Chapter XLVI: {william IV. 1836—1837} (4)

Stewart brought this subject again before the house, justifying himself for renewing the discussion on the ground that, since the last debate, Russia had actually interfered with our commerce on the Danube. In direct violation of treaties, he said, which declared that the navigation of the Danube should be free to ships of all nations, Russia had extorted tribute from British vessels passing down that river; and she was putting a stop to the trade not merely of England, but of the whole of central Europe on that magnificent stream, by wilful neglect to cleanse its channel, which would soon be so filled up that a Thames punt would not be able to cross it. Mr. Stewart moved—“That an address should be presented to his majesty, praying him to adopt such measures as might seem best fitted to protect and extend the commercial interests of Great Britain in Turkey and the Euxine, and likewise to send a diplomatic agent forthwith to the free and independent state of Cracow.” This motion was seconded by Sir Edward Codrington, who urged the necessity of immediately arming, as an expedient which had uniformly been successful in checking aggression. In reply, Lord Palmerston informed the house that government had already sent a consular agent to Cracow, so that this part of the proposed address was unnecessary. Government, he continued, concurred in the importance of maintaining and extending the commercial relations of Great Britain with Turkey, Persia, and the neighbouring countries; but, in his opinion, nothing had happened to confine or check them. There could be no doubt that, by the treaty of Vienna, the navigation of the Danube was free to the commerce of all countries in Europe. We had, however, suffered no wrong as yet; and in dealing with foreign nations, it was not prudent to anticipate injuries at their hands: it was enough to deal with events when they had occurred. Members of all parties expressed similar opinions; and Mr. Stewart finally withdrew his resolution.

On the establishment of the kingdom of Greece, Great Britain, France, and Russia, had agreed by treaty to guarantee a loan of 60,000,000 of francs for the use of the new monarchy. Two instalments of 20,000,000 each had been paid. Greece, on the other hand, had undertaken certain obligations in relation to her revenue and its application; and Russia, on the ground that these obligations had not been fulfilled, refused to concur in raising the third instalment. Under these circumstances ministers found it necessary to introduce a bill for authorising the advance of the money by this country alone. Lord Palmerston made the proposal, and it encountered considerable opposition even from the ordinary supporters of government. The resolution, however, moved by Lord Palmerston, authorising his majesty to guarantee the portion to which this country was liable of the third and last instalment of the loan to be advanced to the King of Greece, was carried by a majority of eighty-one against forty. The bill founded on the resolution encountered the same objections which had been raised to the resolution itself; but it passed without any determined opposition. In the house of lords the Duke of Wellington said, that while he admitted the measure was necessary, he thought that the necessity was an unfortunate one, and might have been avoided. It did not appear to him that proper measures had been taken to obtain the concurrence of Russia. The first demand made by Greece was for 3,000,000 francs; why was not an effort made to obtain the consent of Russia to advance her share of this sum? Why was Russia left out of that part of the negotiation? If Russia had been called on for her portion, it would have amounted to nearly the sum which this country was about to advance under existing circumstances; and the consequence would have been this—that the three powers would now be placed on the same footing. But how would it be hereafter? Great Britain would be a creditor of Greece to the amount of 20,000,000 francs, with a claim on the resources of Greece, which must and would be pressed, for the interest and sinking-fund of that amount of debt. On the other side, Russia would have in hand the third part of 20,000,000 francs to issue to Greece whenever, and under whatever circumstances she thought proper. France was placed in a similar situation; and both these countries would, therefore, stand in a more desirable relation towards Greece, having always the power of conferring a benefit, than that which would be occupied by this country, who could only be a creditor pressing for payment of a debt.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

During this session the proposal for removing the civil disabilities of the Jews was brought forward by the chancellor of the exchequer himself, and was carried through the commons, but was rejected by the lords. Mr. Rippon also renewed a proposal he had made in 1834, for the expulsion of the bishops from the house of lords; but his motion was lost by an overwhelming majority. Mr. O’Connell moved for leave to bring in a bill to reform the whole house of lords, by making that body elective, a motion which gave rise only to laughter. Mr. Grote also brought forward his annual motion for vote by ballot; but it was lost by a majority of one hundred and thirty-nine against fifty-one. Parliament was prorogued on the 20th of August, by the king in person.

