Don Pacifico

<plain_text><page sequence="1">Don Pacifico By Albert M. Hyamson* HETHER, as the Roman in days of old held himself free from indignity when he could say Civis Romanus sum, so also a British subject, in whatever land he " * may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong." With these words as a culmination the Foreign Secretary, Palmerston, speaking without notes in a speech that lasted almost from darkness to dawn of a summer night in June 1850, despite the eloquence of the foremost men in the House?Peel, Disraeli, Cobden, Graham and Cockburn?converted members of all parties in a very critical if not hostile House of Commons ; and not only secured himself in office but paved the way to his accession to the premiership five years later. The occasion was a vote of confidence in him and his policy as mani? fested in his action towards the Greek Government: the motion was moved by John Arthur Roebuck, an outstanding Independent member of the House of Commons during the middle years of the nineteenth century. The centre of the drama, before it shifted to the House of Commons, was Athens and the hero, one David Pacifico. Pacifico, known generally in English history as Don Pacifico?he himself preferred the title "The Chevalier D. Pacifico" with which as a rule he signed his letters?was a British subject. The works of reference give as his place of birth Gibraltar and the year 1784.1 According to a passport issued to him on the 1st March, 1833 by the Lieutenant Governor of Gibraltar, he was then forty-four years of age, having been born at Oran in Algeria, the centre of a Jewish Community for many centuries, of British parents ; and the information on which these statements wrere based was presumably furnished by him. On a later occasion2 Pacifico himself stated that he was born in Gibraltar and, still later, in August 1848, repeating this statement, he added "My family has been English upwards of a century."3 Whatever the place of his birth, the question of Pacifico's nationality was further complicated, the Greek authorities suggested, by his appointment to a salaried office in the Portuguese consular service in 1839 as a Portuguese subject, and alternatively by his application in Athens in 1847 to the Spanish Consul for assistance, on the ground that he was of Spanish nationality,4 and by the acceptance of that claim. Whatever his nationality, Pacifico certainly did enter the Portuguese salaried consular service. His first office was in Morocco and he was later transferred to Athens as Consul-General. In 1842 his services were dispensed with, but he continued to reside in Athens, being apparently engaged in business. The Pacifico family is of Italian Jewish origin. David Pacifico's parents were Asser Pacifico and Bella, daughter of Moses Rieti, also a member of a Venetian Jewish family. They were married in London under the auspices of Bevis Marks in 1761. Another contemporary Anglo-Jewish family, emanating from Venice, was that of dTsraeli, in Italy Israeli. There were marriage connections between all the Venetian Jewish * This paper was prepared by Mr. Hyamson but was not delivered before his death in October 1954. 1 See e.g. D.N.B, and the Jewish Encyclopedia. 2 24th January, 1848 (Correspondence respecting the Demands made upon the Greek Govern? ment . . . Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. February 1850. pp. 112 and 151). 3 Ibid. p. 151. 4 Ibid. p. 121. See also pp. 11 and 13. 1</page><page sequence="2">2 DON PACIFICO families in England, as in the case of other Jewish groups emanating from the same geographical centre on the Continent. During the earlier half of the nineteenth century it was a custom for the Greeks to celebrate Easter by the burning in effigy of Judas Iscariot. In April 1847 the Athens police forbade this combined display of high spirits and religious intolerance?it was said in order not to offend Baron Charles de Rothschild, who was at the time in the city and from or through whom the Government was anxious to obtain a loan. Despite the prohibition, however, the mob assembled in accordance with custom. Baulked of its immediate object it turned on the house of Pacifico which happened to be near, broke into and pillaged it. The house was damaged and much of its contents stolen or des? troyed. Police were in the neighbourhood but made no noticeable attempt to protect the property or disperse the mob. Pacifico estimated his losses as a consequence of the attack at about ?32,000 and he made a claim for this sum on the Greek Government. Failing to obtain satisfaction he turned to his own Government, the British. As a consequence the Pacifico Affair ceased to remain a petty affair of local consequence. It entered a larger field and influenced not only the fate of a British Government but also the hazards of peace and war. The matter first came under the notice of Palmerston, the Foreign Minister, and the Foreign Office in May 1847 when Sir Edmund Lyons, the British Minister in Athens, sent a despatch1 reporting Pacifico's complaint to him. "It has been the custom in Athens for some years to burn an effigy of Judas on Easter Day, but this year the Government, in consequence of the Baron C. M. de Rothschild being here, took measures to prevent it taking place; and the brigands who infest the capital took advantage of the occasion to spread a report that M. Pacifico, who is a Jew, was the cause of the dis? continuance of this annual custom, and to excite the people against him in order that they might plunder his house.(The mob was) aided, instead of being repressed, by soldiers and gendarmes, and who were accompanied and encouraged, if not headed, by persons whose presence naturally induced a belief amongst the soldiers and the mob that the outrages they were committing would be indulgently treated by the Government. I have not failed to represent to M?ns. Coletti that there is a great distinction between a common burglary and a protracted attack upon a large and conspicuous house in the middle of the day by several hundred persons who were aided instead of being repressed by soldiers and gendarmes, and who were accompanied and encouraged, if not headed, by persons whose presence naturally induced a belief amongst the soldiers and the mob that the outrage they were committing would be indulgently treated by the Government,\ With the despatch Lyons enclosed a letter from Pacifico, dated 7th April, 1847 : "Last Sunday, Easter Day, at about 12 o'clock, a crowd of people, amongst whom were some soldiers of the gendarmerie just come out of church, presented themselves at the door of my house, which they very soon battered down with large pieces of stone. These brigands, in number about 300 or 400, entered my house, and swearing dreadfully, began beating my wife, my innocent children, and my son-in-law. After having broken the windows, doors, tables, chairs, and every other article of furniture, they robbed me of my jewels, forcing open the closets in which were vases, candlesticks, gold and silver ornaments, diamonds, and lastly a box containing money to the amount of 9,800 drachmas, of which 2,300 were my own private property, and 7,500 which had been deposited with me by the Jewish Community of Italy for the projected erection of a temple, and for the poor of this kingdom. These barbarians did not even leave me the Consular Portuguese Archives which were torn by them to pieces. These papers being my security from that nation for the sum of ?21,295.1.4 sterling." 1 Ibid. No. 75 of 20th May, 1847, p. 53.</page><page sequence="3">DON PACIFICO 3 Pacifico had addressed himself at once to the local judicial authorities, and the Attorney-General had instituted an enquiry. But three days later, and without awaiting the results, Pacifico, doubtless on advice, claimed the protection of the British Legation as a British subject. The Greek Foreign Minister neither made reply to nor even acknowledged the British Minister's representations although several weeks passed. Palmerston therefore instructed Lyons1 to obtain from Pacifico a detailed statement of his losses and claims and "if the claims appear to be just and reasonable and if his statement is supported by satisfactory proof, you will present a note to the Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs requesting His Excel? lency to direct that the sum so claimed shall be paid to Monsieur Pacifico." The death of Coletti, the Greek Foreign Minister, on 12th September, 1847 no doubt caused some excusable delay but did not excuse the continued failure to give the required satisfaction or even to reply to the British representations, and on the 1st October2 Lyons had again to report to Palmerston that, although he had pressed Coletti's successor, Glarakis, for a settlement, he had obtained no satisfaction. With this despatch Lyons forwarded a detailed statement of Pacifico's claim which amounted in all to the equivalent of ?31,534.1.1 ; of which ?26,618.16.8 represented the loss of documents supporting claims (?21,295.1.4 plus interest) against the Portuguese Government. ?293.19.6 money deposited with him by Jewish Communities in Italy and by Baron James de Rothschild of Paris for the benefit of the Jewish Community of Greece and ?200.4.3 "thorough repair of the damage done to the house." In addition Pacifico claimed "(1) The interest on my claim upon Portugal from the 24th of July until such time as I shall be paid, (2) An indemnification equivalent to the rent of my house, which I can no longer let, as I did before that calamity, because it is uninhabitable, (3) Indemnification for the expenses which I have incurred in consequence of my wife's illness and my daughter's wound, (4) Lastly, an indemnification for the injury which so lamentable an occurrence has occasioned to my reputation and to my credit." In his detailed list of specific losses he did not show undue modesty: Three drawing room cushions ? ?75 Damask tablecloths ? ?10 each Four dozen serviettes ? ?15 One dozen dessert serviettes ? ?36 Three copper frying pans ? ?2.10.0. Two pudding moulds, over ? ?1 each A warming pan ? ?4 etc. With regard to the claims against the Portuguese Government Lyons stated that he considered them "just and proper." A week later Pacifico addressed an appeal for support direct to Palmerston.3 In the meanwhile Pacifico had put forward a further claim against the Greek Govern? ment. His house and land abutted on the wall of the Royal Palace Gardens and, as he 1 F. O. 32 : No. 64 of 19th July, 1847. 2 F. O. 32 : No. 153 of 1st October, 1847 and "Correspondence respecting the Demands," etc., No. 4. 3 "Correspondence respecting the Demands," etc. No. 5 of 8th October, 1847.</page><page sequence="4">4 DON PACIFICO said, when he learnt that the King desired to acquire a portion of his land so as to round off the gardens, Pacifico had willingly acceded to the request, asking only for the price that he had paid for the land. This was agreed to but, although the land had been taken, two or three years had passed and still Pacifico was unable to obtain payment. There was a similar, although independent, claim on the part of George Finlay, the English historian of Greece, who was at the time resident in Athens, which the Greek Govern? ment had also failed to meet. Palmerston acted promptly. Within a few days of the receipt of Pacifico's appeal he instructed1 Lyons to press energetically for the payment of those claims that had previously been put forward and also for the value of the land that had in effect been expropriated. In the meanwhile Pacifico reported another outrage, although of a minor character, and appealed for protection and redress. It was alleged that the mob on this occasion was led by a son of the Prime Minister. Sir Edmund Lyons promptly called the attention of the Greek Government to this further incident and at the same time pressed for payment for the land that had been purchased (?) and of the compensation previously demanded on account of the original outrage.2 The response of the Greek Government was a series of prevarications that dragged through the subsequent two or three years. At first Glarakis, the Greek Foreign Minister, argued that Pacifico should have applied to the Greek Courts of Justice and denied that the British or any other foreign government had any locus standi in the matter. The second attack, of which Pacifico complained, Glarakis dismissed as "quite trivial." "Towards the end of the month of September about thirty children ran together in pursuit of an individual, and having taken the direction of the dwelling of M. Pacifico, approach? ed thither, crying out against the object of their pursuit, and they made the Israelite believe that this mob was directed against him, and that they were going probably to invade his house. It is true that in passing under his windows those children uttered at the same time some exclamations, but this was all; and the police who hastened immediately to the place where this scene occurred relate that it is from the mouth of the Sieir Tzarmitzi himself, whom M. Pacifico speaks of a witness and protector of his domicile, that these facts were reported to them."3 Palmerston fully supported his representative in Athens and agreed with him in accepting in full the claims of Pacifico. He even went further and on the 2nd February 18484 instructed him to press for payment not only of the sum of ?21,295.1.4 for loss of property, etc., but also for interest on this amount at ten per cent from the 24th January 1845 when Pacifico first preferred his claim against the Portuguese Government, and in addition ?500 on account of Pacifico's "personal injuries and sufferings." The further claims "which must be considered, prima facie at least, to be reasonable and proper" should also be pressed. Glarakis, when he did trouble to reply to these representations, continued to take up the position that the claims were a matter for submission to the local Courts of Justice. The second attack he suggested was a figment of Pacifico's imagination. So far as the criminal side of the case was concerned?the attack by the mob on Pacifico's house? 1 Idem No. 6 of 30th October, 1847 and F.O. 32, No. 100. 2 F. O. 32 : No. 7 (Lyons to Palmerston). 3 Enclosure No. 3 to F.O. 32 : No. 7, (Lyons to Palmerston). 4 F.O. 32 : No. 5 (Palmerston to Lyons).</page><page sequence="5">DON PACIFICO 5 Lyons reported an opinion given by Greek lawyers to the effect that members of the Prime Minister's family were "beyond the reach of the Law."1 In February 1848 there came an interlude of which Palmerston and Lyons took full advantage. A Greek citizen had been "cruelly" treated in Cairo and the Greek Govern? ment appealed to the British Minister to secure the intervention of the British Minister in Constantinople on his behalf?Egypt was still considered a province of the Ottoman Empire. Sir Edmund replied to the Greek Foreign Minister to the effect that he had transmitted the request to the British Minister in Constantinople "who will, I am very sure, do all that is right in the interest of Justice and humanity without allowing himself to be influenced in the slightest degree by the reflection that whilst His Hellenic Majesty's Government expect him to support their demands for redress for ill treat? ment received by a Greek subject in Egypt, they do not satisfy the demands of Her Majesty's Government for redress for ill treatment received by persons under the British protection in Greece." This reply was after Palmerston's own heart and he warmly approved it. In replying to Lyons he instructed him to inform Glarakis that "Her Majesty's Government cannot refrain from expressing their surprise that the Greek Government should ask British assistance to obtain redress for wrongs sustained by Greek subjects, while the Greek Government is evading to grant redress for wrongs sustained in Greece by British subjects and Her Majesty's Government cannot but remark that there is as little of dignity in the application for aid made by the Greek Government as there is justice in the denial of redress."2 Sir Edmund Lyons was instructed to read this despatch to Glarakis. Pacifico now enlisted outside support and appealed to Adolphe Cremieux, the French Jewish statesman, to use his influence with the Greek Prime Minister to get his claims settled. Cremieux did write to Coletti as one "who has a devotion towards Greece which amounts almost to worship. Athens always presents itself to me sur? rounded by a circle of glory."3 But the Greek statesman was on his deathbed and, although Pacifico claimed that Coletti had been moved by the letter and had decided to grant the request, the intervention brought no result. The terms of Palmerston's despatch, however, had no noticeable effect and the series of demands for a settlement, which either remained unanswered or brought further objections and delays, continued. In the meanwhile a new Foreign Minister, M. Colocotrony, had been appointed in Athens and Sir Edmund Lyons approached him to the same end. He asked for payment without delay of the balance of the sum due for the acquisition of Pacifico's land?an inadequate payment had in the meanwhile been made; of the sum of five hundred pounds damages for the sufferings of Pacifico and his family; and for an assurance that "the main question of compensation for his losses on that occasion (the sack of Pacifico's house) is in a fair way of settlement."4 The reply was again unsatisfactory, though of great length. In the course of it Colocotrony explained that on taking up office he had found considerable arrears of correspondence that required attention. Among these were the communications that 1 F.O. 32 : No. 16 of 7th February, 1848 (Sir E. Lyons to Viscount Palmerston). 