STATE OF THE CONTINENT.
During this year Don Pedro carried his threat into execution, of attempting to recover the throne of Portugal from his brother by force of arms. He had been permitted to levy men, and to purchase vessels and shipments of arms and ammunition, both in England and France, and the naval part of the expedition was placed under the command of a British officer, who became a Portuguese admiral. The expedition sailed from the rendezvous, in the Azores, on the 27th of June, and it consisted of two frigates, three corvettes, three armed brigs, and four schooners, besides transports, and a number of gun-boats to cover the landing. The army on board, including British and French recruits, did not amount to ten thousand men, and it was scantily provided, both with cavalry and artillery. The invaders landed off Oporto on the 9th of July, without any opposition; and in the course of the day they took undisturbed possession of the city, the enemy having retired to the left bank of the Douro, and destroyed the bridge. The possession of this city was doubtless of great importance to Don Pedro; but it was far removed from the capital. He had hopes that the country would rise in his favour, and that the military would abandon his opponent. In these expectations, however, he was doomed to be disappointed. Don Miguel was enabled to concentrate his forces, and to organise the means of resistance; and at the close of the year, after some slight successes in engagements with the enemy, he was shut up in Oporto by the Miguelites, who bombarded the town, blockaded the Douro, and placed him in a very critical situation.
In the East a quarrel took place between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali, Pasha of Egypt, which threatened serious consequences to the Turkish empire, and occasioned such interference on the part of Russia as awakened the jealousy, and aroused the watchfulness of the other European powers. Ibrahim wrested Syria from the Porte, and the Ottoman empire was tottering to its fall, unless the European states should interfere to prevent it, or Russia should realize her long-cherished schemes of aggrandizement by taking the shores of the Bosphorus, which the Sultan was not able to defend, under her own protection. It was feared by the European powers that Russia would thus act; and toward the end of June, ministers dispatched the son-in-law of the premier on a special mission to Russia. Much confidence was placed by the public in the integrity and talents of Lord Durham, and an attempt was made to induce the ministers to embrace this opportunity of mitigating the cruel fate which hung over the unhappy Poles. Poland, however, was still doomed to be unbefriended. Russia was left to seek the annihilation of its existence as a separate nation at her pleasure. By an ukase this year, indeed, the emperor declared that Poland, with a separate administration, should become an integral part of the empire, “and its inhabitants form but one nation with the Russians, bound together by uniform and national sentiments.” During this session, also, there was a debate on the subject of payments made to Russia without the authority of parliament. This question was connected with the financial affairs of the country, though it was treated more as a question of political party. It arose out of the treaty of 1814 for the incorporation of the Belgian provinces with Holland. By that treaty Great Britain had agreed to pay a certain share of a debt due to Russia by Holland, so long as Holland and Belgium were united. They had now been disjoined for nearly a year, and yet ministers had been making these payments without any new authority from parliament. The subject was brought forward by Mr. Herries, who entered at length on the subject, and contended that England had no right any longer to pay money to Russia: the Dutch had refused to pay any more, and ministers should not have done so without at least new powers from parliament. He moved three resolutions:—“That by the 55 Geo. III., for carrying into effect the convention between Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Russia, the treasury was empowered to issue sums to pay the interest and capital due by Holland to Russia, conformably with the provisions of the convention: That the payment of these sums was made to depend upon the non-separation of the kingdoms of Holland and Belgium; and that, as the kingdoms of Belgium and Holland had been separated, all payments made since that separation were unwarranted by act of parliament, and contrary to the treaty recognising the loan.” Lord Althorp, in reply, said that the true question was, whether the country was not bound in honour to the continued payment of those sums. Looking at it only according to the strict letter of the treaty, we might not be bound; but he thought that by a careful examination of its spirit and provisions, it would be found that our honour was pledged to the payments, and that on no other consideration than that it was so pledged should we have interfered as we had done in the affairs of Holland and Belgium. He argued that the separation contemplated by the framers of the treaty was one produced by extreme force, and had nothing to say to any severance proceeding from internal causes. He argued further, that it was by giving Russia an interest in preventing the