The Sun. — London, England, 1850-06-25 00:00:00

of their amusement; they did not wish to lose their holiday. They felt themselves, I suppose, somewhat in the situation of English boys, who would become dis pleased if they were prevented from burning Guy Fawkes. But, according to the peculiar degree of civiliz'aion in the two countries, the English boy s would only vent their spleen by setting I I P a shout, whereas these people, in the broad light of day (while the Christians of Athens are at church)—these Greeks, headed by certain young no blemen, one of whom was the eldest son of the Minister of War, attack the house of an English subject, frighten and beat his family, destroy his whole property, throw everything they can out of the windows, and, in the effervescence of their spite and malice, pour out oil upon all the rich furniture that remained.—(Hear.) Now the letters of M. Pacifico detailing these outrages are all published in the volume before me. I have read them, and I must say that these letters, if written by M. Pa cifico, prove him to be a man of education, and I should say of honour able feelings. Ido not know him—l only interpret him to be, from these letters which he has Written, a man of education.—(Hear, hear.) But I care not what he ie.—(Hoar, hear.) If he were pour and degraded as the poorest Jew that walks and bays and reins old clothes in London, he was born a British sub ject, and he had a right to demand protection from the English power.—(Cheers.) He was assailed in that which was his home, as dea: to him as that of the richest and the noblest man is the land, his family dreadfully alarmed, his children frightened almost to a state of madness, his married daughter made seriously ill, she having but a short time before lain in. After hearing all these facts, am I then to be told, " Oh, they are Jews?" Why, Sir, I think that such an expression is a disgrace to this country.—(Cheers.) M. Pacifico asked the Greek Government for reparation of the injury, and l i no answer was returned. He is attacked a second time, and then with piteous wailing he implores the power of England to protect him. And who is this M. Pacifico? He is a man who has been trained up after the manner taught him by his father, and he is as much and as honestly a Jew as we are Christians.—(Hear, hear.) I ask you, is there not something in the position of this man that dignifies the appeal which he made upon us? --(Hear, hear.) If the powerful M. Roth schild were so assailed, you not think that Europe would have arisen in his defence? Do you not think that the indebted depots of Europe would exclaim, " Good God! M. Rothschild to be so treated ? "—(Laughter.) You would then, indeed, have had well-rounded periods and fine grammatical phrases written by the Am bassadors of all the great powers of Europe. But because this man happens to be a poor Jew, who has no money to lead, then, forsooth, he is to be treated with insult, and all his demands for simple justice to be turned aside. " Oh," but it is said, "he has asked too Much." Now, the objection to his claim, you must re member, is not made as to its amount, but as to its prin ciple.—(Hear, bear.) And do not let us run off with objections as to its amount either. We have had bad jokes, in French words, uttered in respect to one portion of his claim. It has been called le lit conjugal. Now, for the life of me, I cannot understand where the excel lence of this joke lies. In my opinion, the joke is as pointless in its form as it is vulgar in its sentiment.-- (Hear, hear.) But, in respect to the charges made in M. Pacifico's demand, I deny that there is any exagge ration in them. I took the pains of inquiring at an up holsterer's in London upon the subject, and I asked him —not as to the value of the property destroyed, because it was impossible he could tell—but I asked him whether there was anything in the prices charged that appeared to him to be extravagant or extraordinary; and if any person were to say, turning round to a number of Noble Lords, " Have any of you anything so valuable as the furniture here described?" did he think that it would be answered in the negative? The tradesman to whom I ad dressed myself immediately counted upon his fingers seve ral Noble Lords who had purchased property at his own shop far more expensive; and he added, "If you should like to go with me to see a certain drawing-room you will see furniture of the description set down in this account quadruple that demanded.' The House should also recollect that this furniture that was thus destroyed was not for M. Pacifico's own use. The fact is, that this gentleman had bought the property for sale, and he expected to sell it to that very Minister who afterwards denied him redress. He bought the property; it was destroyed by Greek assailants. I care not what the ex aggeration in the demands might be. The principal ob jection urged against his claim was, that he ought to go to the courts—he had no right to come to this country for redress. Now, what was the fact ? The very day upon which the outrage took place a complaint was made to the Greek Government. In Greece they have a public prosecutor. It was, therefore, their business to investigate the whole matter; and though the occurrence took place in the broad day, upon an Easter Sunday, and that those who were concerned in it were well known to the the authorities byname, they declared that they could not find out the criminal. Now what is that but a denial of justice ? And was not this man, there fore, fully justified in appealing, though even he was a Jew, to his natural protectors, the Government of England ?—(Hear, hear.) I hope, Sir, that the Government of England will be supported in rendering that protection which every English subject is entitled to demand. But lam told that there is a rule of inter national law which forbids such an appeal, inasmuch as no one can expect to be placed in a better situation than the subjects of the country in which he happens to be residing. Sir, I deny this assertion altogether if it is stopped here, but it was guarded by this strong condi tion, "under a constitutional Government." Now what is a constitutional Government? Russia would call its Government a most constitutional Government ; and 'what would be the consequences if an Englishman weat to Russia? The Emperor of Russia's rule of law is that ' which pleases him. He may take one of his subjects, and without giving any account or explanation of his ac tions,he might put him in a sledge, tie him neck and heels, and send him at once to Siberia. Now, I appeal to Hon. Members on both sides of the House, if an Englishman w e re treated thus, would you permit it?—(llear, hear.) Well, if you would not, where is your rule of law? It is good for nothing. The truth is, the law is really, in the proper sense of the word„ not law. Each particular case must be governed by its circum stances and exigencies, and by the discretion of the " particular authorities of the country in which it arises. This is the rule of law that is adopted by Ame rica as well as England. I know of no American citizen who would consider himself to be unprotected, even in Russia, though he were taken as I have described by the neck and heels and sent to Siberia. What, then, is the rule of law? Why, according to that which has been read the other day in total ignorance of the subject, the rule is suppose I to be this—that the persons situated like M. Pacifico must, of necessity, go through the courts in pursuit of justice. Now, I say that that is not at all necessary. If you have reason to believe that what you deem justice cannot be obtained by following the rules of what is called international law, you have a perfect right to make an appeal to the Government of that country of which you are a subject. And in the cases which I have read to the House there are many instances, both as regard France and the United States, in which such appeals have been made directly contrary to the determination of the courts of the country. Therefore, I say that the rule laid &own in another place upon this subject is not the rule of international law. As re gards, then, M. Pacifico's claim, justice has been alt oge ther denied him by the Greek Government. Now what is the next argument urged in respect to this matter ? They say, " Why, this is but one isolated case." Are not all the cases referred to isolated ones? Was there not an accumulation of them one over the other, including that of the poor Jew at Athens, and the canny Scot. Then as to the case of the Fantome; a young gentleman twelve years of age, son of a general officer, was on board this English vessel. He went on labor() accompanied by the coxswain, when they were im mediately set upon by a gang of Greeks, who were armed, and who wounded severely the coxswain, while the young gentleman escaped. " Oh!" but it has been said, "this allegation is false, from the well-known gal lantry of British seamen." Now what hail occurred? Why, upon an investigation being demanded, they said that this young gentleman was an officer belonging to the Spitfire and not to the Fantome, thereby denying the honourable word of an honourable young man, and de nying altogether their right to give any explanation or make tiny apology in the matter. They further said that these were two English vessels that had entered the Grecian harbour with the intent to create an insur rection, and to overturn the Government, and that several persons had been put on board these vessels that were running away from one of the neighbouring islands. They said that the English party had in vented falsehoods for the purpose of hiding the truth. Why, if an English gentleman, representing the English nation, did not, under such circumstances, in sist upon an immediate apology, he would be wholly Unworthy to represent this countryagain.—(Hear, hear.) I tell this House and the Government, that if we once relax the rules by which our people are guarded in their rights and privileges there would be no safety for Eng lish commerce.—( Hear. hear.) But I am told that me diation was offered, and now I suppose I shall be met by favourite phrases borrowed from the Peace Society; but if anybody hopes to preserve peace by making all the World believe that nothing shall induce us to go to war, these are facts which, I think, will induce them to alter such opinion. I shall never forget the lesson read me by the Hon. Member for the West Riding of York shire (Mr. Cobden) on a very particular occasion— namely, at a peace meeting,. when he allowed his feel ings to get so much the better of him that he begged Pardon of the people he was addressing, and said to them, " though I wish you to become members of the Peace Society, I wish to say a few words in favour of the war in Hungary."