DISCUSSIONS ON THE COLONIES, AND ON OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS.
At this period unfortunate differences prevailed in the Mauritius between a part of the inhabitants and the government authorities, and between one part of the population and another. They were said to have originated in the desire of the white population to evade some requirements of the law for the emancipation of the negroes, and were believed to have been aggravated on the one side by indiscretion, and on the other by the honest determination of the colonial judges. More than one judge had been recalled; and the consequence was, that their successors, who did not pursue the same course, and the governors of the island were denounced as being guilty of abusing their powers to prevent the due execution of the emancipation act. Mr. Roebuck took the discontented inhabitants of the Mauritius under his protection. On the 15th of February he moved, that a select committee should be appointed to inquire into the administration of justice in that colony. In supporting his motion, he said, that the mother country had declared slave-trading to be a felony, and that an order in council was passed, in consequence of a resolution of that house, to the effect that no governor, judge, or registrar of slaves, should hold any species of slave property, either directly, in trust, or mortgage. He charged the whole body of these functionaries with holding slave property. He also charged Sir C. Colville, the late governor, with speculating and creating debts in slave property; and Chief-justice Blackburne, the officers of the supreme court, and nearly all the functionaries of the island, with the same gross violation of that order in council. Proof of the fact, he said, was to be found in the despatches of government; and he entered into a long statement of mal-administration in that colony. His statements, on the other hand, were represented by Sir George Grey, on the part of government, as being mere repetitions of charges which had been abandoned by those who had made them. The motion was supported by Dr. Lushington and Mr. Fowell Buxton, the latter of whom said, that few persons residing in that colony knew its affairs better than himself: the slave-trade prevailed in the Mauritius to such an extent, that no man could live for a single week as governor of the island and not behold it under his own eyes; yet not one of the persons engaged in the traffic had ever been brought to justice. The reason assigned for this impunity was this—that no court would authorise a conviction, and that no public functionary would countenance the man who dared to interfere with their trade. If a case arose in which it was necessary that the prosecution should be placed upon record, the accused was, on the first opportunity, set at liberty. The motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and twenty-nine against seventy-one.
It has been recorded in previous pages that political discontents prevailed in Canada. A large portion of the population, French in its origin, democratic and intemperate in its views, led on by demagogues, insisted on demands equally inconsistent with a monarchical government, and with the supremacy of the mother country. Democratical as were their views, however, they had their supporters in the British parliament. On the 16th of May, Mr. Roebuck brought forward a proposition for the reform of the Canadian constitution, which was to consist in nothing less than in making both branches of the colonial legislature elective. By the statute 81 George III., c. 81, a constitution was given to the province of Quebec, which was thereby divided into Lower and Upper Canada. The constitution so conferred was professedly a copy of the constitution of England, the governor being as the king, the legislative council as the house of lords, and the house of assembly as the house of commons. The object, Mr. Roebuck said, which he had in view, was to amend the legislative council, which was no more like the house of lords at home than the governor of the colony was like the king of these realms. The members of the legislative council, unlike the house of lords, were poor, having no tenants, and consequently no influence over the people; they were a clique holding power for their own purposes. On the explanation of ministers, Mr. Hume advised Mr. Roebuck to withdraw his motion, to which he conceded, stating at the same time that he did not believe government were prepared to say, that a measure for remedying the evils complained of was delayed only till the report of the commissioners was received.
Civil war was still raging in Spain, and at this time Great Britain had interfered in it—an interference which seemed to be becoming more direct as the situation of the queen became more critical, and the arms of the Carlists more successful. This subject occupied the attention of parliament. On the 26th of February Mr. Maclean directed the attention of the house of commons to the policy of this interference. Lord Palmerston said that the interference of this country had consisted, first, in executing the quadruple treaty; and, secondly, in the order of council which, by suspending the foreign enlistment act, had enabled the British legion to be formed which was now serving in Spain. The treaty was now a new one; it did not raise any new question—no motion had ever been made to disapprove of it—and its execution was admitted to be imperative.
