Imágenes de páginas

Government had been the first to recur to the protocol excluding the scions of the Royal families of the three contracting countries, and the consequence was that Prince Leuchtenberg was ultimately given up by Russia. Upon the subject of the Ionian Islands Earl Russell entered more fully, expressing his total dissent from the view taken by Lord Derby, and explaining the true nature of our relations to those territories, which were no part of the dominions of Her Majesty, but only placed by treaty under the protection of the Crown:— “What is the history of this protectorate given to Great Britain? I have heard it orally from a lamented friend of mine, the late Lord Beauvale, who knew all that happened at the Congress of Vienna, and I have found all that he said confirmed in the protocols and treaties of that Congress. As the noble earl has said, six of these islands were then in the possession of Great Britain, having been acquired by her own arms, and the other was temporarily held by another Power. The Austrian Government offered, as they were in a position affecting the tranquillity of the Adriatic coast, to undertake the government of these islands, securing to the islanders the enjoyment of their own privileges. But it happened that at that time the voice of Russia was very powerful. The results of the campaign had given the Emperor Alexander very great influence with the Congress, and Count Capo d'Istrias, a Minister high in that Emperor's confidence, who had a patriotic feeling in favour of the nationality of the Greeks, suggested, when Austria made her proposal, that the Ionian Islands should be maintained in all their privileges as a free State under the protection of Great Britain. He said that the institutions of Austria did not give any promise of freedom to the Ionian Islands, but he admired British Institutions, and wished the Ionians to have the benefit of them. The consequence of that declaration and that interference of Russia was what?—a treaty in which it was said that Great Britain should have the fortress of Corfu, to give her power in the Mediterranean P. Nothing of the kind. It said that the Ionian Islands, naming each Island, should form one single, free, and independent State, under the name of the Republic of the Ionian Islands. So that it is by no means a possession of Great Britain or any part of the Queen's dominions; but is, by that treaty of 1815, a free and independent State. Well, what becomes of all the argument, if I may call it so, about the importance of the fortress and the position ? My opinion is, that having adopted a trust, having made yourselves the protectors of this free and independent State, you are bound to look to the welfare of the Ionians. Above all, that you are bound to discharge your duty faithfully and conscientiously towards that free and independent Republic. I believe the importance of Corfu is very much exaggerated. But if you were to say, ‘We care nothing about the wishes of the Ionian Islands, but what we do care about is a fortress for ourselves, what we do care about is a harbour for Great Britain,' I believe that all Europe would cry out upon you for that declaration, and those who gave you that trust would say, ‘You have perverted the solemn trust confided to you, and that which ought to have been treated according to the original terms of the stipulation for the benefit of the Ionians you have considered only as a part of the strength of your dominions.” Because, that was the whole gist of the noble earl’s remarks. He never spoke for a moment about the Ionians or their wishes.” The Earl of DERBY, in explanation, was understood to say that he had referred to their being consulted. Earl Russell.—“That is exactly what we are going to do. We mean to consult them. Moreover, this is a matter which also requires consideration from the other Powers. We say first to the Ionians, “If you, on the meeting of your Parliament, to be convened for the purpose, shall declare (as once or twice they have irregularly done) that Greece being now an independent kingdom we wish to belong to Greece,’ then we shall consult the other Powers of Europe who were parties to the original treaty, as to what should be done, and whether, it being the wish of the Ionian Islands to be joined to Greece, they ought not to be so joined. If it is clearly the desire of the Islands, as it is very possible it may be, notwithstanding the symptoms that have from time to time been exhibited, to enjoy the benefits of the protection of Great Britain, which, I think, are very great, then one consequence of this will be that we shall be free from the reproach which is cast upon us from every side—that while in every corner of Europe we profess such liberal principles, while we profess that Italy ought to be independent and free to manage its own concerns, we coerce and oppress the Ionian Islanders, who wish to be released from our rule. These Islands being no dependency of the British Crown and no part of the British dominions, if they fairly and deliberately declare their desire for union with Greece, I maintain that be the advantages of our having a fortress in the Mediterranean what they may, it does not belong to the character of this great country to say that it will keep them in subjection, although they wish to be free and are entitled to be so.” The other principal speakers on this occasion were the Earls of Malmesbury and Carnarvon, and Earl Grey. The two former Peers supported, in general, the views of Lord Derby, with respect to the foreign policy of the Government. Lord Malmesbury blamed the officious advice to Denmark, and the diplomacy of Lord Russell at Rome, regretted that we had not acceded to the invitation of the Emperor of the French to mediate between the States of America, complained of the vacillation of the Government in respect to the occupation of the throne of Greece, and still more severely censured the proposed cession of the Ionian Islands. This surrender, he argued, would be a precedent for the cession of Malta and Gibraltar hereafter. We had no security that Greece would be able to retain C