severance of Holland and Belgium, that this country concluded the treaty; and that, therefore, to that treaty we were equally pledged. That Holland had refused to pay was immaterial: if one pledged himself to the payment of a debt to which there was also a third party, it would be dishonourable to take advantage of that third party having refused to fulfil his engagement, as a legal reason for also refusing to fulfil your engagement. With respect to the resolutions, he had only to say, that, as the two first were merely declaratory of the fact, he should, as far as they were concerned, move the previous question; but as the third was a direct censure on ministers, he should meet it with a direct negative. Ministers had acted on the opinion of the attorney and solicitor-general, and they now defended that opinion. Lord John Russell also argued that it was the spirit and not the letter of the treaty which must be looked at, and that that spirit justified the payment. He complained that the resolutions were moved with a mere party view, and not from any love of economy or from any desire to maintain a constitutional principle. He complained also, that a motion should be made for censuring ministers, without calling for papers, and without any allusion to the circumstances which had occurred in 1830 and 1831, and on which the interpretation of the treaty might in a great degree depend. After some stinging comments upon this speech, Sir Robert Peel wound up the debate in one of his most plausible parliamentary addresses. He clearly confuted the main arguments which Lord Althorp used, and produced an effect unfavourable to ministers. When the house divided, the previous question was carried by a majority only of twenty; and government had but the narrow majority of twenty-four for the third resolution. Many of their adherents, including Mr. Hume, voted against them on this occasion; and even their secretary-at-war, Sir Henry Parnell, failed to attend to vote for them, for which conduct he lost his place, and was succeeded by Sir John Cam Hobhouse. The truth was, as it afterwards appeared, ministers had entered into a new convention with Russia, although that convention had not been ratified. Ministers laid this before parliament on the 27th of June; and on the 12th of July Lord Althorp moved the house to go into committee to consider of it, with the view that a bill should be brought in to enable his majesty to execute it. The convention provided for continuing the payments, and the opposition thought this a powerful argument in their favour; if a new convention was necessary, it was said, the former payments were made without authority. They moved the following amendment to Lord Alfhorp’s motion:—“That it appears to this house that the payment made by the commissioners of the treasury on account of the interest due on the Russian loan in Holland, in January last, when the obligation and authority to make such payment had, according to the terms of the convention with Holland and Russia, and of the act of parliament founded thereon, ceased and determined, and also when a new convention with Russia, not then communicated to this house, had been entered into, recognising the necessity of recurring to parliament for power to continue such payments under the circumstances which had attended the separation which had taken place, was an application of the public money not warranted by law.” Ministers still argued the question on the ground, whether this country was bound in good faith to continue the payments? if we were, they said, this convention was only to fulfil that duty. But the strongest argument in their favour was that adduced by Lord Althorp, which was to the effect, that, if his motion were lost, it would upset the ministry. As the reform bill was still pending, many voted for, who would have voted against them; and, on a division, the amendment was lost by forty-six—one hundred and ninety-seven voting for it, and two hundred and forty-three against it. During the progress of the bill, founded on the motion, Mr. A. Baring moved an address to the king, “praying his majesty to be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before that house copies or extracts of any documents relating to the convention of the 19th of May, 1815, between Great Britain, Russia, and the Netherlands, explanatory of the spirit and objects of that convention;” but this motion was lost by a majority of thirty-six in favour of ministers. On this occasion Mr. Hume voted for them, although, he said, he knew they were in the wrong. He had come down to the house on the 12th of July, he said, with a firm determination to vote against them; but when he found by whom he was surrounded, he was unwilling to join them in driving ministers from office. He had changed his opinion, and would vote with the Whigs against the Tories, although he believed the Whigs were in the wrong. But the fact was, he was determined not to assist in turning out ministers until they had completed the great measure of reform. A great deal remained to be done, and he wanted to see a new election take place; he was determined, therefore, to support ministers. The conduct of Mr. Hume was followed generally by the liberal party, and this policy of the extreme sections of liberals alone preserved ministers in office. Another interesting subject was brought