2 F.O. 32 : No. 22 of 19th February, 1848. 3 "Correspondence," etc. p. 150. 4 F.O. 32 : No. 104 of 20th September, 1848. B</page><page sequence="6">6 DON PAC1FIC? related to the claims of British subjects against the Greek Government. However, all he did was to reiterate all the objections to the claims that had already been made, which had been brushed aside by the Foreign Office. He argued again that Pacifico should have had recourse to the Greek Courts and not until justice had been denied to him there had the British Government any locus standi in the matter. Palmerston therefore instructed1 Lyons to state to M. Colocotrony that he had received his communications on the subject of the claims against his Government by Pacifico and Finlay and that "Her Majesty's Government felt very great regret at the tone and substance of those com? munications .Her Majesty's Government had hoped that the present administration of Greece would have been inspired by a spirit of justice and by a sense of what is due to the honor of the Greek Crown and to the character of the Greek Nation. That Her Majesty's Government still hope and trust the full and complete answers given by Pacifico and Findlay (sic) to the objections made to their respective claims will have been duly considered by the Greek Government and that the claims of those two British subjects will either have been fully satisfied or will have been put into a train of speedy adjustment." Lyons was instructed at the same time to call attention to other unsatisfied demands and to request an immediate settlement of them. A fortnight later (October 19th) Lyons wrote2 again to Palmerston, forwarding further correspondence with the Greek, Foreign Minister. "The refusal to pay M. Pacifico for the land purchased from him for the use of King Otho, in the face of the proofs he gives of the sale, is altogether incomprehensible, nor is it easy to understand how the Greek Government can expect to escape indemnifying him for the losses and injuries he sustained in consequence of the attacks upon his house." The correspondence thereupon continued with as little satisfaction to Palmerston, Lyons or the claimants. At the end of the year there was a change at the Ministry of Finance in Athens, and the new Minister was induced to promise to pay at least the sum still due for the acquisition of Pacifico's land. However, the Minister soon went back on his promise. Pacifico, in despair, offered two alternatives to the Minister, either to pay the balance due, or to return the land to Pacifico, whereupon he would refund the money he had already received on account of the transaction. This offer, however, led nowhere. The reply of the Greek Government was to the effect that the original contract for the purchase could not be found and the Ministry could not accept Pacifico's copy as valid. However the pressure of the British Minister did have effect, for on the 28th February 18493 Lyons was able to report to Palmerston that the Minister of Finance had promised to pay on that day the money due in respect of the land. And this money was paid. But even then an attempt was made to induce Pacifico to become a party to a curious proceed? ing whose purpose is not altogether clear. The Minister of Finance tried to persuade Pacifico to sign a receipt for a sum smaller than that which he was to receive. This suggestion Pacifico rejected as "incompatible with his own honour and injurious to neighbours who are in the same situation with regard to their property as himself?and in this I (Sir Edmund Lyons) also supported him." 1 2nd October, 1848. 2 F.O. 32 : No. 14 of 19th October, 1848. 3 F.O. 32 : No. 19.</page><page sequence="7">DON PACIFICO 7 The British Government's efforts did not however cease with this payment. Sir Edmund Lyons was transferred from Athens early in 1849 and he was succeeded as British Minister by Thomas Wyse, who was at once instructed by Palmerston to continue the efforts that had previously been made to secure the full payment of Pacifico's claims. This Wyse did, but similarly without effect. Wyse was not previously a member of the Diplomatic Service, but a member of the House of Commons. At the time of his appointment to Athens he held a minor government appointment and almost simultan? eously with his arrival in Athens had been made a Privy Councillor. Some years later he was made a K.C.B. Wyse, who was a Roman Catholic, had married in 1821 a niece of the Emperor Napoleon, but they had separated seven years later. Although the Greek Foreign Ministers, who followed one another in fairly quick succession, as a rule ignored the representations of the British Minister, they were not slow to ask for British intervention on behalf of their own subjects whenever such inter? vention was considered useful. One instance?on behalf of a Greek who was said to have been unjustly treated by the Egyptian Government?has already been mentioned. In September 1849 there was another appeal for British assistance, when Glarakis, the Foreign Minister at the time, asked that the Queen's Minister in Florence should be instructed to support the claim of certain Greek subjects at Leghorn in their demand for the restitution of the War contribution that had been levied on them eighteen months earlier.1 The British Government was, however, not so complaisant on this occasion. Not only did Palmerston refuse to intervene, but the opportunity was taken to tell the Greek Foreign Minister that "Her Majesty's Government.cannot refrain from expressing their surprise that the Greek Government should venture to ask the good offices of Her Majesty's Government to prevail on a third Power to satisfy the claims of subjects of the King of Greece while there are so many just claims of British and Ionian subjects still remaining unsatisfied by the Government of His Hellenic Majesty."2 During the month that elapsed between the appeal of the Greek Government and the reply, one slight movement had been made towards a settlement. Finlay had agreed to submit his claim against the Greek Government to arbitration and Wyse reported optimistically that that claim should therefore be within sight of settlement. He under? stood that, as soon as it was out of the way, the Greek Government would give considera? tion to the Pacifico claims. Wyse, however, did not yet know the ways of Greek diplomacy. The Finlay arbitration could certainly have been concluded within a few hours, but it wasn't. Very much ink and patience had still to be spent before any payment was made, or agreed to be made, to Pacifico. By December Wyse had to admit that his patience was exhausted. "All my efforts for the settlement of M. Pacifico's claim have proved ineffectual".3 However, he made one more effort before the end of the year. Taking advantage of the appointment of a new Greek Foreign Minister, M. Londos, he at once called "his immediate attention to the unsatisfied demands made on behalf of aggrieved British and Ionian subjects." This be considered to be "the best and frankest mode of responding to the confidence which Monsieur Londos invited."4 Palmerston approved this move. 1 F.O. 32 : Enclosure in No. 33 of 2nd September, 1849. 2 F.O. 32 : No. 43 of 8th October, 1849. 3 F.O. 32 : No. 63 of 8th December, 1849. 4 F.O. 32 : No. 69 of 26th December, 1849.</page><page sequence="8">8 DON PACIFICO In the meanwhile Palmerston had also begun to lose patience. The possibility of more positive action had been gradually entering his mind and in November 1849 he had written to Wyse giving him instructions regarding co-operation with Admiral Sir William Parker, who was in command of the fleet in the Mediterranean, with a view to obtaining a satisfactory settlement of the claims on the Greek Government. Parker was at the time in Turkish waters, sent there to support the Porte against the pressure brought to bear against it by the Russian and Austrian Emperors to surrender the Hungarian and Polish refugees who had fled to Turkey for protection after the abortive attempt by the Hungarians to gain their independence. The sending of the British fleet to the Dardanelles had aroused suspicions and uneasiness in all the principal chancelleries of Europe and had led to the appearance of a French fleet at Smyrna, which in its turn had aroused suspicions in Whitehall. But the Turkish difficulties were soon settled or on the way to settlement and the British fleet was, after not a long interval, sailing west. On this return, at the instance of the British Foreign Office, it went out of its way to call at the Piraeus and there it was at the disposal of Wyse in order to support his pressure on the Greek Government. With the fleet by his side Wyse was able to take a still stronger line. In his despatch to Palmerston of the 18th January 1850,1 he reported that he had reminded M. Londos, the Greek Foreign Minister, that24 "I left untried no opportunities or means of persuasion which could bring the question to an amicable settlement. M. Glarakis on five several occasions promised me that it should be entered on and on each proved unwilling or unable to redeem his pledge. Worn out at last by continued and ineffectual solicitations I informed him, and he agreed to the arrangement, that I should consider his silence as tantamount to a refusal of the demand". The Greek Government was given unofficially twenty-four hours in order to satisfy the British demands, in the absence of which, after the lapse of a further twenty-four hours, steps would be taken to compel compliance. Admiral Sir William Parker, who was present at the interview, confirmed Wyse's statement and said that he had full directions to support the demand in the most effective manner. M. Londos complained that further time was not given for consideration. On the following day, however, he informed Wyse that the Greek Government had appealed to the Govern? ments of France and Russia for their good offices, which appeal had been answered and he yet trusted that "through their amicable mediation the question might be adjusted." Wyse rejected the suggestion of arbitration or mediation. There was therefore no al? ternative but to present the formal note which had been foreshadowed. Later in the evening offers came from the French and Russian Ministers of their good offices but these were declined. Subsequent offers to the same effect were also declined. On the following day the Bavarian Minister also intervened and again suggested arbitration. In the meanwhile British residents were warned of the position of affairs and Pacifico and his family were taken on board a man-of-war. A blockade of the Piraeus, so far as government vessels was concerned, followed immediately. This proving ineffective, on the following day the British Minister and his staff embarked on a vessel of the blockading fleet. Correspondence ensued from the vessel between Wyse and the Greek Government and the French and Russian Ministers which led to no result. The line taken was that the British action amounted 1 F.O. 32: No. 2.</page><page sequence="9">DON PACIFICO 9 to "an attack on the independence of Greece, a disturbance of her tranquillity, an encroach? ment on her resources", and as such entitling the two other contracting powers to the Treaty of London (France and Russia), to step in and interpose their veto to the exercise of such right. "The detention of the few vessels, for the most part in a wretched condition and far below the amount of the compensation claimed, constituting the King's Fleet, has touched the pride of the Government, but has not induced it to yield. The "Otho", a schooner and a few gunboats have been detained; a corvette has been discovered at Poros, but so unseaworthy as not to be worth the removal, and our steamers are in pursuit of others".1 Wyse proposed as a next step the complete blockade of the Piraeus and of the ports of Patras and Syra. If these means were not effective an attack on private property and Greek commerce would have to follow. Greek inaction seemed to be based on the hope that the British fleet would soon be needed elsewhere and that then the control of the Greek vessels and property would come to an end. Wyse hinted at the same time that Greek intransigence was to some extent, at any rate, due to outside encouragement or pressure. Pacifico was the only British subject considered in need of special protection. The others were so far unmolested. A week later Wyse reported to Palmerston that the Russian representatives continued their support to Greece. "They have also apparently complied with the request of the Greek Government and placed their men-of-war at its disposal."2 The blockade was then extended to Greek merchant ships, all of those which could be caught being seized. At the beginning of February, a little later, Persiany, the Russian Charge d'Affaires, repeated the protest of Thouvenel. The argument was to the effect that the payment of the sums demanded by Britain would imperil the financial stability of the Greek Government on which depended the payment of interest on, and amortization of, the loan to Greece jointly guaranteed by the three powers.3 Greece had, however, already for some years defaulted on this loan and left the guaranteeing Powers to pay. And, as Wyse pointed out,4 financial stringency did not prevent the simultaneous appointment of expensive missions to Paris and St. Petersburg, intended, presumably, to urge the continuance of French and Russian support. Reporting5 on the 8th February the development of the blockade, Wyse said that the seizure of Greek vessels continued but no effect so far as the Greek Government was concerned was perceptible. "The intrigues of the Court: the almost incredible ignorance of the Ministry of the nature and extent of our demands ;6 the encouragement given by the Russian Charge d'Affaires and Party and by the French Minister (by proffering their services and promising the support of their respective governments) to this resistance of the Greek Government to our claims, continue to be the chief causes of this delay. The Greek Government still uses every effort to mislead the public both here and elsewhere as to the real nature of the case. They are vehemently, I might add virulently, seconded by the Russian organs of the Greek Press. 1 F.O. 32 : No. 3 of 18th January, 1850, and Further Correspondence respecting the Demands made upon the Greek Government . . . presented to both Houses of Parliament, 11 th May, 1850. 2 This statement was based on an unfounded rumour, but see F.O. 32 quoted below. 3 F.O. 32 : No. 11 of 7th February, 1850. 4 F. O. 32 : No. 8 of 29th January, 1850. 5 F.O. 32 : No. 12 of 8th February, 1850. ? The Greek Cabinet was apparently kept to a large extent in ignorance of the nature of the claims,</page><page sequence="10">10 DON PACIFICO The British Government is still represented as having made a sudden and peremptory demand, within twenty hours, for compensation, to an enormous and unproved amount, to a Jew of doubtful nationality ; all notice of previous remonstrances and continued indifferences on the part of the Greek Government continues to be suppressed, and the conclusion is drawn that these demands are mere pretexts set up to conceal a design to subvert (by fomenting discontent and embarrassing the public revenues) the present order of things, to dethrone the King and convert the Kingdom into a British dependency etc." In another despatch on the same day Wyse reported to Palmerston that the Greek Government was manifesting its determination not to comply with the demands of Great Britain.1 "The Greek Government shows no signs of yielding to our demands; and the French Minister and the Russian Charge d'Affaires not only continue to countenance their resistance, but attempt ... to convert a question simply affecting British and Greek interests, into a controversy between Great Britain and the two other Great Powers ; they have also apparently complied with the request of the Greek Government, and placed their men-of-war at its disposal". Practically the whole of the Greek navy had been secured, but its total value fell below the sum of the claims. The attachment of merchant vessels was therefore being proceeded with. The Greek Government apparently feared, or pretended to fear, that a bombardment of the Piraeus and a direct attack on Athens would follow. They communicated their fears to the Corps Diplomatique, who made joint representations to Wyse. The intention was to seize only as much property as was equal in value to the claims. The French and Russian representatives nevertheless protested at every step, but this may have been on their own responsibility.2 On the same day the Admiral in command, Sir William Parker, reporting to the Secretary of the Admiralty, said : "Since the first rumour of the embargo being contemplated every subterfuge has been resorted to, by tampering with the papers of Greek vessels, to exempt them and their cargoes from detention on the ground of their having been chartered by foreigners.and to stamp the cargoes as the property of Russians, Austrians and Turks."3 In the meanwhile the French Government was active in London, and the centre of interest was shifting from Athens. According to a despatch fron the French Ambassador in London published in The Times4' apparently based on information supplied by its Athens correspondent, Patrick O'Brien,5 who was very friendly disposed towards the Greek Government, the French Ambassador in London, Drouyn de Thuys demanded as a condition of the acceptance of French good offices in the dispute that (1) communica? tions between Athens and other parts of the Hellenic dominions should be re-established, 1 F.O. 32 : No. 13 of 8th February, 1850. 