—(Laughter.) I well understood the ge neral impressions of the Hon. Member. He became a *war advocate, in spite of the Peace Society, and if he had b ee n a Hungarian he would assuredly have been found amongst the band of rebels.—(ltenewed laughter.) We are told what the mediation was that was offered. Now, I have already quoted an instance in which France Wes offered our mediation in 1831, and declined it. And we very properly sent directly to make our demands through our Minister and to get redress. Being urgei on at lust by the necessity of the case we adopt strong measures. The Minister who had done so was acting under instructions, and he had no power to accept of any mediation ; but the Noble Lord at the head of foreign stairs h av ingthe power in his hands did adopt the me diation that was offered. He accepted of what was un derstood in diplomatic affairs to be the good offices of the French Minister. Now what did that mean ? And Zhat did B aron Gros understand by them when he rst accepted the office of mediator ? It was perfectly evident that he understood he was to endeavour to make the Greek x Government yield to our demands. The Justice or injustice as regards the principle of the claim rag not the question. Of that we alone should be the Judges. And hero occurred the circumstance that is made th e f oun d at i on o f a ll those charges against th e Noble Lord. There were many things we complained o f a t thi s time. The loan was one of and the question iu reference to the islands „ Sapienza and Cervi was another. One of those are ye ha d cupon• you t ° inlay 9 ated to ,pear to THE SUN, LONDON, TIJESDAY EVENING, JUNE 25, 1850. claims was wholly our own, referring as it did to English honour and English rights. Tile other was guaranteed by three separate nations. These facts were, therefore, most distinctly understood by Baron Gros, and if any person could be particularly marked and careful in his instructions respecting them it was the Noble Lord. His instructions were complete arid defined to the Minister, and he said, " Mind, you must drop for the present all consideration of the two islands and the loan." It was clear from the statements of M. Drouyn de I'Huys, that these two matters were taken out of the instructions given by the Noble Lord. Baron Gros, though understanding perfectly before going out what his instructions were, did change the character of them some time after he bad gone out. The explanation given by him on first meeting Mr. Wyse wholly demonstrated the fact that he knew full well what he was to do. While staying in Greece he changed from day to day his office, and at last pretended to he a mediator in respect to the whole of our claims. But here comes the question with regard to France. While the negotiations were going on between Mr. Wyse and Baron Gros, 11. Drouyn de I'Huys says to the Noble Lord, " Don't you think we can settle it among ourselves?" The Noble Lord imme diately acquiesced. An arrangement ass then entered into, which did not arrive at Greece before an arrange ment had been made by Mr. Wyse. Baron Gros gave up his mediation, saying, " I will withdraw from it professionally—l can do no more—therefore I with draw." Mr. Wyse acted under instructions, and had only one course to take. Now" comet the point which gave off.•ncc. Aftcr Baron Gros had withdrawn from the mediation, he received a letter from M. Drouyn de I'Huys, dated the 19th of April. The Noble Lord wrote to Mr. Wyse on the same date, informing him of the plan, but this letter did not get to Mr. Wyse as soon as the report had reached Baron Gros of what had taken place between the Noble Lord and M. Drouyn de Niue. Baron Gros writes to Mr. Wyse, informing him that he had heard of this arrangement, and, on the 22d April, Baron Gros writes a letter to Mr. Wyse, of which the following is an extract: — "A dispatch, dated the 6th of this month, received by the last courier, contains word for word what follows. It ap pears front the language held by Lord Palmerston to M. Drouyn de I'Huys that,* if the British Envoy should refuse to accept a compromise which you might judge reasonable, and to which the Greek Government had acceded, the affair must be referred to London, and that until a definitive deci sion all things should remain in suspense.' " If Mr. Wyse does not think he can subscribe to the last amicable arrangement above proposed, and which the Hel lenic Government is disposed to conclude, the undersigned demands of his Excellency the Minister Plenipotentiary of her Britannic Majesty urgently, and in the name of the im portant interest which may be compromised, to consent to maintain the status quo, and to refer on the subject to his Court." Now, Mr. Wyse writes to Baron Gros a letter, dated April 24, 1850, nine o'clock:— " I have just received an express which gives me impor tant news. Lord Palnieston requires some changes in my first draft of convention, which is very incomplete, I con fess, but which has been in a singular degree improved as regards English views. But this is better than all. He has said to M. Drouyn de l'Huys, ' If the arrangement pro posed by M. Gros does not meet the concurrence of Mr. Wyse, the negotiation would remain open. Mr. Wyse would submit the proposals of the negotiator to the British Cabi net, and would wait for instructions. Measures of coercion would be resumed without fresh orders, only in case M. Gros should declare that he renounces the part of mediator.' —(April 12 ) "What can be more precise? "Well, then, I have not renounced the part of mediator; I have submitted to you a project which I believe to be just and satisfactory. In God's name submit it to the judgment of Lord Palmerston. " This is what I propose. " I will withdraw my note ; I will return to you yours ; all that has happened shall be but as a disagreeable dream." Mr. Wyse, by this paper, seemed to renounce the idea of mediation, and had given orders that the embargo should be reinstated. It was reinstated, and an agree ment made with Mr. Wyse and the Greek Government. In the nranwhile comes the statement of the Noble Lord. And as the sensibilities of the French people appear to be much aroused in respect to this matter I beg leave to say a few word.. Of the two plans of arrange ment that had been taken into consideration, I believe that of the Noble Lord's to be the most favourable to the Greek Government. I believe that the only difference between them is this, that the Noble Lord had asked for a larger sum down at once than Mr. Wyse, who did take a portion of it by way of se curity. It was ordered that the parties who complained should be paid something for redress. The Noble Lord said it was not worth while to disturb whet has been already done, and thereupon up starts the insulted French nation. But is it the French nation? Was there not a curious coincidence apparent here? Was there not a patty anxious to get up an emeute in Paris? Did they not try to cause a diversion by talking of war with England, that they might prevent the occurrence of that which they so much dreaded? Were they not going to make a change upon their own constitution? Did they not mean to effect that by getting up an ap parent quarrel with England? But the body of con spirators, as I will call them, who hold in their own hands now the power of the French people, and ignorant of the means of conducting a constitutional government, are endeavouring by the force of the bayonet to put down all who say a word in opposition to them—these are the party that are endeavouring to get up a quarrel with England. Freedom does not exist in France. Nee spaper after newspaper is put down there; and in order to gratify their own wishes they will at tempt anything. And this is the morality of the ex citable people who talk of the honour of France. I be lieve that the honour of France is like the honour of England—beyond the reach of such petty artifices.— (hear, hear.) If we look around this European world of ours, where is the people save England who could safely go to war? Could France go to war? Could Aust , ia go to war? Where would Italy be in such u case? Could Russia go to 'war The fact is we are forbearing because we are so powerful.—(flear, hear.) There can be no doubt that it is weak people that are the most sensitive,—so it is with nations. The most powerful can aff,)rd to receive an insult without being insolent, and meet petulance without quarrelling. I acknowledge that it is totally impossible for me to go over every step that Ma i; been brought under our consideration. I will only add one word as to the form of our decision. I hope that the House will not shrink from a fair discussion upon this important question. I hope that my lion. Friend opposite will not attempt to evade the difficulty by pressing his amendment on the House. If the policy of the Government, after being condemned by the House of Lords, does not receive a clear, distinct, and unambiguous approval of the House of Commons, it is impossible that they sin remain any longer in the seats which they now occupy.—(Hear, hear.) It must be no half opinion. It must be nothing that can admit of the excuse of one Hon. Member being siek or another dead. The vote in their favour must be clear, strong, and decided—such as shall enable the Government to maintain the dignity of the country in the faoe of the whole world, even if the world be opposed to them. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman concluded by moving the resolution of which he had given notice. (We regret exceedingly that the low tone in which the Hon. and Learned Geoff man spoke, particularly towards the conclusion of his sentences, rendered it very difficult for the reporters to catch the actual words he used.) The question having been put, Mr. HUME rose to withdraw the amendment of which ho had given notice. He could not exactly agree in all that was said by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who moved the resolution. He expected that the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen would have been able to vindicate the whole of the foreign policy of the Noble Lord, com mencing with the year 1830. But after mentioning the proceedings in Belgium, he jumped over a considerable period to eulogise the foreign policy of the Noble Lord. No man beard with greater pleasure than he did the late Earl Grey's memorable speech in which he stated that non-interference should be the ground of his policy. He certainly would not now stand in the way of the appeal made to him, lest it might be supposed that he had improper views on the question, and meant to injure the Govern ment. He was most anxious that they should retain their position, as he thought that the welfare and pros perity of the country required their services. It was upon that ground he interposed. He was sorry he did so; for he found he did not understand those with whom he sat.