THE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND.

The royal speech had announced that tranquillity prevailed in Ireland; but yet that country was not in a state of quiescence. Agitation was still at work: societies and combinations were being formed, and the angry passions of the multitude lashed almost into fury. At this time the authorities were enforcing the payment of tithe; and this excited the wrath of the leaders of the Popish party. This wrath was aggravated by the refusal of the house of lords to create, by passing the ministerial municipal bill for Ireland, a mass of Catholic corporations, of which there was every reason to apprehend that, while they would not have any useful duties to discharge as machines for municipal government, they would become powerful and legalized engines for working out the great aim of the Papists—the destruction of the Protestant church. The clauses which went to reconstruct the Irish corporations were struck out by the lords on the 17th of May; and on the following day Mr. O’Connell put forth a letter “to the people of England,” the object of which was to rouse them to show their gratitude to Ireland for the aid which she had lent them in carrying the Reform Act, by destroying the character and rights of the house of lords. This epistle, however, was addressed to deaf ears; his sentiments rather tended to call forth expressions of opinion that the lords should fearlessly exercise their constitutional rights. In his letter, he had threatened to re-organize agitation; and finding his exertions to that end useless in England, he resolved to cany out his threat in Ireland. The course which it was wished that the people of Ireland should adopt, was explained by Mr. Shiel in clear terms. It was wished that a strenuous and simultaneous movement of the popular masses should take place; that the millions of Ireland should be roused; and that the might which slumbered in her arm might be developed; above all, that “the active system of organization should again be strenuously applied, with its weekly meetings, its appeals to the people, its enthusiasm, and exciting eloquence.” Doubts were expressed by some persons of the prudence of forming a permanent association at present. Mr. Pigott, a barrister, however, suggested an expedient, by which all the advantages of association might be secured without its name. He recommended that the requisitionists, who had called a public meeting in Dublin for the 23rd of May, should constitute themselves an open committee, with power to add to their numbers, which should meet from time to time as occasion might require, and should arrange communications with the most active inhabitants of the different towns and districts who might be disposed to second their object, in order to obtain petitions from all parts of the country. This plan was adopted; and the objects of the new agitation were declared to be municipal institutions, founded on the same principles of popular election and control which had been adopted in England, and the speedy settlement of the tithe question. This committee dispatched circulars all over Ireland, urging the people to hold public meetings for the purpose of voting petitions to parliament on these two questions, and directing the petitioners how to draw up their petitions. It was soon found, however, that this plan was not effective, and that, therefore, a revival of the machinery of the Catholic association would be necessary, in order to exercise the required influence over the public mind, and to raise funds for the support of agitation. The “petition committee,” as it was called, complained in a meeting, held on the 1st of July, that petitions came in slowly, and that the people of Ireland were dormant and dead to what ought to be now their feelings, of nationality. Under these circumstances it was deemed prudent to “recreate the active system of organization devised by Mr. O’Connell, with its weekly meetings,” and other appliances. A “general association” was now formed on the model of the Catholic association, using the same species of influence, but bearing another name and professing different objects. The two declared objects of the association were to obtain the abolition of tithes and municipal corporations; to these were added a minute attention to the approaching registrations, in order to increase the democratic party in the house of commons. These and the