a former occasion, when the principle
  1748
  was distinctly confirmed. It was complained that he had spoken harshly of these gentlemen, but what he had said was only true. What he desired was to see justice done, with as little pain as possible to the parties concerned. It was very well to quote Mr. Gladstone's Report, and to say it was altogether incorrect; but those who instructed the noble and learned Lord, and Mr. Lushington among them, had lost no opportunity of misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman. However, it appeared that upon one point these Gentlemen agreed in the Report of Mr. Gladstone, and, from their constant reference to it, the public might be led to imagine that they regarded the right hon. Gentleman as the very greatest authority, It was possible that Mr. Gladstone might have been deceived as to the state of the Supreme Court, as those were who had longer experience and more intimate acquaintance with those Islands. It was insinuated that Sir Henry Storks was sent to carry out Mr. Gladstone's Report; but he was taken from a public office at home by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) and sent to the Ionian Islands to undertake a most arduous duty. He went out at a time when affairs were at a dead lock, and he was sent out because he was a man to be trusted. The admirable manner in which Sir Henry Storks had performed his duties, and the state into which he had brought those Islands, last year gave him a claim to the indulgent consideration of the party which had appointed him. Sir Henry Storks did not go to carry out Mr. Gladstone's report; but after two years' experience, and upon fully investigating the subject as regarded the Supreme Court, he came to the conclusion, that as far as the two gentlemen were in question and another appointment, Mr. Gladstone's views were correct. Complaint had been made that he had applied to the removed Judges the term "political demagogues;" but what he (the Duke of Newcastle) meant was, that the party to which they belonged, while they professed great affection for the protectorate, were in reality the worst political demagogues in the Islands; and he adhered to that opinion. That party was really friendly to the protectorate up to 1848, because until then the whole patronage of the Islands was in their hands, and they fattened upon it. In that year great changes were made, which deprived that party of power, and from that time they

  1749
  became what was termed reactionists, and combined with those who had always been opposed to the Protectorate, with a view to bring the Government to a dead lock. In that object they nearly succeeded upon more than one occasion, and the first two years of Sir Henry Storks's administration were occupied with a series of struggles with that party. His experience led him to perceive that great changes must be made, and that it was necessary to get rid of these gentlemen. The noble and learned Lord had quoted the statements of those gentlemen, as he had a right to do; but he had no right to argue that every other evidence which differed from their statements was therefore false. There was the opinion of the Lord High Commissioner, and the general belief throughout the Islands that the administration of justice by the two gentlemen whose cases were under discussion had been such as to create an entire want of confidence. Under these circumstances, was it not right to exercise the powers given by the constitution? He did not think that anything would be gained, either in the interests of the public or of those individuals, by stirring the mud in this case. Sir George Marcoran was, he believed, personally a man of high honour; but he had allowed himself to be drawn into political intrigues, which made it certain that as a Judge on the bench he would lose his character in public estimation. To Sir A. Xidian he was willing to give credit for no evil intention, and for innocence of the corruption with which he had been charged by many persons in the Ionian Islands. But he had placed himself before the public in a position which was sure to lead to such imputations. On a former occasion he (the Duke of Newcastle) had avoided going into this question, but he had now been forced to speak more plainly. The noble and learned Lord probably meant to base upon his present statement a demand for further papers; but, though the boxes before him were full of papers, he should certainly, in justice to the public service, decline to produce any others than those which had been placed on the table. What he had now said had been extorted from him by the imprudence of his noble and learned Friend, and he had been compelled to make this statement in justice to others; but the same conditions made it impossible to produce other papers. The noble and learned Lord alleged that there could be no charge of corruption without impugning the two English Judges. But
  1750
  that was not the case. He had never heard of any charge affecting the character of those gentlemen; but he had heard it frequently stated that for two English gentlemen to be associated with Ionian Judges, in courts with the practice of which they were totally unacquainted—never, probably, having before heard the language—and being brought into contact with individuals of a totally different character from that to which they had been accustomed, was a great inconvenience, the result being that they were necessarily under the influence and control of the native Judges. The noble and learned Lord said he had discovered the real secret of the whole proceedings, which was, according to him, that the English Government, having determined to abandon the protectorate of the Ionian Islands, were anxious to get rid of the functionaries who were attached to the protectorate. Now, so unfair and so utterly unfounded a charge he had never hoard. If he could use stronger words to convey his meaning, he would do so, for it was an unfair and uncandid charge; and was not only unsupported by, but was entirely contrary to the fact. What he had said was that the professed friends of the protectorate, by which he meant those who falsely professed to be its friends, were in reality the worst political demagogues of the day, for they encouraged the demagogues. In contradicting his statement, that the dismissal of the Judges met with approbation in the Ionian Islands, Sir A. Xidian had instanced the election of his son as being a compliment to himself, and as showing the feeling of the people. The fact, however, was that the son had been for years a municipal officer, and he was not re-elected in compliment to Sir A. Xidian, who held himself out to be the friend of the British protectorate, for the son had always been an avowed enemy of the protectorate. The fact was, that these gentlemen had fallen into their present dilemma because they were enemies of the protectorate. Reverting now to the assertion of the noble and learned Lord, that the Government wished to get rid of the protectorate, and therefore removed these Judges, was his noble Friend so ignorant of the facts, as not to know that at the time when this took place, it was the object of the Government, and especially of Sir Henry Storks to preserve the protectorate? The annexation with Greece was never mooted by the Government until the Revolution took place, which was late in the