—(Laughter.) He expressed his regret that anything should pass in this House that should create anxiety and uneaiiness in respect to the relations be tween this country and France. He believed that the connexion was essential for the peace of Europe, and he would be sorry that anything should occur to estrange the affection that should exist between the two countries, and upon which the interests of the world mainly de pended. He was sorry he had undertaken this most un satisfactory duty, and he would most willingly withdraw his amendment. —(Laughter.) He was never ashamed to admit when he felt that he had not acted exactly right. He certainly would not press his motion. Sir F. THESIGER said that it was impossible, notwith standing the great extent of the motion which had been made by his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Shef field ( Mr. Roebuck), not to look at the circumstances under which that motion had been brought forward. On Monday last a resolution was adopted elsewhere in these terms : " That while this House fully recognise 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 comman d, 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." That resolution was said to have been carried by a majority far beyond the gloomiest anticipations of the Go vernment, and necessarily created some difficulty in their minds as to the course which it would be proper for them to pursue. For two days a silence, deep and mysterious, had been preserved, when at length his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) asked a question, and elicited from the Noble Lord the remarkable declaration which he made on Thursday last, when, after ad verting to the terms of the resolution, he stated it was not the intention of Government to depart from their policy or resign the reins of government, in consequence of the reso lution of the other House. The Noble Lord (Lord J. Rus sell) cited certain authorities as precedents for the course pursued. In the first place he told them that 140 years ago there had been a resolution and address of the other House against the propriety of assenting to any treaty which would leave Spain in the possession of any branch of the house of Bourbon, and yet, notwithstanding, a treaty had been concluded in direct opposition to that vote. He then adverted to a resolution of the House of Lords, moved by the Duke of Wellington in the time of Earl Grey, ho declared that if it was carried he should consider it a vote of censure upon the Government. It was carried by a a nd Ile nevertheless did not resign, and continued majority o tot n pursue te' authorities, the Noble Lord was certainly not very ingenuous, as he had only mentioned that portion of the precedent which answered his purpose, and had forgotten to mention the other portion of the precedent which he had not followed. Ho had not stated that upon the last occasion he had men tioned four days after the resolution was carried in the House of Lords, an habitual supporter of the Government, of course by arrangement with them, brought forward the motion in that House of approval of the course pursued by the Go vernment, and that it was carried by a majority of 263 to 98, who voted in the minority against Ministers. Now that Vas a most important state of circumstances to distin guish between what took place in 1833 and the present oc casion. The vote of censure of the House of Lords was set aside by an enormous majority in the House of Commons. Why was it that the Noble Lord who was so fond of citing precedents when in his favour, had omitted to follow the whole precedent? Why was it that he had not thought proper to come forward there and ask explicitly for a re versal of the House of Lords' condemnation of their foreign policy ?—(Hear, hear.) If he valued precedent, be was bound to have done so. If he had done so, he would have found their policy regarding tha Greek nation a very hazardous experiment. The Noble Lord thought it neces sary that the question should be submitted to the House for its opinion, and in this difficulty the Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield stepped forward to their rescue. He would not say that there had been any preconcerted ar rangement between himself and the Government, but lie would say that the Hon. Member for Sheffield had pur chased a substantial claim to the gratitude of the Govern ment.—(Order.) Mr. SO AERS here rose to order, and said the observation of the lion. and Learned Gentleman was invidious and unfair, and uncalled for. The SPEAKER said he had not heard anything fall from the lion. and Learned Gentleman contrary to the orders of the House. _ . Sir F. TIILSIGLR was never more surprised than when he found the Honourable and Learned Gentleman stand fur ward in this gap, because in a debate in 1843, in which he (Mr. Roebuck) took a part in reference to the affeirs of ekin g hanistan, althought there was no immediate and direct. allusion to the forei , n policy of the Noble Lord (Lord Pal merston), he said he might be unhappy, most unhappy, ire his opinion, but it was his impression that the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) had exercised a most pernicious eflett upon the foreign policy of this country. He had, at the same time, made use of some ludicrous illustrations, liken ing him to Phaeton driving his chariot round the world to set it on fire, and to a " lucifer match."—(Hear.) He declared that the Noble Lord's mischievous activity extended over the whole habitable globe, and that he looked with suspicion upon every fact adduced in his vindication.—( Hear bear.) Now, those were his sentiments in 1843. The Noble Lord had returned since then to power, and now presided over the foreign affairs of this country. He was the same man, retaining every activity and pursuing the same policy. There was the "lucifer-match" in the Foreign-office ready, like another Phaeton, to set the world on fire.—(Hear.) Now certainly with these impressions on his mind, and not observing any alteration in his policy, this resolution, as emanating from him, was one of the most extraordinary and inconceivable that could possibly be imagined. His Honourable and Learned Friend had not pursued the course which was most proper—confining the question to_the Greek question, and to a reversal of the vote of the House of Lords, but he had taken a much more prudent course, and made his resolution general, including Greece, but at the same time including so many topics, and giving so ample a range to the discussion, that any Honourable Member, if inclined, could find some excuse for voting with the Govern ment. He wished the House to concur in a resolution that the principles upon which the foreign policy of the Gove n ment was conducted were calculated to uphold the honour and dignity of the country. He confessed he thought there was some ambiguity hidden under the word . 4 principle." They were all agreed as to abstract principles. He thought he never meant to confine the House to a question of that abstract kind, and therefore he concluded that the House was called upon to approve the principles of foreign policy as carried out by the Noble Lord the Foreign Secretary. Again, the words " foreign policy calculated in times of difficulty and danger to preserve the peace of the world." Did that apply to our own, or foreign countries? The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had been pleased to explain that would•be principle, and there was no doubt but that they were called upon to sanction the foreign policy carried out, in contradistinction to that carried out by the last Ministry. It was impossible to have heard the speech of the Noble Lord, and not to see that there had been a striking differ ence between the policy of the Noble Lord and that of the Ministry of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth. He called upon them to approve the former as most likely to uphold the honour and dignity of the country, in opposition to that of the policy of the last Ministry. Now, that being so, let them trace the policy of the Noble Lord in his intercourse with different Governments of Europe, and he would venture to say, that so far from its being calculated to preserve the honour and dignity of the country, there never was a course so likely to embroil them with all na tions, and which had resulted in the deepest humiliation to England. He proposed, in considering the question, to confine himself to two or three prominent occa sions, travelling as rapidly as possible over the ground. He impatiently hung on the words of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), expecting every moment that he would make some allusion to Greece, but regretted to say—and he felt assured that the House ge nerally sympathised with him—that he did not allude to the subject-matter of his resolution till the end of his speech, and that conclusion was characterised with an approval of the Noble Lord (Palmerston's) conduct. In consideration of this question, he hoped that the House would duly weigh the position of Greece with respect to the threeprotecting powers, England, France, and Russia ; and he felt the deepest regret that he looked upon those powers seeking more their own individual interests, by intrigues and cabals, rather than exercise their great powers for the protection of a weak and feeble nation, which was the pledge they bad given at the time of establishing Greece on the constitutional grounds of a nation. lie next thought, considering the strength of England and the weak. ness of Greece, that the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) should abstain altogether from using threats and menaces, which would not be offered to any strong power of Eu rope. He admitted that the claims of British subjects should be defended, but should at the same time say that he felt assured that. many of them were exaggerated, and he did not mean to adduce this in the light of a mere as sertion, but, would support it by the most irrefragable argu ments. First, he would refer to the claims of Mr. Finlay, in which case he considered the conduct of the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) as most ungenerous and unbecoming; and he regretted to add, that he feared that such a line of policy as that pursued by the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had left an impression on the minds of the people of France which would not be speedily removed, and which could not, therefore, fail to do much injury to this country. He should enter into the details of Mr. Findlay's case, and show that he, a British subject, in 1830 had pur chased a small plot of land, not much more than three-quarters of an acre, for which he paid 101., or 300 drachmas. Now when it was deemed necessary by the Government of that country that this plat of ground should be taken for the King's garden, an offer of 3,000 drachmas was made, but re fused by Mr. Finlay, on the ground that the land was worth four thousand five hundred drachmas, or 1,5001, for a piece of land for which he paid only 101.