so important a harbour as that of Corfu, and if not, it might fall into hands which would not be so ready to give it up. Lord. Carnarvon also expressed strong objections to this measure. Earl Grey, on the other hand, justified the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the United States and to the Ionian Islands. With respect to the proposed mediation in America, the noble Earl said:— “He felt as strongly as any one a desire for the cessation of that horrible warfare, but he asked did any one believe that the tender of good offices at that time would have contributed to bring the war to a close P. It had been observed most truly that before proposing an accommodation they should make up their mind as to the principle on which the accommodation was to be proposed. The South insisted on independence, and the North on the re-establishment of the Union, and he thought that their lordships would feel that if, some months ago, accommodation had been proposed on the idea that the re-establishment of the Union was impossible, the Government of the United States might well have complained of the exertion, on the part of this country, of a moral power against them; and if, on the other hand, mediation had been offered on the basis of the re-establishment of the Union, then they would have proposed what he concurred in thinking was absolutely impracticable. There could, he thought, exist little doubt that if our Government had so interfered they would, instead of doing good, only have further irritated those already too much incensed against this country.” As to the Ionian Islands, Lord Grey asserted the right of the Crown to cede not only protectorates such as this, but even possessions acquired by treaty, without consulting Parliament at all. The magnificentisland of Java had been thus ceded, and though he did not admit the expediency of that cession, it was clearly within the prerogative of the Crown. The cession of the Ionian Islands, however, he considered to be right not only in form, but in substance. The importance of Corfu had been exaggerated. We did not want two stations in the Mediterranean. One good one, such as Malta, was sufficient; for by holding two large fortresses, we frittered away our small army in providing large garrisons, and seriously hampered our naval forces by obliging them to look after several islands instead of one. * The Address to the Throne, echoing the terms of the Royal Speech, was agreed to mem. con. The debate in the House of Commons turned upon nearly the same topics as were under discussion at the same time in the other House of Parliament, the civil war in America, manufacturing distress, our foreign policy in regard to Denmark, Rome, and Greece, and the proposed surrender of the Ionian dependencies. The seconder of the address, Mr. Bazley, one of the representatives of Manchester, and connected by business with that place, contributed some interesting facts as to the extent and pressure of the distress, and the means which had been adopted to relieve it. “It appeared that at the end of the last week in January, 1863, the guardians of 147 Unions in the manufacturing districts were affording relief to the amount of 15,612/., which was distributed among 221,045 persons. From the Relief Fund during the same week the sum of 39,4741. was expended in the relief of 374,630 persons. The total relief was therefore 55,086l., which was distributed among 595,675 persons. The total contributions from all sources—the spontaneous contributions of the people of the United Kingdom, of the colonies, and of foreign countries up to the end of January, amounted to the large sum of 760,6921. It was quite true that the cotton operatives had been slightly better employed of late, but he feared that there was no possibility of any improvement at present to any great extent. He regretted, too, that the distress was increasing to a lamentable extent among the class of small tradesmen, and other classes, who had not hitherto received assistance from the Relief Fund. The fact was, that for the last two years a large portion of the people of the manufacturing districts had been living upon their capital. The work-people had been compelled to part with their furniture, and both they and the middle class of tradesmen had little by little exhausted all the means they possessed, so that the provident and the improvident had sunk to the same common condition of distress and destitution. The Savings' Bank of Manchester was principally resorted to by domestic servants and other classes than those employed in the cotton trade, and was not therefore a fair test of distress. The cotton operatives were for the most part spirited individuals, who looked to building clubs as a more eligible investment, who saved money with a view of commencing some little business, and who would not accept the low rate of interest of the savings' banks. The distressed labouring classes were now asking for a supply of the raw material; they did not want charity; they only asked for the means of prosecuting their labours, and obtaining subsistence for themselves. He trusted that the Government would do something to obtain from our vast colonies an increased supply of cotton. There were many colonial dependencies from which it might be obtained,—Australia, the British West and East Indies, and he trusted that a year or two would put us in possession of a largely increased supply. There was a prospect of a sufficient supply of cotton being obtained to enable the operatives to work half-time during the ensuing year, but it must be remembered that the inferiority of Indian cotton was so great that even if they worked half-time the operatives would not be able to earn more than one-third their usual wages. He trusted that the producers of East Indian cotton, and the authorities of India would be induced to exert themselves, not only for the benefit of the ryot, but of the labouring classes of Lancashire. He might be permitted to refer to the great extent of the cotton trade in the year 1860. The exports of cotton to all parts of the world were in that year 56,000,000l. sterling, while last year they only reached 37,000,000l. sterling. This was a frightful diminution; but the money value of the exports was not a correct indication of the diminution in trade, because, as the price was somewhat increased, quantity and not value was the more accurate test. The textile exports of 1860 consisted of two-thirds of all the exports, while the exports of linen, woollen, and silk supplied the remaining third. It was true that the industry of the country was generally in a prosperous condition, and that the cotton trade was the only branch of industry under a cloud. The iron trade, the woollen trade, the linen trade, and the silk trade were all in a state of considerable activity, and if the cotton trade had remained in its ordinary state, there would have been almost too much prosperity for the kingdom to bear with temperance and moderation. Generous contributions had flowed in from all classes, and from every part of the kingdom; but it was only justice to the manufacturing districts to state that up to the end of last year they had contributed very nearly one-half the total amount raised for the relief of the distress. The manufacturing districts had contributed 260,000l. for this purpose, besides supporting a multitude of persons at a cost that had never been published. The other parts of the country had contributed 275,000l. ; the colonies 53,000l. ; and from foreign countries the sum of 5000l. had been received. It was with great pleasure that he added that the contributions of the North American States had been most liberal; that, they had been received in the manufacturing districts with the greatest satisfaction, and that the utmost gratitude had been expressed for the supply of food which had so seasonably arrived.” Mr. Disraeli, after expressing his warm congratulations to the House and to Her Majesty on the approaching Royal Marriage, and his deep sympathy with the distress endured by our manufacturing population, proceeded to state at some length his views respecting the pending contest in America:— “I am bound to say that from the first – and subsequent events have only confirmed my conviction—I have always looked upon the struggle in America in the light of a great revolution. Great revolutions, whatever may be their alleged causes, are not likely to be commenced or to be concluded with precipitation. Before the civil war commenced the United States were colonies, because we should not forget that such communities do not cease to be colonies because they are independent. They were not only colonies, but they were colonizing, and they existed under all the conditions of colonial life except that of mere political dependence. But even before the civil war I think that all impartial observers must have been convinced that in that community there were smouldering elements which indicated the possibility of a change, and, perhaps,

« AnteriorContinuar »