other purposes of the association required money; and accordingly the “justice rent” was established. The association was to meet once a week in the corn-exchange; Mr. O’Connell presented to it the chair of the Catholic association, which had been left in his possession; and the walls of its place of meeting displayed in large characters these words:—“Scotland has municipal reform; England has municipal reform; Ireland has been declared unworthy of municipal reform.” After Mr. O’Connell’s arrival, in August, the association was put into full operation. From him proceeded addresses to the people of England and Ireland, the complete organization of the justice rent, the appointment of committees, and of a reporter on the election registry of every county, city, and town of Ireland. It was resolved that officers, called pacificators, should be appointed in every parish in Ireland. Each parish was to contain two pacificators; one named by the clergyman of the majority of the parish, and the other by the inhabitants themselves. There was, therefore, the general association sitting in Dublin, holding its weekly meetings, with its registry inspectors, and its agitating pacificators scattered all over the country. It was to maintain this system that justice money was required; and in general the business of each weekly meeting consisted in announcing the amount of “rent” collected during the preceding week, or in receiving more. There was talking at these meetings, it is true, but the term business can scarcely be applied to the verbose and unmeaning speeches in which the orators indulged. The usual topics were the greatness and determination of Ireland; the demand for justice by getting new corporations and abolishing tithes; the flattery of every one who sent money to the association; and the abuse of those who differed from the agitators in opinion. Yet Mr. O’Connell and his party did not fail to stir up the evil passions of the deluded multitude. These “thundering resolutions” were put forth by the association:—“Resolved—That it is incompatible with the principles of religious liberty that any man should be compelled to pay for the ordinances of a church with which he is not joined in communion. That, as under the present appropriation of tithe-composition, a tribute is levied from the whole nation for the uses of the church of only the one-tenth portion of the community, the people of Ireland are, therefore, justified in demanding the total extinction of an assessment so applied. That no settlement of the tithe question can give satisfaction to the people of Ireland which is not founded on the foregoing principle. That the people of Ireland be called upon not to desist from all legal and constitutional means of redress, till they have obtained full and complete relief from an impost equally oppressive and degrading. That, in carrying out these resolutions, the representatives of the Irish people should always keep in mind the adopting such a prudent and wise course as shall enable them to realise for the Irish nation the greatest possible quantity of good, and as shall also enable them to support and sustain in office, without any violation of principle, the first and only true and honest government that has ever been known in Ireland.” This call upon the peasantry not to desist from seeking the abolition of tithes “by all legal and constitutional means of address,” by no means tending to diminish the resistance still shown to every attempt to enforce the steps necessary to the recovery of tithes, where a protecting force did not attend. The process-server was still hunted; mobs still attempted to set aside sales of distrained cattle; and now that the efficacy of the exchequer-process, by merely posting notices instead of service, had been felt, the writs of that court would have been equally set at defiance by brute force, but for the power which they possessed of compelling police and military aid. A scene of bloodshed occurred at Dunkerrin, in the county of Tipperary. A mob attacked a commissioner of the exchequer and his party, in the act of serving a writ, and the bailiff was murdered on the spot, while one of the murderers was killed by a shot from the police. Mr. O’Connell and the association demanded justice for the death of the latter; but not a word was said on the heinousness of his crime, or a syllable of regret was uttered concerning the death of the bailiff.