—(Hear, hear.) At the time of this altercation between Mr. Finlay and the Greek Government there were 100 other claimants of a similar nature, but all agreed to the proposition of that Go vernment, as they knew that a constitutional government, formed in 1843, placed their property under different cir cumstances to what they had been previously. However, as Mr. Finlay persisted in his demand, it was considered most judicious on both sides that the matter should be left to ar bitration ; and should the arbiters not agree,, that an umpire of unprejudiced opinions should decide as to the sum to be paid. He should here say, that the wish of the Greek Go vernment at first, rela , ive to the appointment of an umpire, was not just or fair, because they required that one of them selves should be appointed to the office of umpire in case the subject of litigation should go beyond the arbitrators. Now he had one remark on the matter to make, which was to be found in the blue book of 1850, page 50, that the case of .Mr. Finlay was closed on the 9th of August, 1849. He therefore referred to this im portant question, whether it was justifiable on the part of the British Government to interfere with an armed force as they had done, particularly as the matter was closed, according to the above quoted evidence between the two litigant parties. He should say that be felt really startled when his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) asserted that there was nu inter national law violated by such hostile interference; but such an assertion he begged leave to gainsay, for it is unjust for any nation to interfere, except when justice is refused, or when the right of a subject is violated by the seizure of his pro perty, neither of which occurred in the case of Mr. Finlay, fur there was nothing more than a delay, owing to the mat ter not being adjudicated on. He was astonished that his Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) should hazard such an opinion on the laws of nations, paricularly as the contrary was agreed upon by all philosophers and jurists, and also when Montesquieu and Lord Campbell approved of the opinion given that night by him (Sir F. Thesiger).—(Hear, hear). Lord Mansfield also said, that the law of nations, founded on justice and equity, does not allow reprisals, except in cases where the 'parties from whom reprisals are taken are the aggressors.—(lronical Cheers from the Government party.) If Honourable Gen tlemea would not inte'rupt him by such cheers, he would fully explain, for, he did not mean to say that Mr. Finlay was not wronged, but what he wished to explain was, that as Mr. Finlay took the mutter to a 'court, he should wait for the decision of that court before he should apply to the ambassador of his native country, to assert his claims by an armed naval force. It would be found in the blue book of February, 1850, that the interference of this Government was most unsatisfactory to France, and most unfair, and perhaps injurious, to this coun ry particularly. As far as related to Mr. Wyse's Letter of October 18, 1849, in which it was stated that the claims of Finlay were left, with the mutual consent of both parties (Finlay and the Greek Go vernment), to arbitration, and that such aline of procedure was the best that could be adopted• for the decision of the question at issue, he therefore, uhelar those, circumstances, considered it most unwise and unjust that an armed inter ference should take place, and expressed his regret that the high honour and unimpeachable character of this country should be looked upon in the light that she now was by the other nations of Europe, and for that reason he con tended that the case of Finlay should not. be made ex clusive for the introduction of the hostile interference of this country. (Hear, hear.) He would next refer. 'to another case, and should at the same time express it as his strongest hope that no Honourable Gentleman would for one minute suppose that he had any unreasonable prejudice against any one because of his religious persuasion, or that because of his religion he would make an exorbitant claim, and he therefore did not question whether that individual was a Jew or a Christian ; but in the case of Pacifico, he be lieved that there could not be a more exaggerated case, for while he (Sir F. Thesiger) admitted that some of his furni ture was materially injured by the mob in that country, he could not be induced to believe that it was worth 4,9161., as the man was in most needy circumstances, being obliged to pledge his plate for 301., that he might lend out to the poor people of that country, at a very usurious interest, and he consequently confessed that he did not believe that he was possessed of all the drachmas which he alleged be lost on that occasion ; and he also wished to add,. that when the mob left . his house they did not take with them' the accounts which stated the amount due to bins by the Portuguese Government. He therefore felt astonished that the Noble Lord (Lord Pal merston) should support such a claim as that of Pacifico for such a sum ; and not only support him, but to enforce that claim by force of naval arms. For he considered that., a. Foreign Secretary should act with the greatest gentleness and urbanity towards all -other nations, particularly towards a nation that he was bound to protect; particularly as Pacifico alao left his case to arbitration, on which occa- , sion he endeavoured to implicate six persons, who were all acquitted by. the court.—(lronical cheers from Mr. Roe buck.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) must know that that trial was not brought on for the in demnification of the losses sustained by that person, but for the punishment of those six persons, should they be found guilty of having violated the law of the country. He should say that the tribunals of the country were open to Pacifico, and that he should have gone to those tribunals before he would plunge the honour and character of this country in jeopardy, which latter course would be only justifiable, should he, as a British su bj ec t, meet with injustice in those courts. Suppose that in 1780 a violent and infuriated mob had broken into the house of a Roman Catholic (a foreigner), many of which cases had then occurred, would the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen (Mr. Roebuck) agree with the fo reign( ea (3 4overnment, that they would be justified in pro claimi X. - ; war against this country? He believed not. On the wl r de, he believed, that the case of the Pacifico require i i calm consideration and due inquiry, and he felt assure i that the result would be t hat there was a very great extigg oration of the claim of this man. Re contended that the inn erference of France was perfectly justifiable under all the cir zumstmces that he bad already stated, as well as with reepec ,t to the capture of the six lonian boats at the custom house ,of Salcina. He did not mean to trespass on the bus a much longer, and for that reason had confined himself to th r. three claims which were ordered to be enforced by the Briti a a squadron. He should say that the claims of the two person is, Finlay and Pacifico, were without any foundation, and V sus the cool and firm answer of M. Londos to Mr. Wysi t. Nothing in his (Sir F. Thesiger's) opinion could be mori calm or more dignified. And how was it answered by thus: British Government? By an overwhelming armed force, who ch was sent against a friendly Government, and against wl lose commerce a heavy blow was dealt, and ves sel s were seized of the value of 17,000/., in satis fac lion of the claims of M. Pacifico, amounting in the most to ,',OOO/.—(Hear, hear.) Looking at the whole of the cir ca instances in those proceedings, he would ask the House w Nether they were prepared to vote for the motion of the ion. Member for Sheffield ?—(Hear, hear, from the Oppo s tt.i (n.) He would now refer the attention 'of the house to t Jar, policy of the Noble Lord at the head of foreign affairs, ar (1 ask the House if that policy was the policy of peace?— (? lear, hear ) There were two small islands, Cerva and Sa p «oiza, about which the question had been raised, as to whe t her they rightfully belonged to, and should be considered as part of, the dominions of Greece, or ought to go with the seven islands which were in possession of Great Britain. A correspondence took place on the subject, and the Noble Lord sent instructions to Admiral Parker to proceed with an over whel mingarmed force and seize those islands. That proceeding led to the interference of Russia, and to a correspondence be tween the Noble Lord and Count Nesselrode, which assumed a rather serious aspect, and led to the withdrawal of the Noble Lord's demand.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) The lion. and Learned Gentleman then directed the atten tion of the Houie to the negotiations which commenced on the subject of the claims of M. Pacifico and others on the Greek Government, and the offer of friendly mediation on the part of France, and acceptance by the British Govern ment of such mediation. He then passed to the arrival at Athens of Baron Gros, as representative of the French Go vernment, the interviews between him and Mr. Wyse, the British Minister at the Court of Athens. and of all those subsequent proceedings in the history of the case which have been already so frequently discussed, and are now publicly so well known. In the course of the negotiation a demand, he said, was made that 180,000 drachmas should be deposited pen ding the negotiation, in satisfaction of M. Pacifico's claims ; and on the failure of compliance with those terms, coercive measures were resolved on and resumed, in consequence of which the King of Greece was compelled to pay one million of drachmas.—(" No, no," from the Ministerial benches.) Then it was not important.—(Laughter.) He now found that 330,000 drachmas were only demansied - but it was not of im portance.