2 Further Correspondence, etc. (Wyse to Palmerston), No. 17 of 28th January, 1850. 3 Adm. 1/5603 : No. 36 of 8th February, 1850. 4 The Times, 22nd May, 1850. 5 O'Brien had previously served the newspaper in Constantinople. He was not altogether reliable and was at the end of the year dismissed from the service of The Times for other reasons. One of the principal reasons for his dismissal was that he had accepted favours from King Otho and his Government and could not therefore be considered impartial (History of the Times, II p. 241). The Paris Correspondent of The Times was J. B. O'Meagher who also got into trouble, but later, for making himself a mere mouthpiece of the President, Louis Napoleon (ibid. II p. 140).</page><page sequence="11">DON PACIFICO 11 (2) the obstacles that had been thrown in the way of commerce should be removed, (3) the blockade should be raised, and (4) the capture of Greek merchantmen should cease and the vessels already captured released. Palmerston replied that acceptance of the conditions was out of the question, and they were dropped. On the 15th Palmerston was in a position to write1 to Wyse forwarding a copy of a note sent to M. Drouyn de Thuys, the French Ambassador in London, in reply to an offer by the French Government of their good offices for the settlement of the differences that existed between Her Majesty's Government and that of Greece. This offer was accepted but it was made clear from the beginning that arbitration would not be accepted, only "good offices". On the question of the principle of the claims against Greece there was nothing to discuss. It had to be accepted. Once it had been accepted the details and the size of the claims against the Greek Government might be considered. There had for years been rivalry between Britain on the one hand and France, Russia, Austria and Prussia?in particular the first two Powers?on the other over the affairs of Greece. This went back to the Greek revolt against Turkey in 1820 and the establish? ment in 1832, as a sequel to it, of a constitutional monarchy, on the insistence of Britain, under the joint protection of Britain, France and Russia. Otho, a young Bavarian prince, had been chosen as the head of the new state. He was a boy at the time, but his develop? ment was not in the direction of constitutional monarchy. A most scathing character sketch from the pen of Lord Palmerston is to be found in a despatch to Lord Normanby, the British Ambassador in Paris.2 "Unfortunately it has happened that the King of Greece ever since his majority has pursued a system of policy diametrically at variance with the attainment of all these ends. Endowed by nature with a very limited capacity, he has nevertheless persuaded himself or has been persuaded by others that he is capable of managing alone all the affairs, great and small, of his kingdom, and though he is slow in making up his mind upon any thing, and is sometimes unable on some things to make up his mind at all, he looks upon any interference with his own personal will as a personal offence to himself. The consequence has-been that he has excluded from the service of the State all men of liberal political opinions, of self respect, and of independence of mind, and has surrounded himself with ministers who have been either so pliant in character as to be always ready to submit their opinions to his will, or who have been so deficient in the qualities required for the government of a state that they had scarcely any opinions for him to overrule." This scathing summary was followed in the same despatch with a criticism of the behaviour of the other Guaranteeing Powers. "For many years past King Otho has been encouraged in his vicious system of government by all the Powers of Europe with which he has diplomatic relations, with the single exception of England ; Russia, Austria and Prussia entertaining strong adversion to, and great dread of, constitutional principles, backed up King Otho in all his schemes for at first evading to grant a constitution, and for afterwards practically rendering that constitution a nullity. The Govern? ment of France might indeed have been looked to for support for the constitutional liberty of the Greeks, but the French Government, under the late Monarchy, abetted in Greece the same system of corruption and illegality which in France has brought the Monarchy to the ground." 1 F.O. 32 : No. 8 of 15th February, 1850. * F.O. 27 : No. 429 of 3rd October, 1848.</page><page sequence="12">12 DON PACIFICO And so that the views of the British Government should not pass unknown Palmer ston instructed Normanby to give a copy of the despatch to the French Foreign Minister. Normanby's reply1 was that he had handed a copy of the despatch to M. Bastide, the Foreign Minister, and, as a consequence, he anticipated that there would be "a disposition to depart from that spirit of antagonism between supposed French and English interests which had so frequently troubled the international relations during the last two years of the late reign." Eighteen months earlier2 Palmerston had also spoken very plainly to the French Government. "I have to instruct Your Excellency to tell M. Guizot3 that Her Majesty's Government are unable to perceive what object of political or com? mercial advantage there can be for the attainment of which England and France would find it worth while to engage in a struggle for influence over the Government of Greece." Then followed a very severe criticism of the Greek Prime Minister, Coletti, and his Ministers "supported by corruption, violence, intimidation and undue pressure." Coletti, the despatch said, was supported by King Otho "who hopes to use him as an instrument for the overthrow of the constitutional form of government." To return to the negotiations in London, these progressed with rapidity. Drouyn de Thuys, when he approached Palmerston at the beginning of February, intimated that the acceptance of the good offices of France "would be useful to them (the French Government) with reference to their position at home." Palmerston probably realized this, but he was not quite satisfied of the good faith of the French. If goodwill were shown on both sides the arrangement of an agreement, the principle of the acceptance of responsibility, could be merely a matter of days. Palmerston was therefore generous in suggesting three weeks as a maximum period, although he had to accompany this suggestion with the veiled threat that, if an agreement were not reached within that period, the pressure exercised by the fleet would have to be resumed.4 Baron Gros, a French diplomatist, was accepted as mediator, and in a further despatch5 to Normanby, Palmerston stated that "being convinced that if Baron Gros shall find after a reasonable time that he is not likely to succeed .... he will cordially, frankly, and without delay give notice thereof to Mr. Wyse." When informing Wyse on the same day of the course of the negotiations in London Palmerston added,6 so that there should be no misunderstanding, "if at the end of a reasonable time after the commencement of the discussions a satisfactory arrangement shall not have been concluded on all the matters in dispute, you will inform Sir Wm. Parker thereof in order that he may again have recourse to such means of coercion as on consultation with you he may deem necessary for obtaining the reparation which we require from the Greek Government." In the meanwhile the Greek naval and mercantile vessels that had been seized by Parker would remain under his control until full satisfaction has been actually given by the Greek Government. "As no dependence could be placed upon mere promises made by that Government if no sufficient pledges were kept in hand for the faithful execution of such promises and there 1 F.O. 27 : No. 644 of 13th October, 1848. 2 F.O. 27 : No. 183 of 14th May, 1847. 3 At the time French Foreign Minister. 4 F.O. 27 : No. 92 of 13th February, 1850. 5 F.O. 27 : No. 100 of 15th February, 1850. 8 F.O. 32 : No. 8 of 15th February, 1850.</page><page sequence="13">DON PACIFICO 13 would be great risk, if promises alone were trusted to, that those promises would be broken and that a necessity for active measures would again recur." This was followed on the next day by a further despatch1 informing Wyse of the choice of Gros as the organ of the good offices of the French Government. "Baron Gros is a man of sense and of a conciliatory disposition, and the choice seems to be a good one." But "Her Majesty's Government cannot give up any of the demands which have been made.It is possible.that propositions may be made to you respecting the detailed amount of Mr. Pacifico's claim; and you are not to hold yourself precluded from taking any such proposition into consideration if you should think it deserving of attention." It was said that this step by France was a consequence of rising anxiety regarding the intentions of Russia and the extent to which that Power was using the French intervention in support of its policy, which was suspected to be more pro-Russian than pro-French or pro-Greek. So far as Thouvenel, the French Minister in Athens between whom and Wyse relations were becoming less and less cordial, was concerned, the most was made of Gros's mission which was treated by his agents in the local press as a considerable French victory.2 It was generally believed that Thouvenel had gone so far as to request the French Admiral who was still at Smyrna to bring his squadron to Greek waters as a counter-stroke to Sir William Parker's action, but that the Admiral had declined to do so.3 Later in a very long despatch4 to Wyse, Palmerston made the position absolutely clear. "The French Government was distinctly informed by that note (to Drouyn de Thuys of 12 Feb.) that Her Majesty's Government accepted the good offices of France with a view to obtain through the friendly intervention of the French Government that satisfaction which they had taken steps to procure by other means, that Her Majesty's Government could not give up any of their demands, but would suspend coercive measures during the negotiation of the French Agent, trusting to his good faith and honour to inform you if he should fail in his efforts to bring matters to a satisfactory settlement; and that in that case reprisals would again begin. But that, although coercive measures would be suspended during the negotiation of the French Agent, the detained vessels could not be released until full satisfaction had been obtained. The French Government has.made repeated endeavours to obtain the immediate release of the detained merchant vessels, but Her Majesty's Government. have not felt it possible to yield to such suggestions .... The whole amount of (Pacifico's) claim (for damage and destruction of property) even taking Mr. Pacifico's own estimate falls somewhat short of ?5,000. The claim however may possibly admit of some reduction, if it can be shown that the values set by him upon the articles which he lost are in any instances obviously too high, but where only a doubt arises, it is but fair under the circumstances of the case that such doubt should be determined in his favor, and it is to be remembered that what he lost was everything of every kind that was in the house of a person represented as having been in easy circumstances at the time. There is nothing unreasonable in requiring that this aggregate amount should be paid down at once.The other and more considerable part of Mr. Pacifico's claim, that namely which consists of the alleged value of his claims on Portugal and of monies held by him in deposit, and which altogether amounts to about ?21,589, certainly 1 F.O. 32 : 16th February, 1850. 2 F.O. 32 : No. 24 of 27th February, 1850. 3 F.O. 27 : No. 126 of 26th February, 1850, Palmerston to Normanby. 4 F.O. 32 : No. 36 of 25th March, 1850, Palmerston to Wyse,</page><page sequence="14">14 DON PACIFICO admits of discussion and investigation. (On the subject of Pacifico's claims against the Portu? guese Government). It must be borne in mind that the Portuguese Government is not much more ready than the Greek Government is, to acknowledge or to satisfy even the best founded pecuniary demands.You will however bear in mind with regard to the whole of Mr. Pacifico's claims that it is the wish of Her Majesty's Government that you should not enforce any demand on the Greek Government on account of those claims unless you shall feel satisfied that the amount is fairly and justly due to him.'' Baron Gros reached Athens on the morning of the 5th of March and called on Wyse on board a British man-of-war on the following day. He described his mission as to bring about "if possible, in an amicable manner, the satisfactory adjustment of the differences now pending between the British and the Greek Governments." He was not appointed, he agreed, an arbitrator although he might suggest arbitration as a means of reaching an agreement.1 Later, as reported by Wyse,2 on the 28th March, Gros submitted a draft convention to him, in which he fully recognized the principle of the British demands and the right to indemnification. The draft was, however, not acceptable and a series of negotiations covering a period of seven weeks then ensued. It soon became apparent that Gros, despite his definite statement of the 28th of March and the earlier agreement between Britain and France, was anxious to take up the position of arbitrator between Britain and Greece, and, although his function was to get the two Powers to agree, it transpired that he refused to put before the Greek Government any proposals to which he had not himself previously agreed. In this he seems to have been very much under the influence of Thouvenel. While agreeing that Pacifico should be "placed in the same position as far as possible as that in which he stood the day his house was attacked", Gros described Pacifico's claims as grossly inflated and stated that so far from being a man of wealth, before his property was stolen or destroyed, he was in fact a man of very moderate means, at the time in financial difficulties.3 Wyse staunchly defended his protege* against these charges and thus a new source of dispute between Wyse and Gros arose. The correspondence throws some light on the manner of living of a more or less prosperous Jew in south-eastern Europe a century ago. "I observed in answer that it was common in the East to meet amongst persons of M. Pacifico's persuasion all the externals of poverty with a large amount of hidden wealth. They found it necessary to conceal rather than display in the midst of an envious and hostile popula? tion. The testimony of Greeks in reference to Jews was always suspicious and at the present moment must particularly be so." Then followed Pacifico's explanation. "He reasserts his possession of valuable articles of furniture derived from his grandfather who appears to have purchased them in Portugal, the relics probably of some decayed noble house. They appear to have been brought here, as far as I can understand, in the hope of ultimately selling them to the King and not for private use. This will account for their richness so much beyond the position of a private individual, and perhaps also for their conceal? ment. The jewels of his wife, which form the largest item of his Inventory, are explained by the well known custom in these countries of Israelite women using them as ornaments 1 F.O. 32: No. 30 of 8th March, 1850. 2 F.O. 32 : No. 36 of 28th March, 1850. 3 F.O. 32 ; No. 40 of 2nd April, 1840, Wyse to Palmerston.</page><page sequence="15">DON PACIFICO 15 on all public and family festivals, and Madame Pacifico has been seen more than once so attired."1 Pacifico, however, agreed to reduce his claims on the ground of loss or destruction of property by thirty per cent, apart from those against the Portuguese Government for which the destroyed documents were the security. As for the latter he was willing to accept whatever sum the British Government considered to be due to him.2 This, however, did not satisfy Gros. In the meanwhile he had apparently been making enquiries of the Portuguese authorities and claimed to have made two discoveries. He produced a communication from the Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs3 to the effect that Pacifico was naturalized a Portuguese subject in 1822 and was nominated Consul for Portgual in Greece in January 1837. In consequence of the numerous complaints against him he was relieved of office in January 1842. Pacifico refused to surrender his office and threatened to make large claims against the Portuguese Govern? ment for losses sustained in its service. He made in December 1844 a claim on this account for 94,645,925 reis, later reduced to 80 million (450,000 francs). The Portuguese Government did not admit the claim in support of which no document was produced. In any event this claim was already ruled out by a statute of limitations. The only justifiable claim was for ?197.4.3 in respect of expenses of his consulate defrayed by him, and an extract4 from a despatch by the Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs to the effect that Pacifico when soliciting the appointment of Consul in Morocco stated that, although the usurper (Don Miguel) had confiscated and stolen his property, he would not require the legitimate government to indemnify him for his losses. Palmerston's comment on this evidence to Wyse was : "The fact that Mr. Pacifico became a Portuguese subject by naturalisation tends to confirm his claim to be considered a British subject by birthright."5 The proceedings of Baron Gros inevitably had their effect on the relations between him and Wyse which had at first been frank and cordial. On the 12th of April Wyse reported6 to Palmerston an interview of a painful character that lasted for three-and-a-half hours. In this Baron Gros continued to show a misapprehension or an assumed mis? apprehension of his functions as a friend of the two parties to the dispute and in the end he expressed the view that it would be best for him to withdraw from the talks, to inform the Greek Government of the position and to leave the two contestants to settle the matter between themselves. Palmerston's comment on this despatch was : "Baron Gros seems to have wished to invest the character in which he was acting, and to have considered himself as the organ of the good offices of France to obtain from us on behalf of the Greek Government the greatest possible diminution of our demands instead of being as he is the organ of the good offices of France to obtain for us from the Greek Government satisfaction for our demands without the further employment of forcible means. Baron Gros moreover seems to have acted with some degree of artifice by first endeavouring to obtain from Mr. Wyse concessions in regard to conditions upon the ground that there was to be the formality of a convention and then to have turned suddenly round and to have proposed that 1 Ibid. 2 F.O. 32 : No. 45 of 6th April, 1840, Wyse to Palmerston. 