  1751
  autumn, while this decision was come to in July. It was not fair, then, to unite the two things together. He denied that this was, as the noble and learned Lord said, the real secret, and the charge was an unfair and uncandid one, unsupported by evidence, and contradicted by facts. With regard to Sir Henry Storks, that officer had done his duty, and it would be unjust if, at this or at any future time, the House of Lords ignored his great services, and, with a view of supporting any private friends, condemned him or reflected upon him for a course which he had pursued with the best intentions.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he would be the last man to say anything derogatory to Sir Henry Storks, for he knew the sacrifices which that officer had made in accepting his present appointment, and believed that his intention was to discharge his duty honestly and faithfully, and he thought that he had done so for the most part with considerable skill. At the same time, he thought that in the removal of these Judges Sir Henry Storks had acted under influences which had overpowered his better judgment. The noble Duke had, he thought, misapprehended the statement of his noble and learned Friend as to the reasons which had influenced the Government in desiring to get rid of these Judges; though, if his noble and learned Friend had intended to make use of the expression attributed to him, it would not have been far from the mark in point of date.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that the Greek revolution occurred in September, and the actual removal of the Judges took place in August, but that removal was decided on some time before.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, because those Judges were known to be friends of the British protectorate, the party in power in the Islands were desirous of obtaining their removal; and, acting under the influence of this party, Sir Henry Storks was induced to lend his authority to an act which rested on no satisfactory basis. His noble and learned Friend was justified in bringing this question forward again, because, on the last occasion, grave insinuations were made against the characters of these Judges, as if they had been removed for causes so discreditable that they had been concealed. The Judges wished to know for what cause they were removed, and were ready to meet and confront any charge of malversation or corruption, of political intrigue or misconduct
  1752
  in office, which would justify their removal. The course which the noble Duke pursued was unfair and unjust. He repeated the charge with increased strength, and then he said that he had a box full of papers; but that if they asked for the evidence on which he founded the charges, they should not have it. Was that acting fairly to public servants, who had done their best to discharge their duty, and whose main offence had been that they had honestly endeavoured to support and maintain the existing Government and the protectorate of this country. The noble Duke said that the Senate had acted only from honest, conscientious, and patriotic motives, and from a desire that no one should sit on the bench who was a person of strong political feelings. If that was so, would it not have been better that they should not have elected one of their own body who had never sat on the bench before, and who had for many years been a prominent leader of a political party? It would have been all very well if the noble Duke had said that this matter rested altogether with the discretion of the Lord High Commissioner—though that would have been a strange perversion of the practice, if not of the law; but when he said that he did not remove the Judges without cause, but that they were active, meddling, political intriguers, and that one, at all events, laboured under suspicion of corruption, that was at variance with all the evidence which their Lordships possessed. The noble Duke had not produced—he ventured to think that he could not produce—a tittle of evidence to establish those charges. If he could, it was due to the Judges that he should do so. He was sure that the noble Duke would, on reflection, see that he could not maintain the ground which he had taken up. The noble Duke said that the dismissal of these gentlemen had long been determined upon. [The Duke of NEWCASTLE: I said, it had been determined on before August.] If it was determined upon some time before, how was it that within a very short period Sir Henry Storks addressed to one of these Judges language of the higest approbation for the manner in which he had performed his judicial duties, and, in giving him leave of absence, expressed a hope that he would speedily return to carry on the business of the judicial bench in the same admirable manner in which he had previously fulfilled his functions.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that he had, since the last debate, communicated