—(Hoar, What was the condition po r i n t an ce which . the(HaNeobri e and o r lg d a laughter.) ohotde r. that moment? The Noble at Lord was accused and insulted in certain grave charges made against him—charges followed up by the withdrawal of the French Ambassador (M. Drouyn de l'Huys) from the British Court ; and at that moment the Noble Lord was compelled to accept of terms quite contrary to those of the convention in the first instance—terms, mark, not containing one word of thelpoints insisted ou by Mr. Wyse. (The lion. and Learned Gentleman then read a copy of the communication made on the subject of the settlement of the Greek question by General Lahitte to the National Assetably, indicating that France had not yielded anything of the conditions NS hich she at first proposed.). The Noble Lord, he said, held out until he had almost driven the two nations to the verge of war, and had subjected his own nation to humiliation; and was at last compelled to accede to that which he might and ought to have acceded to in the first instance. The opinions of the French Government, and of the greater part of Europe, was against the course taken by the Noble Lord. General Lahitte had said that the French Government had no other motive in the affair than to aid in effecting justice between the parties, and the opinion of Russia and of all the other powers were averse to the course taken by the Noble Lord. He should be glad to know whether the course of the Noble Lord was the course best calculated to procure peace. He thought not, and that, so far from that, it was calculated rather to subject the British nation to humiliation and degradation. With respect to the assertion that Lord Aberdeen had used' quite as strong language as that used by the Noble Lord on the subject of the Greek loan, he ( Sir F. Thesiger) must say there was a very •marked difference. The course adopted by the Noble Lord (the Earl of Aberdeen) was of a very different character. He could not conclude his remarks without alluding to a state ment of the Noble Lord, in which the Noble Lord had said that he would not be the Minister of Russia or of France, or of any other power—(Hear, hear)— but that he would be the Minister of England only. He must say that he hardly understood the meaning of that statement of the Noble Lord, but he presumed that the Noble Lord meant to say that " upon every occasion while he was at the head of the foreign affairs of this country he would be found to act with regard to the sustainment of British interests, but not with regard to the interests of any other country." Now, if that was the meaning of the Noble Lord, he (Sir F. Thesiger) thought it was a very unsafe and a very danger ous one. He apprehended that in political ethics a state should be regarded in the same manner as an individual, with all his responsibilities and rights; and the Noble Lord, acting as the Minister of England; would be departing from the rule of right if, in his management of the interests of England, he were not to give the same at tention`to the interests of other countries that he would to his own. There was a difference between domestic policy and foreign policy, according to the Noble Lord. It was not a very high eulogium on a Foreign Minister to say that he would 'be the Minister of his own nation only, and not of any other. Now, in what situation would they be placed, should the House assent to the motion of the Hou. Member for Sheffield ? They were not called upon to express a direct opinion or censure on the policy of the Noble Lord. A general resolution, approving of the Noble Lord's policy, was presented to them in relation to his course on the ques tion now before the House. But a vote of this House in fa vour of that resolution would lose more than half of its effect by a reference to a vote which had been come to on the question in another place. Foreign nations were aware that an opinion had been pronounced by a majority of the other House of Parliament, condemnatory of the Noble Lord's po licv on the question now under the considerationof this House ; and the sentence which had been pronounced by abet House, had gone forth to all lands. The Noble Lord had been con victed by that sentence, and let this House do what it might, it was quite impossible that he could refute that sentence or reinstate himself in the confidence of foreign nations. - (Hear, hear.) He venture.!, on the facts which he had sub mitted, to maintain that the Noble Lord at the head of fo reign affairs had constantly intervened, not to secure free dom, but for the purpose of either insisting peremptorily for demands which should not be made, or for the purpose of encouraging revolutions which were called an approach to self-government, and he could show that, having so inter fered, the Noble Lord had lett these revolutionary parties to their fate. For these reasons, and being influenced by these considerations, he intended giving a decided negative to the motion which the Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield had submitted to the House.—(Cheers.) Mr. P. WOOD said that he came down to the House be- that the Commons of England would have to discuss a question of the greatest importance, and deeply affecting the interest, the honour, and the dignity of this country. He had no idea that the motion would be met by such ar guments as those which had been used—of details of the exaggeration of Don Pacifico's claim, or of the paltriness of the vulgar speculation of Mr. Finlay, which he confessed every one of which he had either heard or read:before, and which tilled him with such ineffable disgust that he did not believe they would have been sanctioned by the Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon adopting them. He was surprised, too, that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman should have thrown out the miserable insinuation that the Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield had earned a re• ward, or was entitled to receive a reward, from the Government for the part he took in con nexion with this question of such serious import. He told the Honourable and Learned Member for Abingdon that the Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield had already earned a reward which it was in the power of no Government to confer, namely, the affection and attachment of the people of England. The Hon. and Learned Gentle man, however, was quite able to defend himself against such an attack, and he (Mr. Wood) merely noticed it to show the nature of the arguments they had to expect from the quarter whence such insinuations emanated. The question they were to discuss was one of great and serious import. The determination of another place, as he suspected by their resolution, was founded on this avowed principle, that they desired to announce to Europe that the Foreign-office was not England. That principle had been well and.promptly mat by the counter-resolution of the Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield, in which they were called on to state that the Foreign-office had been well represented, and that the course pursued was calculated to uphold the dignity and honour of England. The Lords, by their vote, had' expressed an opinion that the Minister of Eagland had been regardless of England's honour. Every step taken by the Noble and Learned Lord who submitted the proposition in the House of Peers was well known in this House; but the Commons of England had not expressed any vote in consideration of that foreign policy, nor ware they called upon to express any such opinion. No Member had ventured to ask the decision of the House of Commons whether England's honour had been tarnished during that Administration which it was contended had brought them into such a humiliating position. If that resolution were correct the Ruse of Commons had neglected its duty, and they had announced to the whole of Europe whenever you have a complaint to make you know that you have the House of Lords to complain to. Now, his opinion was directly opposed to that holden in the resolution of the House of Lords. He believed that the policy of the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, especially in reference to Greece, was best calculated to uphold the dignity and the honour of England, and to maintain phace with foreign countries. If they took issue on the whole policy of the Noble Lord they could ne,t have a better example than in the case of Greece. So far from being *rutting in dignity - and honour by the course pursued, they should have been wanting in both had they abstained from interfering in sustainment of the right' of British subjects, and in obtaining for them speedy redress for the wrongs they suffered. The only blame attachable to Lord Palmerston was, that he had not done that in 1848 which he caused to be done in . 1850.—(Hear.) A British subject failed to obtain redress from the Greek Government in a just claim for compensation. He appealed to the re presentatives of the British Government on the spot where the injustice had been done him ; and then they were told that this was the case of a canny Scot, who had made a good bargain, and wished to hold it.—( Hear.) Then there was the case of the plunder of property of a British subject—the sons of the Minister of War being parties to the mischief— who in addition to the total demolition of his furniture, had his wife and daughter beaten. The answer given to this case was, that it was the case of a Jew, and that he had put forward very exaggerated claims for com pensation. He (Mr. Wood) felt deeply ashamed that in a place where Don Pacifico had not an opportunity of being heard, it should be alleged against him that he bore the name of a person who would have been convicted of forgery if he had failed to put down a certain sum of money. In Pacifico's case the plain broad facts amounted simply to this, that he, a British subject, had been refused redress by the Greek Go vernment for gross insults and injuries which he experi enced; and would it be contended that they upheld the honour and dignity of England if such a state of things were permitted to pass unnoticed? In the third case a man named Zumaika was subjected to the muse cruel torture, after the Turkish fashion, without any evidence in sustain ment of some alleged charge being preferred against him. He (Mr. Wood) could prove, as he would do by and by, that the unfortunate fellow had been cruelly and brutally tor tured. Redress was refused him, and were they to be told t hat the British Government should tolerate injustice on one who had a right to claim protection front them? A man was to be robbed, according to the morality of those who supported the resulution of the other House, because he happened to be a Scot; another was to have his furniture destroyed, his house pillaged, and his wife and daughter beaten, because he was a Jew; and a third was violently and indecently tortured , because he was accused of burglary without any evidence being produced against him. in a fourth case a positive and direct ineult was offered to the British navy, by the treatment• to which the crew of the Fantome was subjected. They were told, forsooth, that they should pass all those cases by. It did seem to him that those who came to that conclusion must have had rather a singular notion of what was due to the honour and