wrongly ascribed to the Holy Alliance) prevent Greece from framing a constitution on liberal ideas, addressed a petition to the Cabinets of the three Powers, in which referring to proposition of the Powers to establish an hereditary monarchy in Greece, they reminded their protectors that even under the Turkish rule they elected their own municipal magistrates; that for eight years (during the revolution) the representative principle had predominated amongst them in their different organizations, and in a manner associated with their new existence, that, therefore, "the representatives think it would be both. unjust and dangerous to deprive them of it." "But it may be expected," they continued, "that by combining this principle with that of hereditary succession to the supreme power, the desires of the Greeks would be amply fulfilled." Be that as it may, by the Protocol of the Conference of London of February 3, 1830, signed by the representatives of Great Britain, France and Russia, which created the Hellenic state, it was declared that "Greece shall form an independent state and shall enjoy all the rights-political, administrative, and commercial-to complete independence," and that "the Greek Government shall be monarchical and hereditary." This Protocol was subsequently ratified by the Convention of May 3, 1832, according to which the same Powers agreed (Art. IV) that "Greece, under the sovereignty of Prince Otho of Bavaria; and under the guarantee of the three courts, shall form a monarchical and independent state." • 5 It should be here candidly stated that, notwithstanding the heroic struggle and the untold sacrifices which the seven years' war of independence entailed, it is doubtful whether the Greek state could then have been created without the military and naval assistance of the three protecting Powers. It is important to bear in mind this fact on account of its connection with the question we are here examining, and the events which are now happening in Athens. Another fact which should not be overlooked is that in the creation of the Hellenic Kingdom in the beginning of the nineteenth century, the sovereigns and the statesmen of the time, and particularly the people, were Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, Vol. 71, p. 794. swayed more by sentiment than by interest. France and England were actuated by a reverence for classical Greece, and also by reason of humanity; and Russia was moved by religious feelings and political calculations; and although the policy of the same Powers towards Greece is now guided more by interest than by sympathy, the sentimental side has not yet disappeared. It is not necessary for our purpose to dwell on the vicissitudes of the new state in the early days of its independence, nor on the abortive attempts of one of her distinguished men (Capo d'Istria) to establish in Greece a centralized system of government. Suffice it only to say that whilst the National Assembly which met at Pronia in August, 1832, was framing a new constitution on democratic lines, its representatives were courteously informed by the three Powers that they would consider their decisions as null and void unless their newly elected King (Otho) would coöperate with them. This warning was heeded by the Assembly adjourning their sittings until the arrival of their sovereign.7 King Otho arrived in Greece in the beginning of the year 1833, and as he was not yet of age the Regents appointed by his father (the King of Bavaria) administered the country during his minority. The first act of the Bavarian Regents was to issue a proclamation to the people, at the head of which document the words "Otho by the grace of God King of Greece" were conspicuous. As it afterwards appeared, these words were placed in the proclamation intentionally in order to claim a divine right for the King of Greece. In fact, on becoming of age, Otho issued a new proclamation in which the same words were inserted in it." A distinguished English historian, and an eye-witness to these events, alluding to this incident, writes: "The title assumed by Otho, 'by the Grace of God, King of Greece,' excited a few sneers among those who were not republicans; that one of his regents had declared that he exercised absolute power by order of King Otho, See text of Proclamation in Epaminondas J. Kyriakides, Istoria tou Singchronou Hellenesmou (ed. 1892), Vol. I, pp. 242 and 243. and that the King of Greece exercised a right for which he was responsible to no one." He adds that "this assertion was directly at variance with the promises of the King of Bavaria and the three protecting Powers." 10 Evidently history repeats itself, as King Constantine also claims that he reigns by divine right. King Otho, therefore, imbued with such ideas about the origin of his royal authority, following in the footsteps of his Regents, governed or misgoverned the country as an absolute monarch, concentrating all power (as the present King of Greece) in his hands." This system of government was bitterly criticized, not only by the people in Greece, but also by their friends and protectors in Europe. It particularly attracted the attention of the British Parliament and the public generally in England. That the three Powers who sent Otho to Greece never intended that he should establish there an absolute monarchy, ruling by the so-called Divine right, is proved by the utterances of British public men both before and after the election of Otho as King of Greece. Thus, Lord John Russell, speaking in the House of Commons in February, 1830, on the behalf of the Opposition on the affairs of Greece said: There are one or two points with regard to the settlement for Greece. . . . The first regards the form of