In the beginning of tin’s year a body of Austrian, Russian, and Prussian troops took possession of Cracow, under the plea that it contained the elements of dangerous conspiracies against the neighbouring governments. This subject was brought before the commons on the 18th of March, by Sir Stratford Canning, from whose statement it appeared that the three powers had addressed a joint note to the senate of Cracow, requesting them to send away, within eight days, all Polish refugees and other dangerous persons; that the senate had remonstrated against so sweeping a denunciation of individuals, many of whom had resided there for years; and that military possession had, notwithstanding, been taken on the expiry of eight days. It appeared further that four hundred persons had been given up to the commander of the occupying force, while others had been required to find security for their good behaviour; and that the president of the republic had resigned, and his place been supplied by the direct nomination of the residents of the three powers. He contended that by the treaty of Vienna, the establishment of Cracow as an independent state was provided for by definite articles, being placed under the protection of the three powers now in possession of it. He further contended that Great Britain was an immediate party to this treaty; that its provisions were parcel of our solemn engagements; and that when circumstances so extraordinary occurred as that a state, recognised as free and independent, was occupied by foreign powers, we were called on to look narrowly at these events, and see whether or not any violation of the engagement in which we were interested had or had not taken place. Lord Palmerston found himself embarrassed in consequence of neither the facts of the military occupation nor its causes having been communicated to him officially by the three powers. Doubtless the demand made by the three powers appeared contrary to the letter of the treaty, for they had not required that the persons referred to should be given up by the powers to which they might belong, but that they should be within eight days removed from the territory of Cracow. At the same time, if statements made were true, as a justification of the measure, it might be considered as falling within the spirit of the treaty. It was alleged that a number of person, natives of Poland, assembled in the state of Cracow, and inspired by feelings which, perhaps, in their peculiar circumstances were natural, had established a communication with the inhabitants of some of the Russian and other parts of Poland, calculated to disturb the tranquillity of the neighbouring states. But, although the three powers might be justified in requesting such persons to depart, it did not follow that they were justified in going to the extreme of military occupation because their demand was not immediately conceded. As yet no sufficient reason had been given either for the entrance of the troops, or the shortness of the interval which had been allowed between the demand and the entrance which had been effected. All friendly means should have been exhausted before any such measures were resorted to; and, under all circumstances, as Great Britain had been a party to the treaty of Vienna, it was the duty of those powers when they made the demand, and before they had recourse to occupation, to have communicated to the government of this country the grounds on which they thought themselves entitled to act, and the intentions they were about to put into execution. Messrs. O’Connell and Hume were violent against the three powers. They advised, that if any part of the Russian Dutch loan due by this country was not yet paid, payment should be refused till satisfaction was made to Cracow. Lord John Russell deprecated the language used by Messrs. O’Connell and Hume, the more particularly as the honour of Great Britain was not committed in the transaction. Lord Dudley Stuart, however, contended that the honour of Great Britain had been violated. Was it, he asked, no affront for these three powers to tell a great country like this, that the treaty which settled the possession of all the powers of Europe, and to which it was a party, should be infringed and violated at their pleasure? By the violation of the neutrality of Cracow a serious blow had been inflicted on our national reputation, and on the security of Europe.
During this session a lengthened discussion took place regarding the dangers to which Europe was exposed from the systematic encroachments of Russia. The subject was introduced by Lord Dudley Stuart, who moved an address for the production of the treaty of Constantinople between Russia and the Porte, the treaty of St. Petersburg, the correspondence between the British government and the governments of Russia and Turkey relative to these treaties, and the correspondence between the courts of London and St. Petersburg regarding the remonstrances made by this country against the conduct of Russia towards Poland. In reply, Lord Palmerston said, that he had no objection to produce the treaty of Constantinople, or Hoonkiar Skelessi; but he would not concede the production of others. Government, in fact, was not officially possessed of the treaty of St. Petersburg, and therefore it could not be supplied. The correspondence, again, between this country, Russia, and Turkey, relative to these treaties could not be produced without inconvenience to the public service, and would not answer any object which could be contemplated by the motion. With respect to the correspondence which had taken place on the subject of Poland, he thought its production would not serve any useful purpose. No good could arise from publishing to the world, after an interval of three years, all the correspondence which might have passed between two governments on a subject respecting which their opinion differed, especially as nothing had occurred to make the publication of this correspondence necessary. Lord Dudley Stuart expressed himself satisfied with the papers which the foreign secretary had expressed himself willing to give. Mr. P. M. Stewart, however, thought that Lord Palmerston was either too blind as regarded Russia, or too confiding. He referred to his lordship’s predictions in 1832 regarding Poland. He had said, “As to the idea which is entertained by some honourable gentlemen of its being the intention of Russia to exterminate a large kingdom like Poland, either morally or politically, it is so utterly impracticable that there need be no apprehension of its ever being attempted.” Since these words had been spoken, Poland had been politically exterminated, and every exertion had been made to exterminate her morally. On the 20th of April Mr. P. M.
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.