dignity of England. The Learned Gentleman then went into the details of Mr. Finlay's case, commenting on the manifest injustice of refusing him compensation for the portions of his property which the Greek Government had appropriated to their own purposes, and showing that in 1542 Lord Aber deen considered he had a just claim for remuneration. The Greek Government, aftsr various applications on the part of Mr. Finlay, told that gentleman to take his re medy, but the law of Greece did not permit of any recovery against the King. At length they consented to have the matter arbitrated, appointing as an arbitrator the•president of the tribunal, just as it justice in such a reference could be expected from a party so interested, but they held back all the papers connected with the matter in dispute until the legal period of the reference had expired. In Pacifico%) case it was asked why he had not applied to the authorities for redress. He did try the authorities. He went before the police, pointed out certain individuals, including the sons of the Minister of War, as having been implicated in the out rage, but no redress was rendered him. M. Pacitioo com plained to the King's advocate of the outrage committed upon him, that a fotoue mob broke into his house. heated by the two sons of General Zavelios, one of the King's own Ministers, and President of the Council; he pointed out the hote‘es where his plundered property was concealed, hut they refused to search, and he was una')le to assert for himself the rights of a Greek citizen, because he was a Jew. The Honourable and Learned Member for Abing don asked, whether during the riots of Lord George Gordon in 1780, if a house of a foreign Minister were attacked, beta use he happened to be a Roman Catholic, would it be a case fin. the Government of that Minister to demand redress? Undoubtedly it would, and the case would be rendered irre sistible if the leader of the mob who committed the outrage was the son of one of the Ministers of the day—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—and the foreigner robbed and plundered because he was a Roman Catholic, a circumstance as likely to happen in those miserable times as that of the outrage on the Jew at Athens. That undoubtedly would be a case for foreign intervention, and that was precisely the case of M. Pacitico.—(Cheers.) The Greek Minister, however, when informed of the transaction, said it was a mere frolic of a parcel of idle schoolboys, and unquestionably in his (Mr. P. Wood's) view of the entire transaction, that House and the country ought to feel grateful to the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign-office for taking such care of the interests of British subjects abroad, and securing them from a repetition of such horrible and flagrant outrages as were committed in the present case. But then it was said that the money taken from him WAS not his own ; and how did that affect the case? The money, no doubt, was trust money—two hundred and thirty pounds of it were given him to build a synagogue, and 801. of his own money. It was also alleged that he had nojewels e in big house, but witnesses deposed to their having seen them, as well as to the costly character of the furniture destroyed, and the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, who delighted them in other respects by graphic descriptions, as well as in his speeches in that House, knew well that it was the custom of the Jews in the East to have their riches and most valuable property secluded altogether from the public gaze. As to the statement made that his claim on the Por tuguese Government was a mere pretence, he (Mr. Wood) knew that he made his demand for that claim so early as 1845, and Sir Edmund Lyons, their former Minister at Athens, distinctly states, in one of his dispatches, that he remem bered well speaking to him on the subject, and it could not therefore be trumped up for the occasion. If they looked at Baron Gros's statement, and, without wishing to say anything offensive to that gentleman, he should say M. Pacifico fell into bad hands, they would find it the most extraordinary for one in his position that could be imagined. He was sent out as a mediator, and the first thing he did in tnat capacity was to refuse the Portuguese claim on the evidence of the debtor.—(Loud cheers.) The most extra ordinary circumstance in that extraordinary case was, that there was a gentleman sent out by the French Government to act impartially. He refused to admit the claim on the Portuguese Government, because he received two dispatches from that Government denying the claim. (Cheers and laughter.) Next came the case which was not discussed at all—natuely, that of a poor man named Zumaika, an lonian subject. He was at Patras, working as a blacksmith, and being charged with committing burglary, on mere suspicions, he was, on denying the offence, put to the torture. They put a heavy stone on his chest, on which two men sat, and then the unfortunate creature had to undergo another process of suffering of too horrible and indecent a description to detail to the House. He made a complaint the day after, and a mock investigation was ordered by the Government, and a person with the pompous name of Chricento Fulue, a doctor, was the person who conducted it. He inspected the man, and what was his report? That he had suffered no external injury—that no organic change had taken place in him, and that his injuries were the result of an attack of rheumatism - (A laugh )--or of his trade as a tiuker. (Laughter.) He contended that the case, up to the present moment, had been treated of, and discussed like a nisi Kitts case, and not on broad or general principles. The case of that man underwent a secret exami nation, and when the British Vice-Consul remonstrated with the physician for sending in such a report, his answer was that he could not help it, for that the police compelled him to do so. (Cheers.) Sir Edward Lyons stated the same thing in one of his dispatches, and asserted that the physi cian told him so. That was the state of things described elsewhere with so much levity; and when the words " brutal treatment" was so much cavilled at, could any man doubt but that he was " brutally treated?"—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) And in addition to the outrages to which he had already called the attention of the House, he was kept three months in prison, without any charge whatever being sustained, or brought against him. Anti after the refusal to • do justice on the part of the Greek Government, was it not the bounden duty of the Foreign Mi nister to see that these things should not be repeated? But that was not all; for continued insults had been Offered. lonians were imprisoned without cause—flogged at the plea sure of those in power and a poor man fur putting up a few flags was brought through the streets as a malefactor.— (llear, hear.) Indeed, so great were the sufferings they en dured, that a memorial was presented to the Consul (signed by forty lonians in nand) praying for redress and puttee tion, or they would be compelled to leave the country alto gether. Then came the plunder of the lonian boats, valued at 1,2001., and which were enticed into the Greek custom house by brigands; and the last, the most flagrant of all, committed on one of their own boats Wont:lug to the Fantome ship, commanded by Captain Le Hardy. The whole of these outrages were set forth in De cember, 18'8, and the Greek Government urged not to mistake the forbearance of England, for ample satisfac tion should be given in the end. Mr. Vityse's letter again recapitulated them, and used almost the same language in his letter to Mr. Londos. What could be done under such circumstances, but to demand reparation.—(Cheers.) Should they have gone to Russia and France and say, that if they were in their unhappy position, they would demand reparation. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then read the celebrated letter of Count Nesselrode, the Russian Minister, complaining of what the Government, in pro ceeding with hostilities against Greece, a kingdom indebted to Russia and France for large sums of money advanced to her, and proceeded. They might talk of dignity, and assert that this letter humbled England, but it only amounted in his mind to this, Ithat if England insisted on having the claims of her subjects compensated, there would not be enough left to pay their demand. We hail broken that delusion, he trusted, for ever, and shown that England could be at once just and firm. The course adopted towards Greece—that of stopping her trade for a short time—was the only one open, looking at the relative strength of the two countries. Surely Hon. Members did not wish that we should have a " little war" with Greece. But, after having waited for so many years, after having so repeatedly remonstrated with the Government, it was n-cessary to show that there was a limit to forbearance, and he thought the step taken at last by the Noble LOrd was the only one that could maintain the interests, the honour, and the dignity of England, and also at the same time maintain an honourable general peace. He had felt it to be his duty to present this view of the case, because he believed the public were not acquainted with it.—(Hear, hear.) Few, indeed, could submit to the drudge , yof going through the mass of papers in which the facts were con tained. But if any one would do so, they would find every statement he had made borne out by these documents. It was one thing to make a statement having reference to a few small details, for the purpose of making out a case of hardship, and another to look through papers extending over the long period of eight years, during the whole of which period every species of evasion and of idle trifling was re sorted to. He had done this himself, and he came to the deliberate conclusion that the Noble Lord had taken the only step that was open to him in the matter. He came to this conclusion from no personal feeling, because, though for many years he had watched the course of the Noble Lord, he did not know him personally, nor did he know that he had ever exchanged a word with him. But this he did say, that looking to the year 1848, when the peace of Europe was menaced to so alarming an extent, and to the adroitness with which the Noble Lord maintained the position and influence of England, and at the same time conduced to the preservation of peace in Europe—(Cheers)—looking at that, and seeing that at all events peace had been maintained, he could not believe but that the Noble Lord was entitled to the admiration and the support of the country.