before the house by Mr. Lytton Bulwer, relating to the Germanic states. He moved for “an address to the king, requesting his majesty to exert his influence with the diet in opposition to the course which that body was then pursuing.” In making this motion, Mr. Bulwer traced an outline of the political history of the Germanic confederacy, from its free government to its termination with the victories of Austerlitz and Jena, when the principle of aggrandizing the larger states at the expense of the smaller was first avowed and practised. He said that the defeat of Napoleon in his Russian campaign gave to Germany the opportunity of casting off a yoke which had been reluctantly borne. Russia and Prussia then appealed to her former free constitutions, the restoration of which was distinctly promised, when the Germanic states rose en masse; and the battle of Leipsic, with the downfall of the French power, speedily followed. By the second article of the congress of Vienna, he continued, the promises of Russia and Prussia were respected, and the rights of every class in the nation were solemnly guaranteed, the only state disagreeing being Wurtemburg. The late protocol of the diet, however, had for its object the rendering of the representative bodies of the several states useless, by relieving their despotic princes from every embarrassment which an efficient control by such assemblies might create, and to protect Austria and Prussia against the influential example of popular institutions. The sovereigns of these two states, he said, are willing to give just so much constitutional liberty to Germany as will not allow its writers to write, its professors to teach, its chambers to vote taxes, make speeches, or propose resolutions; whilst every state should be so inviolate, so independent, that, with or without the invitation of its sovereign, a deputation of Austrian or Prussian hussars may be sent to keep it in order! The question was, therefore, was it politic for England, under such circumstances, to interfere? Our situation, he said, rendered it incumbent on us to express an opinion, at least, in favour of the German people, or we must be thought to take part with their rulers. He could not recommend a foolish and hasty interference with foreign states, yet he could not consent that England should be a cipher in the political combinations of Europe, looking with indifference on the continent, as though no changes could affect her interests. And if there was any one thing more than another which immediately affected British interests, he thought it was the fate of Germany. Unite that country under a good government, and it would be at once a check on the aggrandisement of France and ambition of Russia. Mr. Bulwer concluded with his motion for the address; but Lord Palmerston dissented from his opinions, and was willing to believe that the government alluded to would not be so impolitic as to put down free constitutions. The motion was therefore negatived.
During this year Greece was involved in absolute anarchy. After the assassination of Capo d’Istrias it was left without a government, and although Augustine, brother of the murdered president, concocted a provisional government, and placed himself at the head, the refractory chiefs could not brook his authority, and began to act for themselves. A national assembly met at Argos in the middle of December, 1831; but it was not more successful in restoring obedience and tranquillity. Everywhere there was confusion and bloodshed, as in the days of the ancients. The national assembly of Argos was overthrown, and every chief ruled despotic in the small district which he was strong enough to occupy. In the meantime the courts of Britain, France, and Russia were occupied in selecting a king who might reduce the country to order more easily and effectually than they could do by protocols and despatches. Their choice fell on Otho, son of the King of Bavaria; and his majesty having accepted the crown on behalf of his son, the conditions were fixed by a treaty, concluded in May, between him and the sovereigns of England, France, and Russia. The territory to be comprehended in the new state was to be somewhat larger than when its sovereignty had been offered to Leopold; and the King of Bavaria was to send along with his son an army of 36,000 men, to be supported entirely at the expense of the country. It might have been expected that the Greeks would have been averse to the rule of a foreign monarch, attended by foreign troops, and professing a different religion to themselves. The assembly of Napoli, however, as soon as they had been informed of the conclusion of the treaty, dispatched an address to the King of Bavaria, praying him to hasten the arrival of their monarch. The address was followed by a deputation, which was received at Munich with marks of royal favour, and which had been commissioned to assure their future sovereign of their good will and ready submission to his rule. The young monarch quitted Munich for Greece on the 6th of December, proceeding by the way of Naples, Otranto, and Brindisi, to Corfu, where he was to be met by the army intended to support his newly-erected throne. He made his entrance into Napoli on the 5th of February, 1833; and the regency appointed for the duration of his minority—for he was a minor—replaced the provisional government.