FOREIGN RELATIONS.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

The whole Spanish Peninsula was torn with political dissensions. Revolutions and counter revolutions disturbed British relations with Portugal especially, and prevented the execution of a treaty of commerce which was looked for in England, as a benefit to both nations. England sympathised too much with the faithless queens of both the governments of the Iberian Peninsula, which had the effect of protracting the disturbances which prevailed, and of exciting angry feelings against England. The gallant men who as British subjects volunteered to serve the queen ‘of Portugal were refused their pay, and treated with contumely and injury, just as the British legion in Spain had been used.

The relation of the Sublime Porte to England was also a source of embarrassment, especially to the former country. On the one hand, the pressure of Russia, jealous of her predominating influence, and on the other, the efforts of Britain and France to counteract the exclusive character which that influence was assuming, imposed on the divan the necessity of giving satisfaction to all the competitors for favour. During this year an English merchant of Constantinople, of the name of Churchill, while shooting in the neighbourhood of Scutari, accidentally wounded a Turkish boy. He was dragged to the guardhouse of Scutari, where the officer on duty ordered him first to be bastinadoed, and then sent to the governor of Scutari. The governor declined interfering, and caused him to be conveyed to the office of the reis effendi, or foreign minister, by whom he was thrown into prison. Mr. Churchill immediately addressed a letter to the British consul, acquainting him with the accident that had occurred, and the manner in which he had been treated, claiming, as a British subject, the interference in his behalf. The consul sent a dragoman to the Porte to reclaim his countryman, promising to keep him in custody till the accusation brought against him had been inquired into. This application was rejected; and the British ambassador then sent his interpreter to the reis effendi, who promised that the prisoner should be delivered over to his own authorities. Instead of this promise, however, being observed, Mr. Churchill was thrown into the Bagnio, and fettered in iron chains, by virtue of an order granted by the sultan. The British interpreter again waited on the reis effendi, and expressed to him the surprise Lord Ponsonby had experienced on witnessing so direct and intentional an infringement of the treaties existing between the king of England and the sultan; committed, too, by the very individual appointed by the Porte to preside over their strict and scrupulous observance. The reis effendi now desired one of his officers to proceed with the English interpreter to the Bagnio, and cause the detained merchant to be given up; but the governor of the Bagnio refused to comply with the request, pretending that since the prisoner had been placed under his care in virtue of a firman, he could not release him without a written order from the Porte. Lord Ponsonby now addressed an official note, stating that, as the minister of foreign affairs had violated one of the most important stipulations of the treaties existing between Great Britain and Turkey, he was obliged to declare to the government that he would not any longer hold official communication with his excellency, and to submit to the Sublime Porte, and emphatically to declare to the sultan himself, his just complaint against a minister who had dared to violate the laws of his own sovereign, and insult the British nation. This step procured the liberation of Mr. Churchill; but Lord Ponsonby refused to consider this alone as any reparation of the breach of the treaties securing to British subjects the right of being tried and punished only through the agency of their own official representatives. His lordship insisted that the reis effendi should be dismissed from his office. He insisted upon this the more strenuously on account of the predominating influence of Russia; for if the injured party had been a Russian subject, the Turkish government would have hastened to make humble apologies, and would have consented to give any satisfaction which the offended dignity of the czar might have required. The Porte endeavoured to mitigate the demand lay negociation; but Lord Ponsonby refused to accept of any satisfaction which did not include the dismissal of the minister. As the Porte seemed to think it below its dignity to grant such a request when merely made by an ambassador, he said he would refer the matter to his government at home. The British merchants, likewise, resident at Constantinople, transmitted an address to Viscount Palmerston, representing the necessity of supporting the demand made by the ambassador. They remarked:—“We will concede that the first outrage was committed by subordinate local authorities, whose acts might admit of excuse or explanation; but the subsequent imprisonment was deliberately ordered by a high public functionary, the official depositary, in fact, of the treaties existing between the two countries, one who could not be ignorant of the privileges they guaranteed, and who was not ignorant that in the instance in question he was grossly and intentionally violating them. Considering, therefore, that the present is not the only instance, although the most flagrant one, of personal violence offered to British subjects, we cannot but see in their repeated occurrence, more especially of late, an intentional infraction of the treaties, and, indeed, the existence of some fixed design on the part of the Turkish government to assume to itself a power of control in such matters which it would be dangerous ever to concede.” Before the determination of the British cabinet could be known, the divan of Constantinople had resolved to yield: the reis effendi was dismissed, with a monthly pension of 10,000 piastres; but it was on the pretence that bad health disabled him from regularly attending to the duties of his office. It was said afterwards, that the British ministry viewed the matter in a less serious light than that in which it had been viewed by Lord Ponsonby; and that they were not inclined to consider the demand he had made as one on which it was necessary to insist. It is certain, indeed, that the dispatches of the Turkish envoy ill London, subsequent to the dismissal of the reis effendi, assured the divan of the readiness of the British ministry to settle the controversy on conditions much milder than those on which Lord Ponsonby had stated to be the only terms which his majesty’s government could consider proper reparation for the insult offered to its dignity. It is also certain that the credit of the British ambassador, whose successful firmness was neutralised by his government, was greatly diminished at the Porte.