  1753
  with Sir Henry Storks upon this subject, and he was informed by him that the letter addressed to Sir Anastasio Xidian was the ordinary stereotyped answer which was given to every one who applied for leave. It contained no expression of satisfaction. He only gave him leave, and hoped that he would be ready to come back at its expiration.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that it might be the stereotyped answer which was given to persons who were to return to their duties; but it was not a proper letter to be addressed to a Judge whom the Government had at that moment made up their mind to dismiss. Again, if there were charges against these Judges, why was not notice given to them before they were removed, and why were they not heard in their own defence? Why did not Sir Henry Storks send to the Judges and inform them that he regretted to find that they were taking so active a part in political matters, that such a course was inconsistent with the dignity and independence of their position on the bench; and, that if they did not abandon it, it would be necessary for him to adopt strong measures? That would have given them an opportunity of vindicating themselves. Where did Sir Henry Storks obtain evidence of the misconduct, and still more, of the corruption? Was there ever such a thing heard of as that charges of this description being entertained in the mind of the Lord High Commissioner against two important functionaries, they should be withdrawn from their offices for political convenience—and the truth was they were removed for political convenience and nothing else—and that afterwards when they complained of the extraordinary manner of the removal, fresh charges should be insinuated against them; and then the Secretary of State should say that he believed these charges, but at the same time he would not produce the evidence on which they were founded? It was impossible that the case could rest here. No honourable man could expect that these Judges would be satisfied with what had occurred; he hoped that no Parliament would sanction such a proceeding. If these gentlemen were dismissed for misconduct, they ought to have been informed of the charges before they were dismissed; and if after their dismissal charges were made in that House, they ought to be and they must be substantiated or retracted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORregretted
  1754
  to learn, that some observations which he made in that House on a former occasion on this subject had been misunderstood, and had given pain to gentlemen who were entitled to great respect. While deprecating the making of that House a court of appeal, he said or intended to say, hypothetically, that a case might arise in which charges might be brought forward which could not be met or adequately discussed in that House. It had been assumed that in making that observation he had referred to actual cases, That certainly was not so—he could scarcely have been apprehended as insinuating a charge, because he spoke with great sympathy for these Judges; than one of whom, Sir George Marcoran, he had been assured by friends who were acquainted with the Ionian Islands, there was not a more upright or honourable man in the world. He was afraid that the discussion of that evening, which he was sure had been raised from the best of motives, would be attended with nothing but unfortunate results to these gentlemen. He regretted the position in which they were placed, and he was extremely sorry that any words which had fallen from him should have given them one minute's pain.

MILLINERS AND DRESSMAKERS.

  ADDRESS FOR A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in rising to move for a Commission to inquire into the moral and physical condition of milliners and dressmakers, said: It will not be necessary that I should enter into any lengthened statement in support of the Motion which I am about to make. Some time ago an inquiry was made into the condition of dressmakers and milliners, and some most fearful evidence was received. An association was formed, and the evils were in some measure mitigated. That Commission consisted of three Gentlemen who were most competent to carry on the inquiry, and he thought it would be extremely desirable to refer the question to them, in the hope that they would be able to devise some means by which the evils of the present system might be redressed. The season, he might add, was now drawing to a close, and the pressure on the establishments in which those milliners and dressmakers were employed would be in a great measure diminished, and the effect he hoped of a reference of the subject to the Commission would be to keep those establishments within the limits

  1755
  of decency and order. The noble Earl then moved—
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give Directions that an Inquiry should be made into the physical and moral Condition of the Milliners and Dressmakers by the Royal Commission now sitting on "the State of Children and young Persons in Trades and Manufactures not regulated by Law."
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he found, on consulting his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, that it was competent for him to refer the subject of the noble Earl's Motion to the Commission suggested. It had, he added, been already referred to them. Under those circumstances, an Address to Her Majesty was unnecessary.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.