3 End. 4 to F.O. 32 : No. 46 of 8th April, 1850. 4 Encl. 5 to idem. 5 F.O. 32 : No. 34 of 25th March, 1850. 6 F.O. 32 : No. 49 of 12th April, 1850,</page><page sequence="16">16 DON PACIFICO those modified conditions should be carried into effect without the satisfaction which the formality of a convention would afford." However, this was not the end. Three days later (15th April) Wyse and Gros had their seventh formal discussion and, as a result, Gros promised to recommend to the Greek Government that they should pay, with the interest that had accrued, the claims made on behalf of the aggrieved British subjects other than Pacifico and should make a written apology for the affront given to Her Majesty's Navy in the affair of the "Fantome". With regard to Pacifico's claims the principle was to be admitted and such amount in compensation for wrongs and losses as would suffice to cover the ?500 demand? ed in reparation for his personal sufferings, the ?293 of deposits, the full amount demand? ed on his own estimate for injury to his house, loss of plate, ready money and provisions with interest, and allow him about ?350 for the loss of his furniture and jewellery, capital and interest both included.1 The loss of papers on which Pacifico's claims against the Portuguese Government were based was ignored. Gros said that he thought that the Greek Government would accept this recommendation. Wyse asked in addition for full compensation for the loss of furniture and jewellery and secondly for "a sufficiently valid security" for the payment of compensation for the loss of the Portuguese papers as should be considered adequate after investigation. This was resisted by Gros on the ground that the fulfilment of his proposals were more than adequate to cover all of Pacifico's losses (Pacifico's estimate was about ?5,600 for the items covered by the suggested ?350). On the proposal regarding the Portuguese claims, Gros seemed more amenable. As for security Wyse suggested either the deposit of bank shares to the value of ?5,300 or the continued detention of ships of war. Mere promises to pay would not be accepted in view of the Greek Government's past procrastination. Another meeting took place on the following day (April 16). Gros accepted the suggested deposit of Bank shares as security provided they remained under the control of the Greek Government. Wyse insisted that they should be at the Bank of England or Bank of France. Gros agreed to reconsider this proposal. The value of the shares, 150,000 drachmae (about ?5,500) was accepted. But no agreement could be made regarding the offer of ?350 as against the claim of ?5,600, and Gros again threatened to withdraw from the negotiations.2 At this point one gets a glimpse of Pacifico's past as stated by him. The statements were drawn up to counteract those that were circulating regarding Pacifico and his bona fides and were sent by Wyse to Palmerston.3 According to these Pacifico was born at Gibraltar, and his father was also born there. His grandfather was born in London. He stated that he could produce a dissolution of partnership between his brother and himself made at Lagos (? in Portugal) in the year 1822 and attested by a Portuguese notary public and by the British Vice-Consul there, "by both of whom I am stated to be a British subject" and a letter of introduction dated Sept. 11 1828, by the Governor of Gibraltar, in which he was also described as a British subject. He was appointed Portuguese Consul-General in Athens in January 1837 but did not take up the appointment until 1839. He resigned that office because it was a sinecure and in consequence, apart from any salary or fees, there was no means of re? imbursing his expenses. During the three years of his consulship not one Portuguese 1 F.O. No. 32 : No. 50 of 15th April, 1850, Wyse to Palmerston, 2 F.O. 32 : No. 51 of 17th April, 1850. 3 F.O, 32 : No, 52 of 18th April, 1850,</page><page sequence="17">DON PACIFICO 17 vessel had come to Greece. Previously in February 1835 he had been appointed a Portuguese Consul in Morocco ("a very lucrative appointment") in order to reimburse himself in part for his claim, but the Emperor of Morocco's influence was strong enough to keep in office his predecessor, so he never acted there. With regard to other charges Pacifico stated that he had never asked for subscriptions for himself but only from Jews for the establishment of a synagogue for which his neighbour, the Duchesse de Plaisance,1 gave him a piece of land. The ninth meeting between Wyse and Gros took place on the 21st April.2 At this meeting the existing differences were reduced to those on the claims against Portugal. But a new one arose regarding possible claims against the British Government on the part of Greek subjects, who may have suffered from the blockade and seizure of vessels by the British Navy. Wyse had in the meanwhile learnt that the Greek Government had taken steps to encourage such claims in the hope apparently that the total of the alleged damages consequent on the blockade would far exceed in amount the British claims. Gros also at this meeting withdrew his earlier acceptance of the principle of security for the payment of the Portuguese claims. This was the end of the negotiations, for which a time limit of about three weeks had originally been given, which it was thought could have been concluded in twenty-four hours and which had lasted seven weeks. On the 24th of April, Wyse informed3 Palmerston that Gros had announced their close or suspension and that as a consequence and in accordance with earlier instructions the British fleet had resumed the seizure of Greek vessels. Events then moved rapidly. On the 27th of April Wyse reported to Palmerston that public opinion in Greece was likely to force on the Government a settlement with Britain and, as a consequence of the developments, dissensions had shown themselves not only in both Houses of Parliament but also in the Cabinet and that the Greek Government had asked him for a statement of the conditions that would be acceptable in settlement of all the British demands.4 On the following day Wyse was in a position to report5 that all the differences had been satisfactorily settled. The demands has been accepted including the deposit of security for the meeting of the claims for the loss of the Portuguese documents ; and also that the Greek Government would undertake not to encourage or support any claim that might be made against the British Government in respect of the blockade. As a consequence the blockade had been raised and the vessels that had been seized released. The Greek Chamber had passed the necessary vote of credit amid "the satisfaction of the public in general." Pacifico on his part sent 5,000 drachmae (?180) to the British Admiralty for distribution among the Greek sufferers whose vessels may have been inadvertently damaged during the blockade. Admiral Parker felt himself bound to decline the gift, but he added : "I cannot but highly appreciate the generous and honorable motive which dictates your liberal offer and induces me to suggest that some upright and disinterested individual, 1 The Duchess de Plaisance or Placentia, the widow of the statesman and scholar who was Third Consul with Napoleon, had settled in Athens where she was a neighbour of Pacifico. Among the libellous rumours that were spread was one, in support of the charge of poverty brought against Pacifico, that she had given him money to relieve his needs. This she denied. She had, she said, given a piece of land for a synagogue and had also, when Pacifico had turned his elder daughter and her husband out of his house, befriended them. 2 F.O. 32 : No. 53 of 22nd April, 1850, Wyse to Palmerston. 3 F.O. 32 : No. 54 of 24th April. 4 F.O. 32 : Nos. 56 and 57 of 27th April, 1850. 6 F.O. 32 : No. 58 of 28th April.</page><page sequence="18">18 DON PACIFICO unconnected with Her Majesty's Squadron or functionaries, would with greater propriety execute your wishes.1 Admiral Parker duly reported Pacifico's offer on the 30th of April and after waiting some days wrote again, on the 12th of May, suggesting that, as the Greek Government had apparently no intention of compensating their nationals for the damage sustained in the course of the seizure of the vessels, the British Government should do so. The sum involved would, it was thought, be about ?120. This was done.2 However, events had also been moving in London. The proceedings in Athens had been watched most jealously by the diplomatic representatives there of the two other Great Powers?France and Russia?which were jointly with Britain guarantors of the independence of Greece and whose mutual jealousy alone prevented them from mobilizing a powerful opposition to the actions of Palmerston, in whom also in other spheres they had an imperfect confidence. There was also Berlin, the capital of a Power that was rapidly increasing in strength, and also Bavaria, one of whose young princes had been placed on the throne at Athens and whose Government therefore considered Greek interests to be almost identical with its own. One other cause of cooperation between those Powers?especially Russia and Greece?and also of the Austrian Empire was an instinctive hatred of whatever savoured of democracy or liberalism. Britain was the beacon of democracy and liberty in Europe in the mid-nineteenth century. The King of the Hellenes was of his nature, without any encouragement, sympathetic towards the dictatorial form of government. The Czar was to him the ideal ruler : not the Queen of England or even the Prince-President of the French Republic. Of King Otho as he appeared in the eyes of Palmerston a brief but biting character sketch is also to be found in the despatches of that statesman to the British embassy in Berlin as early as August 1847 : "The system of corruption and tyranny now carried on in Greece by the Minister, whom the King of Greece supports by means which are unconstitutional and illegal, must tend to shake the attachment and respect of the Greek Nation to their Sovereign, and must sooner or later place the Bavarian Dynasty in great and serious danger.3 The persevering and rooted hatred which King Otho seems to feel for Constitutional Government is the true and real cause of all the disorders and evils which affect Greece, and that it must in the end prove disastrous to His Hellenic Majesty, for it tends to create an impression that he is little fit to govern a Nation which is qualified by its intellect, its attainments and its love of liberty for that free constitution which it is rightfully entitled to enjoy and which it is fully determined to have. This conflict between a whole nation and one man can have but one termination and that termination, if the conflict is continued, will be like those events of a similar kind of which the pages of history record such numerous examples."4 And so that his views should not be confined to a small circle the Charge d' Affaires was instructed to give copies of the despatches to the Prussian Foreign Minister, Baron Canitz. The French reacted immediately against the positive action taken by the British 1 F.O. 32 : No. 60 of 2nd May, 1850 (Wyse to Palmerston). 2 Adm. 1/5603 : Nos. 126 of 12th May, and 164 of 21st June (Parker to Secretary to Admiralty). 3 F.O. 64 : No. 32 of 31st August, 1847 (Palmerston to Henry Howard). 4 F.O. 64 : No. 50 of 8th October, 1847 (Palmerston to Howard). Palmerston was a true prophet. In 1862 Otho was dethroned and expelled by his long-suffering subjects.</page><page sequence="19">DON PACIFICO 19 fleet in Greek waters, and Lord Normanby, the British Ambassador in Paris, reported at length to Palmers ton on those reactions on the 31st January, 1850.1 Londos, the Greek Minister, had at once appealed to Thouvenel for advice and Thouvenel had endeavoured ineffectually to get the threatened action by the British fleet postponed. General de la Hitte, the French Foreign Minister, remarked with some warmth that: "it was much to be regretted that so fine a fleet which had just been engaged in concert with their own upon so important a service should thus make use of its immense power to enforce such trivial and unimportant demands at a moment's notice from a feeble state." Palmerston's comment on this was : "the perfect good understanding and cordial cooperation between the Governments of England and France on matters concerning the common interests and policy of the two countries do not seem to constitute any reason why the French Minister at Athens should have been called upon by Her Majesty's Minister to become a party to demands in which France had no concern and which regard solely the interests of British subjects." The following day Normanby again reported2 to Palmerston to the effect that the French Foreign Minister had again complained that Thouvenel had been kept in the dark. He deplored the result of forcing the French and Russian representatives in Athens into close co-operation in apparent antagonism to the British representative. Normanby reported that the French Foreign Minister was in this matter supported by all classes and parties in France. Normanby, the whole of whose efforts were being devoted to building up the closest of relationships between the French Government and his own, expressed himself in very critical terms on the action taken by Wyse and Admiral Parker in Athens. Palmerston's comment on this despatch was very brief: "This may be put away." A further comment of Palmerston's on another despatch3 from Normanby a few days later ran : "There is nothing in the relative political situation of Greece, France and Great Britain which can in any degree restrain or impair the right of Great Britain to employ her own means to obtain from the Greek Government redress for wrongs inflicted by that Government upon British or Ionian subjects." That there was something behind the hint of General de la Hitte of close Russo French co-operation was supported in a despatch from Normanby of the 7th of March.4 In this the British Ambassador reported that it was generally believed that the Russian Foreign Minister had expressed "the desire of the Emperor of Russia to come to some understanding with the Government of France as to the course to be pursued by the two Powers, equally concerned in maintaining the independence of Greece, in conse? quence of the recent proceedings of Her Majesty's Government." On the 12th of February Lord Bloomfield, the British Ambassador in St. Petersburg, had reported5 that Count Nesselrode, the Russian Chancellor, had expressed his "surprise and regret" at recent British action in Athens. "Her Majesty's Government had acted with un? necessary haste in adopting measures of such extreme severity." Nesselrode was of 1 F.O. 27 : No. 37 of 31st January, 1850. 2 F.O. 27 : No. 40 of 1st February, 1850. 3 F.O. 27 i No. 46 of 7th February, 1850. 4 F.O. 27 : No. 90 of 7th March, 1850. 5 F.O. 65 : No. 45. Lord Bloomfield to Lord Palmerston.