The Turkish Empire, Its Growth and DecayEversley, G. Shaw-Lefevre (George Shaw-Lefevre), Baron
History
The Turkish Empire, Its Growth and Decay
Eversley, G. Shaw-Lefevre (George Shaw-Lefevre), Baron
Turkey -- History
As regards Greece, the treaty embodied and made obligatory on the
Sultan the provisions of the treaty of London of July, 1827, between
the three Powers, and the further protocol between them of March 1829,
which defined the future limits of Greece. Under the protocol, the
boundary line was to run from the Gulf of Volo to the Gulf of Arta,
so as to include the greater part of Thessaly. The country south
of this was to be subject to a monarchical government, hereditary
in a Christian prince to be chosen by the three Powers, with the
consent of the Porte and under the suzerainty of the Sultan, and
with an administration best calculated to ensure its religious and
commercial liberty. This proposal had been submitted to the Sultan by
the ambassadors of England and France on March 22, 1829. He had then
obstinately refused to have anything to say to it. When the Russians
had crossed the Balkans, the Sultan, in the hope of propitiating
England and France, offered to the ambassadors to agree to an
autonomous Greece under a Hospodar, limited, however, to the Morea.
This the ambassadors refused. The Porte, under the treaty with Russia,
now agreed to their full demand.
The Governments of England and France appear to have taken umbrage
at the action of Russia in dealing with the subject of Greece in a
separate treaty with the Porte. It was thought that the Czar wished
to get all the credit of liberating Greece from Turkish rule. They
therefore informed the Russian Government that the execution of the
treaty of London of 1827 did not belong to the Czar alone, but was to
be the work of the three Governments. In consequence of this a further
conference took place in London, at which it was decided that the
suzerainty of the Sultan over Greece was to be abolished, and complete
independence was to be secured to the Greeks. They also came to the
unfortunate decision that the line of boundary of the new kingdom
was to be greatly restricted, and instead of running from the Gulf
of Volo to the Gulf of Arta, was to be drawn from the mouth of the
Archilous to the mouth of the Sperkius, thus excluding from the new
kingdom the whole of Acarnania and the greater part of Thessaly, where
the population was almost wholly Greek. They also decided that Crete
was not to be included, but was to be restored to Turkish rule. Mr.
Finlay says of this: “Diplomatic ignorance could not have traced a more
unsuitable boundary.”[34]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account