government that is intended to be established in Greece. On this point there have been sinister rumors circulated with respect to the intention of the Allied Powers, who, it was said, intended to introduce a despotic Government in Greece. I am happy to say that these rumors have been dispelled by the declaration recently made by one of the Secretaries of State. At the same time I feel as an Englishman, and as a citizen of a free country, that as a new state is to be established, freedom political freedom should be a constituent part of the principles on which its government is to be established.12 Sir Robert Peel, who was at that time a member of the Cabinet and, in the words of a distinguished English historian, "perhaps the 10 George Finlay, History of the Greek Revolution, Vol. II, p. 289. Also Finlay, History of Greece, Vol. VII, p. 106, ed. 1877. "Finlay, History of Greece, Vol. VII, p. 168. 12 Hansard, new series, Vol. XXII (February-March, 1830), pp. 545–546. most sagacious Minister of the 19th century," 13 answering Lord Russell, said, "I can assure the noble Lord that in the arrangement, the bases of which have been laid by the Allies . . no attempt has been made to dictate despotic monarchy to Greece." Then alluding to the interest shown by the previous speaker (Lord Russell) for the welfare of Greece, he said: I join with him heartily in the earnest wish he has expressed that the Greeks of the present day may recover from the torpor of long slavery and be enabled to emulate the glory of their predecessors, while at the same time they enjoy all the advantages that arise from the progress of knowledge and from the establishment of those institutions which in happy countries like this are calculated to ensure the possession of civil and religious liberty.14 Lord Palmerston, then also echoing the voice of the House, said He hoped that as they would have the pleasure of seeing what could not fail to be gratifying to the national feelings and flattering the honor to collect from the lips of the English Minister that the people of Greece would enjoy the rights of freemen, and be no longer confined in the shackles and fetters of despotism.15 Lord Palmerston, a few years after (1836), speaking again in the House of Commons on the affairs of Greece, said: "A man must be blind to the natural character of the Greeks, as well as to the geographical distribution of that country, if he thinks that Greece can be governed without a representative assembly-it is an indispensable addition to the kingly government." Then alluding to a criticism about the inability of the Greeks to have representative government, he said: "It is a great mistake to suppose that Greece is not in possession of the basis of freedom.” 16 13 Sir Spencer Walpole, The History of Twenty Years, Vol. I, p. 13. "Hansard, new series, Vol. XXII, pp. 550–556. 15 Hansard, new series, Vol. XXII, p. 560. Lord Landsdowne, expressing his feelings on the subject in the House of Lords, said he "wished that the measures which were to be taken for the pacification of Greece would be calculated to make her happy and independent, for if independent, she must be essentially free and strong." (Hansard, new series, Vol. XXII, p. 54.) 16 Hansard, Vol. XXXV, Third Series, p. 636. As the rule of King Otho 17 continued to be both bad and despotic, the affairs of Greece continued more and more to attract the attention of the Powers who were responsible for the installation of the German Prince on the throne of that state. It would be out of place here to describe the evil results of the Bavarian administration. Suffice it only to say that within a few years it brought chaos and anarchy in the country. It was, therefore, not surprising that the European chancelleries were again seriously concerned with the Grecian situation, as in the present time. In England, the people, as usual, gave vent to their feelings through Parliament. On August 15, 1843, a member of the House of Commons (Mr. Cochrane), in moving for an address for the production of the diplomatic papers concerning Greece, appealed to the House to interest itself in the internal troubles of the Kingdom, due, he said, to the violation of the pledges given by King Otho "for the safeguarding of the liberties of a people and of a country to which civilization owes so much. . . . Nor does it shame me to declare," he added, "that all we have acquired has been transmitted to us by those arts and sciences which are the monuments and memorials of Greece." He asserted that the British Government was bound to see the pledges given by Bavaria fulfilled. "But, Sir," he said, "I would appeal to this House by higher considerations than classical associations and political interests . . . I appeal to you by your national faith and national honor; by pure principles of right and wrong, which are immutable." Then recapitulating the diplomatic instruments in connection with Greece, to which England was a party, he said: "Although it be admitted that her happiness and welfare cannot affect your power, yet will you, by permitting a continued violation of these treaties, suffer the greatest of all injuriesa loss of your character for consistency and integrity among nations." 18 Lord Palmerston, who rarely missed an opportunity to take part in the discussion of foreign affairs, and to whom Mr. Gladstone always looked for guidance on such matters, as he once said in the 17 "It is curious," says an English writer, "that a Prince, who was destined by his royal father (the King of Bavaria) to be a priest. . . and, in due time a Cardinal, developed into an absolute Monarch." (Blackwood's Magazine, September, 1843, 545.) p. 18 Hansard, Third Series, Vol. LXXI (July-August, 1843), pp. 797-798. |