</page><page sequence="20">20 DON PACIFICO opinion that the claims were exaggerated and that resort should have been had to arbitra? tion and thereby a fair settlement reached without exposing Europe to a general conflagra? tion which, in its then distracted state,1 might possibly result from this step, especially as a feeling of great animosity against England had been raised in France. "His Excellency added : cYou probably are already aware how the Affair is even spoken of at St. Petersburgh and the sensation it has generally produced." A few days later2 Bloomfield wrote again. Nesselrode was still more annoyed at the proceedings in Greece, and pressed the view that France and Russia should at least have been informed of Britain's intentions. Bloomfield had replied to Nesselrode to the effect that : "we were not in the habit of asking advice of other countries as to the mode in which we thought it proper to effect from time to time a settlement of the numberless private claims of Her Majesty's subjects on Foreign Governments and, further, it appeared to me that, even if we had communicated our intentions, the Russian Government seems already to have prejudged the case." To the reports about the same period that the Bavarian Government was urging on Nesselrode the opinion that "the British demands on Greece are greatly exaggerated" came the somewhat tart reply:3 "I have to observe that the Bavarian Minister could scarcely have been cognizant of the amount of the British claims, or of the manner in which the application of Her Majesty's Government respecting them had been dealt with by the Greek Government." The relations between Britain and her fellow guaran? tors of the independence of Greece were obviously becoming strained. As early as August 1847 Palmerston had sent a rather sharp message to the Russian Government. "Tell Nesselrode and the Emperor" (he had said in a letter to the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg) "that if they think the enforcement of our demands would be injurious to the 1 Europe was at the time in a state of almost universal unsettlement. The effects of the wide? spread revolutions, some successful, some failures, had by no means subsided. Everywhere there were fears, suspicions, unsatisfied ambitions and longings for revenge. Louis Napoleon had been only two years back in France and was already looking forward to securing the Imperial Crown. The struggle for the consolidation and at the same time the liberalization of Germany had commenced, but had not been completed. In the Empire Hungary had revolted against Austria and Bohemia against Hungary. The Hungarian rebels had been suppressed by Russian and Austrian armies fighting side by side and, when the armies had succeeded, their Govern? ments had begun to threaten Turkey in whose support the British fleet was sent to the Darda? nelles and the French fleet to Smyrna. The relations between Greece and Turkey were strained. Switzerland had had a civil war. The death of the King of Denmark had brought the question of the succession to the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein to the fore and it was only after fighting had commenced that a temporary settlement was arranged, as a prelude to the war between Denmark and Prussia a decade later. In Portugal the Pretender, Don Miguel, had attempted to seize the throne and in neighbouring Spain the question of the succession had brought France and Prussia to the verge of war. The last remnant of an independent Poland had been annexed by Austria. From the north to the south of Italy there was fighting as a consequence of which independent states disappeared and both Austrian rule and that of the Pope were made aware of the approaching shadows that were to engulf them. There was an abortive revolution in Belgium and insurrection in Poland. Even in Asia Britain had sent an expedition to China and France one to Cochin-China, while in the Punjab there was an in? surrection against British rule. In America the United States forces had invaded Mexico and more or less private armies were being recruited and equipped for the seizure of Cuba, while in South America civil war and rebellion had been endemic for decades and continued to be so for further decades. 2 F.O. 65: No. 55 of 23rd February, 1850. 3 F.O. 97 : No. 93 of 26th February, 1850.</page><page sequence="21">DON PACIFIGO 21 stability of Greece, an opinion which we in no degree share, the only way of preventing it is to persuade Coletti1" to do what we require as the Greeks have ample means to pay us if they choose".2 But Pafmerston had no desire to carry matters too far. If he had he could not have secured the support of his Cabinet, not to mention the English people. All he desired was that British power and prestige should be kept untarnished and that justice should be done to even the least of Her Majesty's subjects. Furthermore, Palmerston had no desire that France and Russia should be brought into closer relations. The suggested mission of Baron Gros to exercise his good offices in bringing about an agreement in Athens had promised a way out of the impasse. With the failure of this mission the centre of the scene changed again to London and there events moved rapidly. A draft convention not differing very much from that on which it had not been found possible to get agreement in Athens was accepted by Palmerston and the French Ambassador and it was decided to impose it on the Greek Government if that were necessary. Under this draft Pacifico was to receive a sum of ?8,500 in settlement of all his claims apart from those arising out of the destruction of the papers that were said to support his claim against the Portuguese Government. That last claim was to be investigated by a joint commission to be nominated by Britain, France and Greece. The claims by the other British nationals were at the same time to be settled and the insult to the British flag which had also been included in the discussions expiated by an apology. The London Agreement, however, included one proviso. "It must be understood that if, at the time when these drafts shall arrive at Athens, any different arrangement shall have been agreed to by the British, French and Greek plenipoten? tiaries that different arrangement must stand good and this proposed plan of settlement, being no longer requisite, will fall to the ground."3 When sending the copy of this draft to Wyse and at the same time giving his approval to the draft convention communicated to Gros on the 29th of March, Palmerston said : "I reduce M. Pacifico's claim for losses of furniture and property by the plunder and sacking of his house from ?4,911 to ?4,000, there being reason to think that some of the values put by him upon the things returned as lost may be considered as exaggerated."4 De la Hitte received the news of this agreement "with much pleasure", but made one last effort to get the entire sum to be paid to Pacifico left open for farther negotiations. Palmerston refused and de la Hitte gave way.5 Communications between Greece and Western Europe were tardy in those days and it was not until the 8th of May that the news reached Paris of the failure in Athens and the resumption of hostile operations by the British fleet, followed by the submission of the Greek Government. The news was quite unexpected and in the words of Norman by's despatch6 to Palmerston had produced "the most painful impression on the President (of the Republic) and his Cabinet." De la Hitte said that Wyse had issued his ultimatum 1 Prime Minister of Greece. 2 Evelyn Ashley, Life of Lord Palmenton, (1876), I. pp. 100-1. 3 F.O. 27 : No. 255 of 18th April, 1850 (Palmerston to Normanby). 4 Further Correspondence, etc. No. 100 of 19th April, 1850 (Palmerston to Wyse). 5 F.O. 27 : No. 152 of 19th April, and No. 154 of 23rd April (Normanby to Palmerston). 6 F.O. 27: No. 173 of 9 May. c</page><page sequence="22">22 D?N PACIFICO in Athens two days after news of the London Agreement had reached Athens. Wyse had notwithstanding insisted on conditions that had not been pressed in London and the Greek Government, in its weakness, had been forced to give way. General de la Hitte said: "the rest of the Cabinet were like himself inclined to view this as a very grave affair and seriously calculated to interrupt that good understanding between the two governments on which he had set so high a value and on the maintenance of which so many great interests at this hour depended." General de la Hitte reminded Normanby that: "Many weeks since he had communicated to me a despatch from St. Petersburg in which it was stated that the Russian advice sent to Athens was that in case of the failure of Baron Gros' mission, which they believed probable, the Greek Government was to yield at once and protest in the face of Europe that they only ceded to superior force, and the General added and the result of all the efforts we have made and the sacrifices of opinion we have accepted to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion for you is that you make us the laughing-stock of Europe, and especially of Russia whose obvious policy you advance." Normanby, in a secret unnumbered despatch on the following day, added that the French Cabinet and Press were deeply offended by the developments and that the feeling in the Cabinet had spread to the Assembly : "Today General de la Hitte does not go to the Assembly at all, but I should dread in the present state of exasperation that any explanations in the Chamber might be accompanied by circumstances which would be permanently injurious to that mutual good feeling which has of late so happily prevailed between the two countries." Palmerston's reply1 was brief and unruffled. "The arrangement which has been concluded between Mr. Wyse and the Greek Government does not differ very essentially from the stipulations of the convention which had been setded by M. Drouyn de Thuys and myself." Her Majesty's Government, however, was willing to accept either of the two agreements, between which there was little difference, except that one had already been put into effect. They had better therefore abide by it. Two days later, on the 13th of May, Normanby reported2 de la Hitte to be still in a state of great indignation. Normanby was of opinion that, if the deposit in respect of the Portuguese papers were not insisted on, the French would be mollified. The other differences between the two agreements he considered trivial: "I took this opportunity of expressing my great regret to General de la Hitte at the unmeasured language which I understood had been used in conversation by some of his colleagues to members of the Assembly. I said that it was not by such means that statesmen steered safely through all the difficulties of international relations and that I also regretted that he himself had thought it necessary to qualify by any epithet the intelligence of which he had not received the explanation." 1 F.O. 27 : No. 282 of 11 May, 1850. 2 F.O. 27 : No. 177 of 13th May.</page><page sequence="23">DON PACIFICO 23 In a later despatch1 of the same day, Normanby continued : "I had a long interview with the President this morning.He.could riot say how much he regretted what had occurred. I could have no idea of the impression made by this event on the public mind here. He had never witnessed anything like it. He highly disapproved of the violent articles in some of the newspapers but this only further showed the general excitement.It must surely be the wish of England, at this moment when such dangers were threatening on every side, not to place in jeopardy the only government which could maintain order here." The reference to a newspaper campaign did not relate to a new development. One fed from Greece had been raging for at least two months and de la Hitte had earlier attempted to use it in support of his arguments. Palmerston had, however, brushed it aside as irrelevant. "With reference moreover to what General de la Hitte said in regard to newspaper articles and reports from Greece it is obviously impossible for the British Government to alter the course which on full consideration it has adopted, merely on account of ex parte statements sent from Greece and published in the Opposition papers in France, or on account of exag? gerated reports which may come from Petersburgh as to the nature and effect of the operations of the British squadron at Athens."2 The excitement in France continued and culminated in the recall of the French Ambassador from London. "M. Drouyn had on Wednesday the 15th read to me, but without giving me a copy, General de la Hitte's letter in which it was announced that M. Drouyn was ordered to Paris in consequence of the dissatisfaction felt by the French Government at the manner in which the differences between England and Greece had been terminated at Athens."3 Normanby had, two days earlier, been given the same information in Paris. He had said to de la Hitte on the occasion "I thought that posterity would feel that history hardly afforded a parallel of the relations of two great countries with so many interests in common, having been accompanied with so much legerite"* More or less by coincidence Drouyn de Thuys' recall from Paris coincided with the celebration of the Queen's birthday? he was asked to postpone his departure on this account, but pleaded that it was necessary for him to be in Paris without delay?and his seat at the official banquet on the occasion was vacant. In Berlin the French Minister, the Due de Persigny, who had previously been in Athens where his relations with the British Minister had not been cordial, absented himself from a ball that "the British Minister gave to mark the same occasion. He saw in the measures which had been pursued with regard to the Greek affairs an apparent want of consideration for France which he felt so strongly that he would not remain a moment in the service of his Government unless such explanations were obtained from the British Government as would satisfy him that the honour of his country had been respected."5 1 F.O. 27 : Secret of 13th May, 1850. 2 F.O. 27 : No. 180 of 15th March and 186 of 19th March, 1850. Palmerston and Normanby. 3 F.O. 27 : No. 292 of 18th May, 1850 (Palmerston to Normanby). 4 F.O. 27 : No. 180 of 16th May, 1850 (Normanby to Palmerston). 5 F.O. 64 : No. 176 of 15th May, 1850 (Lord Westmorland to Palmerston).</page><page sequence="24">24 DON PACIFICO The recall of the Russian Ambassador from London, it is known, was also considered and it was thought not improbable that the Austrian Government was about to take a similar step. For Greece had appealed to all three Powers for support and no one of them wished to be considered less determined than the others. Both the Russian Ambassador and the Bavarian Minister absented themselves from the diplomatic banquet. Then arose a new, though minor, controversy around the good faith of the British and French representatives in Athens. Wyse was accused by the French of forcing his ultimatum on Greece and compelling her to submit, despite the impending agreement in London of which he should have been aware. Wyse, on the other hand?and Paimer ston supported him?complained that Gros had kept from him the knowledge he had of the agreement that was impending between Paris and London in order that Greece and Britain should be still further estranged. The only instructions to Baron Gros to which Palmerston would throughout the negotiations agree were that he should use his good offices to induce the Greeks to accept the British terms. This was apparently in accordance with the instructions he had received. For de la Hitte, amidst much talk of "French honour," admitted to Normanby that the instructions to Baron Gros v/ere to communicate to the Greek Government only those proposals of which he approved.1 Gros, however, had consistently attempted to play the role of arbitrator and, it seemed, even refused to communicate to the Greek Government any proposals which he himself was not prepared to accept. A minor complaint, on which the Greeks were very insistent and which was very strongly supported not only by the French but also by the Russians, was that immediately on the appointment of Gros the Greek vessels that had been seized by the British fleet should have been released. This course had been suggested more than once earlier but had been consistently rejected. Whatever the reason for Wyse's failure to suspend action in view of the pending settlement in London or for Gros' failure to inform Wyse of the pending settlement, Wyse's ultimatum and the London agreement were practically simultaneous. The differences between them were also in effect small, but these were also matters of prestige; in this regard the French were far more sensitive than the British. There was therefore little in the way of a final settlement. This was, however, delayed for a short time, for Palmerston was by no means persona grata on the Continent and there was a not un influential party in England that would have been pleased to see him replaced at the Foreign Office. However, Palmerston's enemies were not at that time strong enough to secure his removal and every one had to make the best he could of the situation as it existed. Normanby had in the meanwhile also complained that he had not been kept fully informed of developments. Apparently the Foreign Office machine was not at the time working at full efficiency. This complaint led to a very lengthy despatch2 from Palmerston in which he recapitulated much that had gone before. "On the 15th of April M. Drouyn de Thuys came to me and proposed a new course of proceeding. He said that it was evident that the negotiation at Athens encountered some difficulties which did not seem likely to be soon overcome : that nothing but the weight of the joint authority of our two Governments would bring these matters to a speedy termination; that the French and British negotiators had been exchanging drafts and counter-drafts of 1 F.O. 27 : No. 187 of 21st May, 1850 (Normanby to Palmerston). 2 F.O. 27 : No. 293 of 19th May, 1850.</page><page sequence="25">DON PACIFICO 25 conventions without coming to any agreement with each other or with the Greek Government; and he proposed therefore that he and I should settle the draft of a convention which should be presented to the Greek Government as having been approved by the Government of Great Britain as the Party concerned and should be recommended to the Greek Government by the Government of France in the employment of its good offices between the Governments of Great Britain and of Greece. I willingly agreed to this proposal." Agreement was quickly reached in London. It was laid down that if in the meanwhile an agreement had been made in Athens this should be accepted. Such a settlement as had been foreseen was made in Athens although Baron Gros was no party to it. Baron Gros had always replied that he was instructed to present nothing to the Greek Govern? ment which he did not himself approve of and whenever a difference of opinion arose between himself and Mr. Wyse he was to request Mr. Wyse to maintain the status quo and to refer home for instructions. As a consequence Baron Gros always refused to transmit to the Greek Government Wyse's proposals to which he personally objected. The despatch, which was to be shown to the French Foreign Minister, was concilitary, although exculpatory. It suggested that the settlement in respect of the Portuguese claims should be left to a Franco-British-Greek ad hoc commission. However the French were not yet mollified. Normanby writing1 to Palmerston on the 21st of May said that: "The President expressed his deep regret that the conduct of the English Government had forced him to take a step so contrary to his inclination. He could not understand how this had arisen; that he could have imagined Her Majesty's Government declining his interference in the first instance, but why, having accepted it, they should wantonly excite public opinion in France against his Government, and make it ridiculous in the eyes of Europe he could not anyhow explain." In the meanwhile a press war was raging between England and France; in this, however, the division was not a national one, for British papers did not hesitate to suggest that their own Government was intriguing with the Opposition in France to weaken the position of the regime. An agreement was, however, in sight. On the 23rd of May Palmerston agreed to forgo the deposit required in respect of the Portuguese papers2 and the sum deposited was returned to the Greek Government. The French Govern? ment, however, still continued to press for the London Convention in preference to the Athens Agreement, considering their self-respect involved, and the suggestions that appeared in the English press that differences had arisen between the President and his Cabinet made the President only the more determined. If only for domestic political reasons it was considered necessary that the London Convention should be accepted. Normanby pointed out3 that the alternative course was to accept the Convention, but "? l'aimable" with regard to those parts of it in which the circumstances had been altered, and to reconsider and discuss with open minds those parts of the Convention that had opportunities for change. The first part of the proposal would at once restore relations to their former footing. With regard to the latter Normanby was not very optimistic. The two parties nevertheless began to approach one another, until only one point of 1 F.O. 27 : No. 188 of 21st May, 1850. 2 F.O. 27 : No. 297 of 23rd May, 1850 (Palmerston to Normanby). 3 F.O. 27 : No. 199 of 26th May, 1850 (Normanby to Palmerston).</page><page sequence="26">26 DON PACIFICO difference remained, one that had been introduced at the last moment in Athens?that the Greek Government should undertake not only not to encourage but positively to discourage all claims against the British Government by private persons for loss or damage sustained in the course of the operations of the Fleet. On this de la Hitte undertook to give the Greek Government "the strongest advice possible to abstain from encouraging or supporting such claims." If the British Government would give way on this point, Drouyn de Thuys would return to London.1 On the following day Normanby emphasized the arguments in favour of this proposed course.2 The French Government expressed itself willing to tell King Otho that on reconsideration it was considered superfluous to provide specifically against that which was inadmissible in principle. Palmerston hesitated still a little, but on the 20th of June de la Hitte was told by Normanby that the French view was accepted. The postscript to the story appears in a despatch3 from Normanby of the 21st of June : "Some of the latest of Baron Gros' despatches, dated towards the end of May, had led them to believe that the Greek Government would rather keep their grievance of having yielded to force than now be themselves parties to any reopening of these questions. The French Government on the other hand would desire they should accept the renewed intervention, as it would improve their own political position." A commission consisting of representatives of the three Governments concerned was constituted later in the year, after further dilatoriness on the part of the Greek Government, and this proceeded to Lisbon, reporting in due course. The Commission found that the total loss that could have been sustained by Pacifico so far as his claims against the Portuguese Government were concerned amounted to, at the most, ?150. He had claimed ?21,295.1.4, making with interest a total of ?26,618.16.8. Pacifico had in 1834 petitioned the Portuguese Chamber of Deputies to pay him the sums he claimed, but the Chamber had taken no action since Pacifico had failed to appear in person to present his claims, nor taken any other known steps, in support of his claims, some of which went back as early as 1828. Most of those that had not lapsed would if pressed have been dealt with by the Portuguese Government. Pacifico in his petition had stated that four years earlier he had obtained judgment in his favour by a civil judge at Faro in Portugal, but had had no further satisfaction. "Since the year 1812 (he had) resided in this kingdom carrying on business, and established at the city of Lagos, in the kingdom of Algarve, where he is possessed of real estates. That in the year 1822 he, the petitioner, was privileged in this kingdom by the British Court of Con? servancy, under a patent from His Majesty Don John VI. That the petitioner, having business in the city of Mertola, was at that city on the arrival of the liberating troops there, which took place in July last year. That, when the said troops and the loyal inhabitants retired from the aforesaid city, the petitioner likewise withdrew, and thus lost his business, moveables, and corn stores, and among them his certificate of British privilege. That the petitioner has rendered some service to the cause of liberty, one of which was his having supplied arms for the defence of the city of Olhao, and having also rendered every personal service in his power. That the petitioner is and always has been a decided Constitutionalist, on which 1 F.O. 27 : No. 208 of 31st May, 1850. 2 F.O. 27 : No. 209 of 1st June, 1850. 6 F.O. 27: No. 241.</page><page sequence="27">DON PACIFICO 27 account he has sustained great losses in his business and property; besides which he had afforded material aid to the emigrants who were in Gibraltar at his house by order of His Majesty Don Pedro. Under all the circumstances of this case (the Commissioners reported) and taking into consideration the possibility that a few documents of no great importance may have been lost when M. Pacifico's house at Athens was pillaged, and the expenses he had incurred during this investigation, the Commissioners think he is entitled to receive from the Government of Greece the sum of ?150 for the injury he has received." This sum was at once paid by the Greek Government and the Affair was ended. To complete this part of the story, however, it is necessary to return for a short time to St. Petersburg and also to Berlin. Palmerston had to keep the Russian Govern? ment as quiet as he could throughout the negotiations and reduce the possibility of any threat of open intervention by them to a minimum. Baron Brunnow, the Russian Ambassador in London, had, on instructions from his Government, spoken to Palmerston at length on the subject as early as the 2nd of February 1850 and in a memorandum of this conversation, presented on the following day, he had claimed the right of Russia to intervene on the basis of the Treaty of 6th July 1827, between Great Britain, France and Russia. No action against Greece should therefore, he argued, have been taken except in agreement with the two other guaranteeing powers. Palmerston was in these circum? stances asked to explain the British proceedings and the limits within which Britain proposed to confine her actions. Palmerston in reply said that he did not agree with these views. He considered the British action one of reprisals, not an act of hostility. Brunnow's reply was that a blockade went beyond reprisals and was an act of hostility. He went further and suggested that the British action "would compromise the state of peace which our mutual engagements with respect to Greece oblige us to consider as an object which belongs in common to Great Britain, France and Russia." An almost immediate submission by Greece was at that time expected by Palmerston.1 Little more than a fortnight later Brunnow's representations were emphasized in a long despatch to him from the Russian Foreign Minister, Nesselrode, which he was instructed to read to Palmerston and to leave with him a copy. "Your Excellency will have some difficulty in forming an idea of the very painful impres? sion produced on the mind of the Emperor by the unexpected acts of violence which the British authorities have just directed against Greece. Scarcely had the dangers to peace been averted to which the precipitate entry of Admiral Parker into the Dardanelles might have led, than the appearance of his squadron on the coast of Greece raises fresh dangers, as if it was sought gratuitously to cause complications to succeed complications in the East, and as if the peace of the West had not sufficient risks to run in a time of perfect peace. Without even any notice of the intentions of the English Government having been given, the English fleet proceeds suddenly to place itself before the capital of Greece. Admiral Parker, after being received in a friendly manner by King Otho, assumes the very next day towards this Sovereign a threaten? ing attitude. In one night, unimportant claims which had been treated of for years, some of which were already about being settled, are changed into an imperious ultimatum. The English Minister declares that these claims are no longer to be discussed, or to be examined as to their justice or injustice, but that they must be satisfied fully within the term of twenty four hours, and after the expiration of these twenty-four hours, the Greek Government not having been able to bring itself to submit to such humiliating conditions, the blockade of the 1 Further Correspondence etc.s No. 5 of 22nd January/8th February, 1850,</page><page sequence="28">28 DON PACIFICO coast of Greece is established, and immediately the Hellenic ships are seized upon. The English Government did not take the trouble to inform us; not a word of notice was given to the Russian and French representatives in London; not one communication has been addressed to Petersburgh or to Paris, which could lead to the notion that the English Cabinet was on the eve of proceeding to such extremities against Greece. Russia and France only heard of this when the mischief was done." Nesselrode then proceeds to protest against the refusal of the acceptance of French and Russian intervention. "The Emperor charges you, M. le Baron, to address on this subject serious representations to the English Government, to urge them in the most pressing manner to hasten the cessation of a state of things at Athens which nothing justifies or necessitates, and which exposes Greece to losses as well as to dangers, out of all reasonable proportion to the claims made against her. The reception which may be given to our representations may have considerable influence on the nature of the relations we are henceforth to expect from England, let me add, on the position towards all the Powers, great or small, whose coast exposes them to a sudden attack. It remains, indeed, to be seen whether Great Britain, abusing the advantages which are afforded her by her immense maritime superiority, intends henceforward to pursue an isolated policy without caring for those engagements which bind her to the other Cabinets, whether she intends to disengage herself from every obligation as well as from all community action, and to authorize all Great Powers, on every fitting opportunity, to recognise towards the weak no other rule but their own will, no other right but their own physical strength. On the 2nd of April,1 in a very long despatch to Lord Bloomfield, the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg, Palmerston pointed out, for the information of Count Nesselrode, the Russian Foreign Minister, that his (Nesselrode's) despatch of the 7/19th February to Baron Brunnow, the Russian Ambassador in London, had been "evidently written under an impression founded on an imperfect knowledge and erroneous supposition as to the circumstances to which it relates"?a very delicate method of intimating to the Russian Foreign Minister that his representative in Athens was not keeping him properly informed of what was transpiring in Greece. "With respect to the apprehension expressed by Count Nesselrode that the measures adopted by Her Majesty's Government and a compliance by the Greek Government with the British demands will prevent the Greek Government from fulfilling the engagement contained in the Twelfth Article of the Treaty of 1832 in regard to the payment by Greece of the interest and sinking fund of the Greek loan, Her Majesty's Government would have been glad if there could have been good ground for thinking that the fulfilment of this engagement would be prevented by nothing but the measures which have been resorted to by the British Squadron .The Russian Government is likewise aware, as are the Governments of Great Britain and France, that this engagement has been entirely and systematically set at naught by the Greek Government from first to last.As the Russian Government seems to think it important that the Greek Government should fulfil its obligations on this matter, Her Majesty's Government will be glad to enter into concert with the Imperial Government and with the Government of France for the purpose of inducing the Greek Government to perform its duties on this subject/' It is perhaps not surprising that the reply2 to the British Ambassador was to the effect that Count Nesselrode was of opinion that, as it seemed, a continuation of the 1 F.O. 97 : No. 147 of 2nd April, 1850. 2 F.O. 65 : No. 142 of 30th April, 1850 (Bloomfield to Palmerston).</page><page sequence="29">DON PACIFICO 29 correspondence could lead to little good and he thought that it had better be closed. Russia had for years been persistently encouraging Greece to default on the loan, hoping that by forgoing her share she could secure greater influence with the Greek Government in rivalry with the British. Perhaps it was in accordance with this new policy that Baron Brunnow in London reported1 to St. Petersburg that the British terms, as laid down in the Franco-British Convention were the best Britain would grant to Greece, and that it was therefore presumably useless to press further. The agreement sub? stituted by the Athens submission for the London Convention caused Nesselrode much chagrin and he protested to London against it, but with very little hope that it would be abandoned. He must therefore in the end have found a little comfort in the final agree? ment made between Britain and France, even though Russia was left out in the cold.2 There was one parting shot from Palmerston. "As Count Nesselrode [in a despatch to Baron Brunnow] expresses a wish that the con? troversial correspondence of which it forms a part should cease, Her Majesty's Government are willing to comply with that wish, although there are some arguments used and some positions laid down in that despatch with regard to which Her Majesty's Government would otherwise have had observations to make."3 However, Russia was governed by an autocrat who could, and often did, act independently of his Ministers. The Russian Minister, and also the Bavarian representative, had absented themselves from the Queen's birthday banquet, in support of Drouyn de Thuys?the Duke of Devonshire's comment on these abstentions was "a proof of the fearful progress of democratic principles"?and the Czar personally approved of Brunnow's protest and told him so. Lord Bloomfield, in reporting this step to Palmerston, added :4 "The Greek cause is espoused in Russia with the greatest warmth and, as the St. Petersburgh newspapers have inserted in their columns the greater portion of the articles in The Times and Morning Chronicle, much excitement prevails here on the subject and the greatest sympathy is expressed and felt for the Greeks by all classes. Still further, on 26th June Bloomfield reported : "I have been informed that the Emperor of Russia has lately addressed a letter to the King of Greece expressing much feeling and sympathy for him on the termination of the coercive measures which have been adopted by Her Majesty's Government, and assuring him of his readiness and desire to give all the assistance in his power to alleviate his present difficulties.'*5 Prussia, although far more moderate in its attitude, was nevertheless interested, partly at least on account of the relationship between the Prussian and Greek reigning nouses. Curiously, and unconsciously prophetically, the Bavarian Government, which was in very close relations with that of Greece, as early as the late summer of 1847 suspected that the British Government proposed to take "coercive measures against the commerce of Greece in order to obtain redress for their separate grievances from the 1 F.O. 65 : No. 145 of 1st May, 1850 (Bloomfield to Palmerston). 2 F.O. 65 : Nos. 165 of 17th May and 168 of 25th May, 1850 (Bloomfield to Palmerston). 3 F.O. 97: No. 208 of 24th May, 1850. (Palmerston to Bloomfield). 4 F.O. 65 : No. 176 of 31st May, 1850. (Bloomfield to Palmerston). 5 F.O, 65 : No. 208 of 26th June, 1850,</page><page sequence="30">30 DON PACIFICO Greek Government." Baron Canitz, the Prussian Foreign Minister, however, dismissed the rumour as baseless. He did not believe that Her Majesty's Government would proceed against the private property of Greek subjects with a view to procure a reparation demanded of the Government. Palmerston had, however, some months before "urged the Bavarian Cabinet to recommend the Greek Government to satisfy the just and long pending demands of Her Majesty's Government and that Your Lordship had stated at the same time that if these demands were not complied with, it would be necessary to consider what further measures should be taken in support of them."1 This was merely a report and it was not until the crisis of the spring of 1850 that the Prussian Foreign Office appears in the picture again. It was on the 2nd of March ofthat year that Lord Westmorland, the British Minister in Berlin, reported that the Prussian Foreign Minister had given an assurance that "the Prussian Charge" d'Affaires at Athens has taken no part in the discussions which have arisen upon these questions, and that he will continue in the same line of conduct,"2 and in the following despatch,3 Westmorland sent a translation of the instruction sent by the Prussian Foreign Minister to his Ministers in London, Paris and St. Petersburg. These were to the effect that the Bavarian Government had intervened on behalf of Greece in London, Paris and St. Petersburg and had asked Prussia in effect to join it in its representations. No obligations rested on the Prussian Government in the matter and the Prussian Government was not in a position to give an opinion on the subject of dispute. "Still it cannot hesitate to express the lively wish that the differences which have arisen may be settled in a peaceable and friendly manner.The warm interest which His Majesty the King and His Government take in the Hellenic Kingdom make it my duty to request your Excellency to express in a suitable manner this wish and this hope to the Royal British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs." Despite the mildness of this representation, Palmerston's attitude remained stiff.4 It was probably intended for other addresses than Berlin. "Her Majesty's Government cannot but express their regret that those Governments who take an interest in the Greek Government and who can scarcely have failed to have long ago been made acquainted by their diplomatic agents in Greece, with the demands so often made by Great Britain for satisfaction in regard to the matters in question, did not by timely advice to the Greek Government induce it to take a different course from that which it has pursued.'' There was one last despatch5 to Lord Westmorland on the subject. After a brief calendar of the final negotiations :? Drouyn de Thuys offered a convention ? April 15 Draft convention agreed ? ? 16 British and French Governments agree on draft ? ? 19 Draft sent to Athens ? ? 19 Draft arrives in Athens ? May 2 F.O. 64 : No. 61 of 2nd September, 1847 (Howard to Palmerston). 2 F.O. 64 : No. 83 of 2nd March, 1850 (Westmorland to Palmerston). 8 F.O. 64 : No. 84 of 3rd March, 1850. 4 F.O. 64 : No. 87 of 12th March, 1850 (Palmerston to Westmorland). 6 F.O. 64 : No. 169 of 21st May, 1850 (Palmerston to Westmorland).</page><page sequence="31">DON PACIFICO 31 "But Baron Gros having spontaneously and against the remonstrances of Mr. Wyse retired from the negotiation on the 23rd of April, by Official Notes addressed to the Greek Minister and to Mr. Wyse, and the coercive measures having in consequence been renewed on the evening of the 25th, the Greek Government entered into direct communication with Mr. Wyse on the 26th and on the 27th an arrangement satisfactory to Her Majesty's Govern? ment was agreed to and was immediately carried into execution." In the meanwhile public and political opinion in England was not unanimous in support of Palmerston, his policy or his actions. His robust independence, a self confidence that was almost aggressive, and his devotion to a personal policy in foreign affairs did not conciliate opponents or fortify the loyalty to him even of members of his own party. Abroad he was known as "Firebrand Palmerston" and in political circles in England and on the Continent there were many who felt more comfortable and thought themselves and the peace of the world safer when he was in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility than when he held the seals of office. In the middle of the nineteenth century The Times held a position of influence perhaps even greater than it has today. In public affairs it was one of the Powers. Two strong personalities such as those of the self-willed Foreign Minister and of the outstanding organ of the Press necessarily did not always see eye to eye and, when they did not do so, each showed little toleration of the other. Such an occasion fell in the middle of the nineteenth century, at the time at which Palmerston was bringing pressure to bear on Greece in the teeth of the hostility of the other Powers and with the very tepid support of his colleagues in the Cabinet. The Times gladly seized the opportunity (of the blockade of Greece by the British Fleet) of renewing the assault. Having fruitlessly demanded the production of papers, on 5th February it procured, through O'Meagher in Paris,1 and published on 9th February, the correspondence between the British Minister in Athens and the Greek Government. Meanwhile first-hand accounts of the dispute were being sent from Athens by Patrick O'Brien who . . . was wholly on ths side of the Greek Government... On 22nd February the claims against Greece were examined and roundly declared to be quite untenable : "England may be disgraced, Europe exasperated, Greece oppressed?what matters if the whim of the Foreign Secretary be gratified, and if his Lordship's sovereign commands are obeyed." Palmerston had aroused "the indignation of the civilized world" and though by a renewal of naval compulsion his pecuniary claims were ultimately extorted from Greece, the question of public right and public duty lies in a higher court and stands for judgment before Europe (18th May, 1850).2 On 22nd May, in printing the French Government's version of the correspondence with the British Foreign Office, The Times deplored that "we receive, as usual, from a foreign source the information which our own Government delays to produce." Henceforth The Times' attacks on Palmerston continued without intermission day by day, the culmination being at the end of May with four special articles in the news columns, extending to nine columns in all, summarizing, severely and critically, the whole of the proceedings. The aim, towards the attainment of which The Times had powerful coadjutors, was the removal of Palmerston from the Foreign Office. However, it failed of success. 1 J. B. O'Meagher, Paris Correspondent of The Times from 1848 until 1869. 2 History of The Times II p. 241 ,</page><page sequence="32">32 DON PACIFICO The Pacifico Affair first obtained mention in Parliament on the 4th of February 1850, four days after its assembly, when Lord Stanley, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords and later, as Earl of Derby, Prime Minister, rose to call attention to a subject in connection with which "acts of injustice and violence" had been com? mitted "against a friendly power, or rather, he should say, a weak friendly power."1 The Opposition was stirring and had hopes that some advantage could accrue to them from any movement they might make. A short debate followed in the course of which Lord Lansdowne, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House, put the Government's case and Lord Aberdeen, to be later the Prime Minister who led the country into the Crimean War but not out of it, supported Stanley, although, as a former Foreign Secretary, he admitted he had little to say in favour of the Greek Govern? ment. On the same day Thomas Milner Gibson, the anti-corn law leader, put a similar question in the House of Commons and in the debate on the Address Disraeli, by then the effective Leader of the Opposition in the Lower House, in his opening speech dealt with the same subject. Palmerston, in his reply, referred to the case of "A Gibraltar subject?not a Portuguese Jew, as stated by my honourable and learned friend?of the name of Pacifico" whose house "was violently broken into at midday by a mob, of which part were soldiers, in the service of the King of Greece, some gendarmes, the son of the Minister of War leading and encouraging them.2 Sir Robert Inglis, the stalwart reactionary, who throughout his public career was in the forefront of the opposition to the political emancipation of English Jews, cast doubt not only on the British citizenship of Pacifico, but also on that of George Finlay in support of whose claims pressure was also being brought upon the Government of Greece. To him Palmerston replied in half a dozen words :?"The parties are both British subjects." A fortnight later Stanley again raised the subject,3 but the proceedings were very brief. The Opposition was, however, determined to keep it alive. On March 15th4 there was another discussion in the House of Lords, initiated by Lord Stanley, which was devoted mainly to the question, about which the French Government was getting rather excited, whether or not on the first intimation of the offer of good offices by the French Government the Greek vessels that had been seized should have been released. On 8th April, Thomas Chisholm Anstey, an Irish Roman Catholic member, interested in constitutional law, raised the subject again,5 arguing that, whatever the rights or wrongs, the institution of a blockade without the authority of the Queen in Council was illegal. It should certainly not have been instituted by a private letter from a secretary of state as in this case. Incidentally Greece was referred to as "that piratical and semi-barbarous state." On 23rd May, the Opposition resumed its attack.6 Disraeli in the leading speech referred to "the somewhat ludicrous and suspicious claims of Mr. Pacifico". Not only Palmerston but also the Prime Minister, Lord John Russell, defended the Government's proceedings. Next it was again the turn of Stanley in the House of Lords. On 17th June he moved 7 a formal vote of want of confidence? 1 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 1850 : Vol. 108. 2 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 1850 : Vol. 108. 3 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 1850 : Vol. 108. 4 Hansard 1850 : Vol.109. 5 Hansard 1850 : Vol. 110. 6 Hansard 1850 : Vol. 111. 7 Hansard 1850 : Vol. Ill,</page><page sequence="33">DON PACIFICO 33 "That while the House fully recognizes the right and duty of the Government to secure to Her Majesty's subjects residing in foreign states the full protection of the laws of those states, it regrets to find, by the correspondence recently laid upon the table by Her Majesty's command that various claims against the Greek Government, doubtful in point of justice or exaggerated in amount, have been enforced by coercive measures directed against the commerce and people of Greece, and calculated to endanger the continuance of our friendly relations with other Powers." "The Rupert of Debate" was at his best on this occasion. He made a most extravagant attack on Pacifico's character, commercial morality and claims and an equally fierce attack on Palmerston. Pacifico's case, he said, "presents such an astounding combination of audacity and mendacity, of all that is ridiculous and disgusting that I am ashamed to bring it under Your Lordship's notice." Lord Lansdowne, who replied, took his stand on a matter of principle, independent of Pacifico's personal character, which however he defended. Lord Aberdeen supported Stanley, but was milder in his attack. Viscount Canning, a former Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs and to be later Governor General of India, also a member of the Opposition, considered both Palmerston and the Greek Government in the wrong. Lord Brougham, a great parliamentarian and reformer whose four years, ending in 1834, as Lord Chancellor ended his official career, joined in the fray in opposition to the Government. "Mr. Pacifico, of whom he had never heard it predicated that he was most able, except in taking care of his own interest, or most learned, except in the art of making accounts, or most respectable in any point of view whatever;" of Mr. Finlay, however, "a most able, most learned, and most respectable man." Brougham ended his speech with a great tribute to Palmerston?a former colleague?although disapproving of his policy on that occasion. At the end of the debate the House proceeded to a division, 169 peers voting for the vote of censure and 132 against?a majority of 37 against the Government and Palmerston.1 Both sides seem to have been surprised at this result. It was thought that the difference would have been smaller. GreviUe, the diarist, commented : "The House was crowded in every part; I never saw so many peers present, nor so many strangers."2 The House of Lords was more powerful then than it is today and, even though it could not alone make or unmake ministeries, its opposition was often effective in weaken? ing ministries. This vote was consequently a definite set-back for the Government and, in the opinion of some, the resignation of the Government, or at any rate of Palmer? ston, should have followed. The Government themselves realized that some step was necessary for rehabilitation, and John Arthur Roebuck, an outstanding Independent member of the House of Commons, but, as a rule, a supporter of Palmerston, was put up to move a resolution : "That the principles, on which the Foreign Policy of Her Majesty's Government has been regulated, have been such as were calculated to maintain the honour and dignity of this country; and in times of unexampled difficulty, to preserve peace between England and the various nations of the world." The debate,3 commencing on the 24th of June, lasted for four days, culminating in an overwhelming victory for Palmerston and his policies in all fields of foreign affairs. 1 Hansard 1850 : Vol. 111. 2 Greville, Diary, Vol. VI. p. 349. 3 Hansard 1850 : Vol. 112.</page><page sequence="34">34 DON PAGIFICO Roebuck's support was powerful and eloquent. He did not conceal his belief in an anti-Government coalition comprising Russia, "which represents the despotism of Europe ; France which represents its levity.and the Protectionist Party in this country, who are opposed to the present Government on account of their commercial arrangements.Woe and shame to France, who in spite of all her glor? ious reminiscences, shrinks also into the form and character of a vassal of Russia." He gave detailed support and approval of Palmerston's proceedings and quoted French and United States precedents for high-handed proceedings on the most trivial excuses. Coming to the subject of more immediate interest Roebuck made a spirited defence of Pacifico. The Motion was seconded by Richard Monckton Milnes, later Lord Houghton, the man of letters. Speeches in favour and against the motion alternated. Among those in support were a future Lord Chancellor, William Page Wood (Lord Hatherley); Ralph Bernal Osborne, who was himself of Sephardi Jewish origin, in a witty speech, copious with literary quotations ; and Thomas Chisholm Anstey, who has already been mentioned. On the other side were Sir Frederick Thesiger, also to be later Lord Chancellor, as Lord Chelmsford; Sir James Graham, a former Peelite Cabinet Minister and a close colleague of Palmerston, to whom he made a personal tribute; and others. The debate ranged from the dispute with Greece over the whole of the Government's foreign policy. Pacifico's Jewishness was mentioned by most speakers, in every case sympathetically. At length, on the 25th of June at the end of a midsummer day as the night was falling, Palmerston rose and kept a full house enthralled until, in the early morning of the follow? ing day, dawn began to appear. Without a note he covered the whole range of his five years as Foreign Secretary. When he sat down, although the debate continued for another two days, he had already gained his case. His argument was based less on specific cases than on matters of principle, that "a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong," Coming to the particular, his criticism of King Otho's Government and methods of government was very strong. His defence of Pacifico against the imputations made on his character was incisive. His action on his behalf was summarized in few words. "The Greek Government having neglected to give the protection they were bound to extend, and having abstained from taking means to afford redress, this was a case in which we were justified in calling on the Greek Government for compensation for the losses, whatever they might be, which M. Pacifico had suffered. I think that claims was founded in justice. The amount we did not pretend to fix.But the Greek Government denied altogether the principle of the claim." Sir Robert Peel, who met with his fatal accident on the day after the conclusion of the debate, commented on his opponent's success. "A most able and temperate speech, a speech which made us all proud of the man who delivered it." "Lord Palmer? ston's speech was a marvel for physical strength, for memory, and for lucid and precise exposition of his policy as a whole" wrote another prominent opponent, W. E. Gladstone.1 1 From a reminiscence written by Gladstone in 1897 and printed in John Morley, The Life of William Ewart Gladstone, Vol. I, p. 369.</page><page sequence="35">DON PACIFICO 35 Lord John Russell, the Prime Minister, in his report to the Queen, said "This speech was one of the most masterly ever delivered."1 The Queen, who was very hostile to Palmerston, writing to her uncle, King Leopold of the Belgians, at the time could not persuade herself to say more than : "The House of Commons is becoming very un? manageable and troublesome." Lady Clarendon, wife of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, writing in her Journal on the 1st July, said : "He (Palmerston) has triumphed over a great mass of educated public opinion, over that mighty potentate The Times, over two branches of the Legislature, over the Queen and Prince and most of the Cabinet he sits in, besides all foreign nations." Stanley Lane Poole, writing nearly half a century later in the Dictionary of National Biography, said : "For more than four hours (he) vindicated his whole foreign policy with a breadth of view, a tenacity of logical argument, a moderation of tone, and a height of eloquence which the House listened to with rapture and interrupted with volleys of cheers. It was the greatest speech he ever made.He defeated the whole Conservative Party, Protectionists and Peelites, supported by the extreme Radicals and backed by The Times and all the organized forces of foreign diplomacy." He became overnight the most popular man in England. The debate was resumed on the 27th June and continued on the 28th. Early in the morning of the following day the division was taken. Sir John Benn Walsh, later Lord Ormathwaite, a Tory, opposed the motion. "Though he entirely disapproved of the foreign policy of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary.he was ready to tender to him his sense of un? bounded admiration of that speech, considered as an effort of Parliamentary and mental power." Sir Robert Inglis, a stalwart Tory, Lord Granby, Sir William Molesworth, a Peelite, later to be a member of one of Palmerston's Cabinets, and Sidney Herbert, also a Peelite, also later to serve in a Palmerston Cabinet, spoke on the same side. Sup? porters of the motion were Sir Harry Verney, R. A. S. Adair and Sir George Grey, the Home Secretary. Then Gladstone, at that time a Peelite, opening the debate on the fourth day, rose. In a very lengthy, powerful and well argued but somewhat extravagant speech, he attacked Palmerston and his administration of foreign affairs. "I freely and entirely admit to you that the character of M. Paciflco does not matter to us one straw when we are considering his title to protection or to compensation, and that we must proceed to vindicate it in precisely the same manner, whether he be the best man or the worst man in the world. But at the same time I differ altogether from those Who say that we have nothing to do with his character.Then there is again the point of his religion. I do not hear any of his opponents found themselves on his religion as a reason either for oppressing him or for mistrusting him. I say fearlessly whatever may be the difference of opinion in this House as to the admission of Jews to political privilege, that no person could dare to stand up among us and allege his religion as a ground for mistrust or for the denial of justice, without drawing down upon himself, from all quarters of the House alike, universal scorn and indignation." The speaker then proceeded to cast very great doubt on the credibility of Pacifico's claims. He revived Lord Stanley's suggestion of forgery. The compulsory com? pensation of Pacifico "than which I take leave to say a greater iniquity has rarely been transacted under the face of the sun.The subject of M. Pacifico's claims.would really afford no bad material 1 The Letters of Queen Victoria, edited by Arthur Christopher Benson and Viscount Esher, Vol. II, p. 299.</page><page sequence="36">DON PACIFICO for some ingenious writer of romance.Sir, the whole statement bears on the ver^ face of it outrageous fraud and falsehood.No man who sits in this House can be more sensible of the masterly character of that speech, alike remarkable as a physical and as an intellectual effort; no man, even of those who sit beside him, listened with keener admiration and delight, while, from the dusk of one day until the dawn of the next, the noble Lord defended his policy, and through the live-long summer's night the British House of Commons, crowded as it was, hung upon his lips."1 After another relatively short speech by Henry Drummond, the Irvingite, who supported Palmerston while opposing the Government on every matter of principle, there was another historic oration, that may also be said to have helped to make history, one worthy to be printed next to that of Palmerston. Alexander Cockburn, in the course of a very eloquent defence of Palmerston, spared none of those who had assailed him, no matter of what party. Referring to Gladstone's speech he said "In all my experience I never heard such a series of misrepresentations and mis-statements as those which were made by the hon. gentleman" and proceeded to support this statement by chapter and verse. "There are other texts besides those of Scripture which certain persons can quote for their own purposes." This great speech made, or helped appreci? ably to make, Cockburn's career. Within a year he was successively Solicitor-General and Attorney-General, in 1856 Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and in 1859 a baronet, Lord Chief Justice of England. Sir H. Walpole, a Conservative, to become Home Secretary a few years later, opposed the resolution on the paper; Monckton Milnes supported it. The last four speeches were all by statesmen of the first rank. Richard Cobden, the Radical Free Trade leader, opposed the Government. In foreign affairs he was a consistent opponent of Palmerston's policy. With regard to Pacifico he did not conceal his opinion. He referred to his "exorbitant" claims as a "barefaced attempt at swindling." "If the people of England understood the merits of this question.in spite of the galvanic effort to make this a party question they would be so disgusted that they would raise a subscription to pay back the Greek Government the money it has given you." Sir Robert Peel, in the last speech he made, took the same side. Hitherto in other matters he said he had strongly supported the Government "because I cordially approved of the policy which they carried into domestic affairs.a liberal and conservative policy ..... I have agreed with them.with respect to the principle of commercial freedom.I concur with them as to their Irish policy. (He approved of much of its foreign policy).I will not evade the difficulty by silence or absence?I will state the grounds upon which I protest against the resolution?the carrying of which, I believe, will give a false impression with respect to the dignity and honour of this country, and will establish a principle which you cannot carry into execution without imminent danger to the best interests of the country." Lord John Russell, the Prime Minister, inevitably supported Palmerston but not with very evident enthusiasm. The most arresting portion of his speech was an attack on Gladstone. 1 Hansard: Vol. 112, col. 543 seq.</page><page sequence="37">DON PACIFIC? 31 Then came the last speech in the debate, that of the leader of the official opposition, Benjamin Disraeli. He also seemed somewhat reluctant to intervene, but in view of his official position and of the talk of a conspiracy of all the opponents of Palmerston, in England and abroad, to ruin politically the Foreign Minister, he had no alternative. Of course he denied all suggestion of such a conspiracy. He admitted the validity of the Finlay and Pacifico claims but considered them "to a certain degree, doubtful in their character and exaggerated in their amount. If they were not, they certainly differed from any other claims that ever were urged" he added in mitigation. Then came early, in the morning of the 29th June the division. The House supported Palmerston and his policy by 310 votes to 264, a majority of 46. And one of the greatest debates in the history of Parliament was ended. Palmerston's comment on the debate was : "I scarcely ever remember a debate which, as a display of intellect, oratory and high and dignified feeling, was more honourable to the House of Commons. John Russell's speech last night was admirable and first rate; and as to Cockburn's, I do not know that I ever, in the course of my life, heard a better speech from anybody without any exception. Gladstone's was also a first rate performance, and Peel and Disraeli both spoke with great judgment and talent with reference to their respective positions." Palmerston, however, had very powerful opponents and critics outside Parliament. The Queen had long shown her hostility and her desire for his removal from the circle of her counsellors. The relations between them were most unsatisfactory and she had for some time been anxious for his resignation on personal as well as on political grounds.1 On the 14th April, a few weeks before the great debate, she had written to her Prime Minister : "Lord Palmerston's conduct in this Spanish Question in not communicating her letter to Lord John, as she had directed, is really too bad, and most disrespectful to the Queen; she can really hardly communicate with him any more : indeed it would be better she ?hould not."2 Palmerston would probably have been dismissed on the insistence of the Queen or transferred to another and less powerful office, before the great debate had taken place, if the Prime Minister could have found any alternative to him, but no such alternative could be found. Eighteen months later the opportunity came and Palmerston was dismissed. The occasion was the approval he gave, without consulting his colleagues, to Napoleon's coup d'etat. Lord John Russell's Administration however quickly followed him, being defeated on an amendment moved by Palmerston, and before the end of 1852 Palmerston was in office again in Aberdeen's coalition Ministry as Home Secretary; and in 1855, in the midst of the Crimean War, a time of crisis and anxiety, he was called to the Prime Minister's seat on the insistence of almost the entire nation. On his dismissal the Queen could not suppress her feelings of delight. Writing to John Russell, on the 28th December, she said : 1 See The Letters of Queen Victoria, edited by Arthur Christopher Benson and Viscount Esher, Vol. II. pp. 276 seq. 2 Ibid., p. 285. D</page><page sequence="38">38 DON PACIFICO "Frequently when our Foreign Policy was called in question, it has been said by Lord John and his colleagues that the principles on which it was conducted were the right ones, and having been approved of by them, received their support, and that it was only the personal manner of Lord Palmerston in conducting the affairs which could be blamed in tracing the causes which led to the disastrous results the Queen complains of. The Queen is certainly not disposed to defend the personal manner in which Lord Palmerston has conducted Foreign Affairs, but she cannot admit that the errors he committed were merely faults in form and method, that they were no more than acts of 'inconsideration, indiscretion or bad taste.' The Queen considers that she has also to complain of what appeared to her deviations from the principles laid down by the Cabinet for his conduct. Nay, she sees distinctly in their practical application a personal and arbitrary perversion of the very nature and essence of those principles. She has only to refer here to Italy, Spain, Greece, Holstein, France, etc., etc., which afford ample illustrations of this charge. It was one thing for Lord Palmerston to have attempted such substantial deviations; it will be another for the Cabinet to consider whether they had not the power to check him in these attempts."1 Greville, a very shrewd observer, and one whose sources of political information were unrivalled, recorded these conclusions on Palmerston's conduct of the Pacifico Affair, though before its end (14th Feb. 1850); he was almost equally unfriendly.2 "This Greek question is the worst scrape into which Palmerston has ever got himself and his colleagues. The disgust at it here is universal with those who think at all about foreign matters ; it is past all doubt that it has produced the strongest feelings of indignation against this country all over Europe, and the Ministers themselves are conscious what a disgraceful figure they cut and are ashamed of it. Labouchere3 came into my room yesterday and let loose about it without reserve. He said that it admitted of no excuse, and that John Russell, who alone could have prevented it, was inexcusable for not having done so; that it ought to have been brought regularly and formally before the Cabinet, who ought all to have known precisely what it was Palmerston proposed to do.It was quite clear from all this the Greek affair was not a measure well considered, discussed, and agreed on by the Cabinet, but done in the true Palmerstonian style, offhand, partly and casually communicated to his colleagues, but so managed as to be his own act, to which they indeed became parties, completely implicated, but in which they were not really consulted, and which passed under their eyes without entering into their serious thoughts. Now that the whole magnitude of the scrape is revealed to them they are full of resentment and mortification." As soon as the Greek Government had accepted the ultimatum and paid a sum in settlement of the immediate claims of the British government, Pacifico began preparations to leave Greece and to settle in London. There he took a house at 10 Bury Street, St. Mary Axe, in the heart of what was then the better-class Jewish quarter, He, however, did not live there for long, for less than four years later, on the 11th April, 1854, he died at that residence. Despite the great stir his name had caused in English, and in international, public life, his death appears to have passed unnoticed in the general press. The Gentleman's MagazineK had a few lines. "April 11th. At his address, Bury Street, St. Mary Axe, at an advanced age, Don Pacifico, a well-known name in 1 The Letters of Queen Victoria Vol.11, p. 426. 2 Greville, Diary (1888), Vol. VI, pp. 318-9. 3 Henry Labouchere, President of the Board of Trade, later Secretary of State for the Colonies under Palmerston, and 1st Lord Taunton. 4 June 1854, p. 666.</page><page sequence="39">DON PACIFICO 39 foreign politics. He was interred in the burial ground of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews, Mile End." The Jewish Chronicle1 was a little more expansive. "Death of Don Pacifico?this individual who for some time caused so much sensation in the political world, and especially in this country, died, after a short illness, at an advanced age, on the 12th inst., at his residence, Bury Street, St. Mary Axe. His funeral took place on the 14th instant, the second day of Passover : he was interred in the burial-ground of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews, Mile End." The date of death given in The Jewish Chronicle was the correct one : the Editor of that periodical seemed to show in his manner a coolness of the same temperature as that of his colleague of The Gentleman's Magazine. There was one echo of Palmerston's protege almost half a century later. Litigation2 regarding his estate that arose in the English courts served to stir into a momentary glow the story of the great events of 1850. Pacifico left two daughters, the elder, who married one Charney and was one of the victims of the attack on Pacifico's house and was later befriended by the Duchesse de Plaisance, remained with her husband in Greece, when her parents and her sister came to England. She later became a Christian. The younger daughter Esther, details of whose trousseau were discussed in Parliament, later married a cousin, Abraham Hassan. They had four sons, David, Moses, Solomon, Jacob and a daughter Clara. Only one of the sons married. David Pacifico left a widow whose name was also Clara. NOTE ON LEGAL REFERENCES contributed by Lord McNair Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. II, paras. 35 and 44; Pitt Cobbett, Leading Cases on International Law, Vol. I, 4th edition, pp. 209-10; Hogan, Pacific Blockade^ pp. 105-14, and 167-70 ; and McNair, International Law Opinions, Vol. II, pp. 238-244, where some of the Opinions given to the British Foreign Office by the Queen's Advocate are printed. On paper 238 the author comments as follows : " Lord Palmerston does not appear to have consulted the Attorney ? or the Solicitor General." 1 21st April, 1854. 2 See Jewish Chronicle of 6th November, 1903, p. 28, and 13th November, 1903, p. 7.</page><page sequence="40">ALBERT M. HYAMSON, o.b.e., f.r.hist.s. President 1945-7 Hon. Editor of Publications 1944-54</page></plain_text>