—(Cheers.) It was true that the Noble Lord had been engaged in negotiations with France and other countries, arising out of those events. But those who deprecated the interference of the Noble Lord, spoke as though there kad been no interference elsewhere, as if France bad not interfered at Rome—(Ministerial cheers)—Russia in Hungary (Cheers)—and Prussia with Denmark.—(Hear, hear.) These were armed interferences, whereas the inter ference of the Noble Lord had in all cases been first solicited, and had always been confined to friendly meditation, with the view of maintaining peace.—(Great laughter on the Opposition benches.) He could understand why that state ment was ridiculed by those who were for maintaining peace by at all times ranging themselves, on the side of absolutism —( Ministerial cheers)—who were, as the Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon had said, "the party . of order and not of change." His Hon. and Learned Friend, no doubt, thought he had made an antithesis when he used that ex pression, but there was little philosophy in it. He believed That change was the only mode of maintaining order.— (Hear.) He would ask any one who had observed the pre sent state of European nations, if they believed that order could be long maintained if it was not for change. It was not for us to stimulate that change. Our desire was that every nation in t urope should be as free and as happy as ourselves. But it was well known that our power and influence were limited to friendly advice. Whenever that was asked it was given freely. We did not interfere against existing autho rities well rit or money from the British Gov e r nment. He must sa y anytne they o l u v n o t u r l y d , a n n o d t those ve who n s s i o s p t a p n o s n them te r in k a n r e n : s th in at - that he regretted that when t he Hungarian :deputation came to this country they shou ld have trusted m ore to the declarations made at pub li c meet ings, by persons who kad no power of realising their statements, or of giving efficient assistance, than to the exposition of the Noble Lord's views in that House, in which he frankly expressed his deep sympathy with that unfortunate people, but at the same time frankly stated that they could have no assistance from the Government. If these gentlemen had been deceived it had not been by the Noble Lord, or the Ministry with which he was connected, which had strictly acted on the avowed policy of non-inter ference with the internal affairs of Foreign States. lie well remembered that when the Hon. Member for Buckingham shire ventured to raise a debate with regerd to Italy, he was not able to point to any act of interference which was not justi tied by the Noble Lord, by showing that his advice, so far from being volunteered, had in every instance been asked. It was requested by the Sovereigns of Rome, the Court of Austria, and the Cabinet of Prussia. In the case of the mediation at the instance of Austria, there could be no doubt the Noble Lord had aided in preventing French armies being sent to the plains of Lombardy.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the affair at Athens, much had been said in depreciation of the claims of one of the parties, because he was a Jew; but Hon. Mem bers were aware that the, teem Greek I had a similar signifi cation for the French people. The fact was, that the Greeks and the Jews had been trampled upon ' oppressed, and precluded from the exercise of constitutional rights, and i in - such cam the moral - feelings were •naturally weakened-. , But the Jews were gradually, under an enlighted policy. being admitted to the participation of those rights, and the consequence fpnirelltiohne positon in which w w hic a h s at t b h a e a v b w e e e r n e rapidl yplaced b r y e c p o n v s c a r e i d n g o p ' and misgovernment. It was their hope that, when Greece was liberated from the thraldoin in which it bad been for merly held —when it was placed tinder the rule of a prince of the Frank-German race—that it would have risen to its pristine glory. Instead of that, however, the independence of Greece had been threatened by being placed under Rus sian protection. In taking the course he had done the Noble Lord had shoWn that, whether the claims of her sub jects were great or small, England would spread the broad wgis of her protection over them.—(Cheers.) Sir. J. GRAHAM—Let Us, Sir, before the evening closes, at all events get out of nisi prius.—(Loud Cheers and laugljter from the Protectionists.) We have new been discussing this question for six hours. I have had, the advantage of listening to three gentlemen of the long robe, and, except at the close of the speech of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman who has just sat down, we have not yet, travelled out of Greece. The Honourable and Leained Gentleman Made an observation at the commencement of his speech in which I corcar, nitnely, that it is hardly possible to exaggerate the gravity of the question under discussion, coupled with the attendant cir cuinatances of the tints when we aro discussing it. It affects the dignity, the honour, and the interests of this country.--(Bear, hear.) lam dragged into this discussion most reluctantly and unwittingly, but, at the same time, my absence 'would be 'construed into cowardice, and silence, coupled with the 'opinion I am about to express, is equally impossible. Yet, before I proceed to discuss this important question, woald you pardon me if I shortly revert to my own position.—(Hear, hear.) I have given to the Govern ment which now presides over the destinies of this country, for the last four years an independent and honest support, because, in the state of parties, and with reference to the general position of the country, I thought it my duty so to do; and in giving that support I have not carped at trifles, nor have I disparaged any portions of their conduct from which I may have differed, but I have exercised for bearance.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentle man (Mr. Wood) says he is not personally acquainted with the Noble Viscount who now administers the foreign affairs of this country. My position with respect to him is entirely different. I have known him for many years. It was my fortune for four years to be his colleague, and during that period I can truly say I never acted with any person whose conduct appeared more honourable, trustworthy, or , faithful, or for whom I entertained a more sincere or a more i cordial friendship.---(Cheers.) It was not because of any difference on foreign affairs that I parted from that Govern ment with which we were both connected. On the contrary, he and I, front the offices we held in the Government of Lotd Grey, were forced into intimate and perpetual communica tion ; and though since- I left that Government, now many years ago, I have been thrown into opposition to that Noble Lord; in public I have received from him every courtesy, and in private all that kindness which he extends to his friends without reference to party.—(Hear, and cheers.) I there fore feel no hostility to the Government or to the Noble Lord, but I feel that we are here to-night deliberately to discuss,: not the narrow question of Greece, but the more enlarged' question of otir foreign policy generally. You have here propounded a vote contrary to that to which the House of Lords have arrived. You say that the claims are just, not exaggerated, and that the course pursued has not tended to endanger our relations with foreign' powers. You recollect what was done when the Duke of Wellington carried a resolution in the House of Lords recom-i mending that the neutrality which his Majesty suggested; with regard to Portugal should be observed. 'I hat was car ried by a majority of 10 against Lord Grey's Government. The question was asked, "Is it your intention to change, your policy with regard to Portugal?" "Not at all" was the reply. Colonel Davis then traversed the conduct of the Duke of Wellington in the House of Commons, showing that success had not attended the army of Don Pedro in, Portugal; and his resolution was carried by a majority in this House of 250. That was a course quite intelligible But now, the Hon. Member for Sheffield, not acting in con cert with the Government, but exercising his own discretioni has enlarged the subject and brought a much greater ques tion than that of Greece before the House. What we are now debating is not confined -to Greece. The question is - Do you upon the whole approve of the policy pursued by her Majesty's Government with reference to foreign rela tions since their last accession to office?-(Hear, hear.) I understand from her Majesty's Government that in the present circumstances it is their desire that the issue should join upon that ground, and that the opinion of the House should be taken upon it. It is, therefore, to this larger question that I mean to address myself, if you indulge sue ; and I will go very rapidly and frankly over some of the most prominent points.—(Hear, hear.) 1 have already referred to my connexion in office, during the Government of Lord Grey, with the Noble Lord. Now, it cannot be supposed for a moment' by those, who recollect the transactions of that period that I am disposed to limit within very strict rules the interference of England with reference to foreign nations. The Hon. Member for Sheffield referred to the sup port given to Belgium, when she threw off the yoke of Hol land. I was a party to the blockade of Holland, to the siege of Antwerp, and to all the measures taken to ensure the sepa ration of Belgium from Holland, which was a direct departure from the treaty of Vienna.— (Hear, hear.) But I call on yon to recollect how Lord Grey acted, and how those critical affairs were conducted. They were conducted with Prince Talleyrand,inFrauce, and every step was taken deliberately, with the full ind entire concurrence Of all the representa tives of the great powers of Europe.—(Cheers.) We in terferred also with respect to Portugal very decisively, and to the extent of nut only blockading thaports of Portugal, but of lauding oar troops, and we confirmed the dynasty of Don Pedro and expelled Don Miguel ; but these transactions were so conducted as not to interrupt our intercourse with all the great porters of Europe.—(Cheers.) I would just observe that my view of the danger of the interference which after Lord Grey ceased to be at the head of the Government and Lord Melbourne came into ohice, the Noble Lord (Palmer- ston) exercised, is pointed out with great perspicuity by the present Earl Grey, in a debate which took place in this Howe when the . Right Hon. Baronet . (Sir R. Peel) was at the head of affairs. The words are - so pointed, so prophetic, they On taia such a forecasting of the future danger of that interfer .ence in which the Noble Lord is so proue to indulge, that I will read an extract or two. Lord Howick is speaking on the address on the Ist of Feb. 1844, he ear:: " Like the Right 800. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), he thought there was no greater curse to the world at large, and to the interests of civilization and humanity, ,than the carrying on in every court in Europe, and in every country in the world, a party struggle .between what was called the English party and tile Trench party. He abominated the whole system of such interference, and he would say that the more they ab stained from giving advice to other countries as to the Ina nagetnent of their internal - affairs the batter The ministers of France and of England might take opposite views of what .was most conducive to the interests of Mexico or of Portugal, and little by little, totally contrary to the wishei of their respective Governments, a sort of 'French ato English party was created. A struggle .for..ascendaney be tweeri thOse parties resulted, and the unfortunate system was carried'on, became the prey of factions which' werefon casioned, and- of animosities which were embittered by this kind of interference." Further on Lord Howick says: " lie had heard with mach-regret the expressions of his Noble Friend (Isord Palmerston), who, iciVerting to the pre sent condition of Spain, had said that, under that , union of interests and that good understanding to which the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had referred, and that union of interests which existed between France and England, the. late Regent of Spain, to whom he paid a high and well merited compliment, had fallen from power, and that a state of military despotism, if not anarchy, had succeeded. He joined in lamenting the unfortunate state of things now existing in Spain, but, while he did so, he rejoiced that the Right Hon. Baronet and the Government of the French King had abstained from taking any-active-part in prevent. ing its continuance. He imputed blame to neither Govern ment for what had occurred, and he only hoped they might abstain in like manner from all interference for the future, and that they would leave the Spaniards to settle their own affairs for themselves, as the most likely means of restoring that country to the state of constitutional government, and security of person and property, w hi c h a ll mus t equa lly desire." I contend that the principles there laid down by Lord- Howick are sound and most .prudent.—(Cheers.) 'But. let me contrast this advice, so given, with the conduct of the Noble Lord (Palmerston) almost immediately after his ac cession to power in 1837. Recollect that the advice is pointed by Lord Howick with respect to Spain. Almost the first dispatch written by the Noble Lord (Palmerston) to Sir H. Bulwer in 1846, violates, in my opinion, all the advice given by Lord Grey. It strongly interferes with the government of Spain, and affords a specimen of the spirit in which the Noble, Lord began a system of interference in all the affairs of Spain. He came into office in June, and this is dated the 19th of July. This is the way in which he talks of a great nation like Spain. He says—; . •" She has a parlia ment by law, but all freedom of election has beeh overborne by force or by other means."--(Cheers from the Minis. terialists.)' This is perfectly true, but is this the mode in which the Government. of Spain should be spoken of by the Minister of an ally in a time of pro found peace? (Cheers from the Protectionists.) The Noble Lord proceeded to say that violence and power bad survived the fall of Narvaez, and then he ex pressed a hope that the Ministers of Spain would return to' the ways of the constitution and obedience to the laws. All this is excellent advice, but then it ought to have been practically impossible to administer it to the Government of an independent ally.—(Cheers.) Sir Henry Bulwer shortly after wrote home that the French Government had inters preted these dispatches as declarations of hostility against the Spanish Ministry.—(Hear, hear.) • I will now pass on to 1848. After the great revolution , which overthrew the French monarchy, the Noble Lord again addressed an admo nition to the Government of Spain. At that time Narvaez had returoed to power.. The admonition was, therefore, ad dressed to Narvaez himself, and Sir Henry Bulwer was, in fact, ordered to communicate the substance of the message to the Queen-Mother and to the Minister. This subject has been already discussed in this House. The dispatch was 'dated the 16th of March, and contained this declaration:— that Narvaez should enlarge the basis of -his administr a. tion, and take - some Liberal into office. Narvaez -re. ceived this communication with extraordinary lcompla. ceney, and told Sir Henry Bulwer that he would way for ,the Progressista .. He, however , . came to , a different raake determination, fur, like the Noble Lord opposite, he did]not give way to his political rival. Asre garded the reconcilia tion between the Courts of Spain and St. James's, he wished to observe, that a sort of amends having been made for the ' abrupt expulsion of Sir H. Buivrer • the Noble Lord, while he consented' to the reconcilia d tion, inserted in his e. lldis patch, a' most uncalled-for an the effect that if Sir . extraordinary Passag Bulwer was not already across the Atlantic he would advise his Sovereign to select. no other person than. Sir H. Bulwer for her representative at the court of Madrid. Was that the way to keep this countr y on the most amicable relations • h (Cheers.) The selection with thegrea powerst of Europe ? could have produced no other effect than o of Sir 11. Bulwer in that way the renewal of the most bitter enmity between the two countries.—( Hear, hear.) Well, then, we had frequently interfered with Por tugal ; the object of the Noble Lord being, as far as was consistent with our friendly relations, to promote the cause of civil liberty. But; bad the Noble Lord been successful in that respect, either in Spain or Portugal ? Had:he been successful in placing in power the men who were most likely to effect that object ? He had rivetted Narvaez in Spain.—(Hear.) While in Pi rtugal he had endeavoured almost by the force of arms to sustain his objection against placing the supreme power in the hands of one particular man, that man being Costa Cabral. And yet ever sinc e Costa Cabral had been the Prime Minister in Por tugal, and was likely to continue to be their Minister. In the autumn of 1847 there was a heaving which indicated the great earthquake of 1848, and the overthrow of the dy nasty of Louis Philippe. No where was that more strongly indicated than in Switzerland. The Right Ron. Baronet here took occasion to explain how anxiously 'he had desired to speak before the Noble Lord, in order that if he should ma k e any misstatement or mistake, the Noble Lord might , correct him. He then went into the history of the fatal .schisin which took place in the autumn of 1817 between the different states composing- the Republic of Switzerland r on one hand the Sonderbund, on the other the ultra-Republi cans—and of the part acted in reference thereto by France and England. Guizot was - in favour of the Sonderbund or moderate Republicans, and for checking the Sonderbund: At that time M. Morier was withdrawn, and Mr. Peel ap pointed our charge d'affaires. It was proposed by the Che valier Bunsen that a mote should be signed by the five powers, and a draft of the note was prepared by the Duke de Broglie. On .the 6th of November the note was tendered by the Duke de Broglie to the Noble Lord, who kept it till the 16th, with out any communication relating thereto. On the 16th he sent it. suggesting alterations, to Paris, and from, the 16th to the 26th of Novemb er was consumed i n agreeing to and .signing the note. , On the 91ed of November Mr. Peel wrote to the Noble Lord frees Basle, stating that General Dufour had advaneAl on Lausanne, where the Sonderbund was col lected. liis. letter was received on the 26th, - the day the, note was signed, and on the 27th the Noble Lord addressed 'him instructions to the effect, that if on arriving at Bask, he found the Sonderbund dissolved dttur a complete Victory, in that casehe must not present ate nOte• Air. Peel, in conse quence of private instructions fr om th e N o b le Lord, sent to general Dufour, directing hint to lose no tite, but to make haste in his operations. Lord PALMERSTON—That k not true:- (Cheers.) • Sir.l. GRAIIAM—The confidence of the Government was not, Lowever, withdrawn front Mr. peel. He remained chargé d'aftitires, and was, he believed, still in the employ ment of the Government. . Lord PALMERSTON—I sent no. such message.— (Cheers soda laugh) Sir J..GRAIIAII,--Then the Noble Lord meant to convey that the Ministers of France and Spain so 'stating were guilty of saying what was nor borne out by fact. (We un deretood Lord Peltnerston to assent.) The misunderstand ing that arose between M. 6uizot and the Noble Lord in re ference to that transact len led to a degree of animosity on the part of the Noble Lord , which pursued Ai. Guizot to his fall. —(Oh; oh.) He was compelled, however, to cheep . upon the Noble Lord a much heavier responsibility- the over throw of a Monarchy and the establishment of a Republic, whiCh the authors of it now desired to modify. He leas sure it eveeld, be to the end of the Noble Lord's life a source ot regret to him that, whereAs be only intended to overthrow M. Guizot, in his efforts to do so he effected a change the results of which it was iriipoisible' to calculate.—(Cries of " Oh.") Then, with regard to Anstria. In February, 1848, the Noble Lord laid on the tabltea short correspondence, con taining a dispatch to Lord Poneonby, Which implied that Austria was engaged in designs inconsistent with the indee pendence of Piedmont, and in which 'the Noble Lord said distinctlythat the execution of any such purpose would not be'regarded with indifference by her Majesty's Government. It was a fact beyond all doubt, that the Noble Lord received in answer to that dispatch a note from Prince Metternich at Vienna, containing a solemn • of . any such intention, and stating that the policy of , : Austrialtowards Italy was purely defensive, that 'east of all did she entertain the alleged intention towards Piedmont, and that so far from it she was ready to enter into an arrangement to maintain her indepen dence. That correspondence took place in' August and Sep , tember, 1847, and in February, 1818, • the Noble Lord pre sented a paper to that House containing the letter of accusa tion, but not accompanying it with the letter of Prince Met ternich in• reply. It was not until the month of Angust , when Lord Brougham moved for a copy of ir, that the dis patch was produced. Such was the transaction' with Austria which had been so loudly complained of, and which he must say redounded little to - the honour of this country.' The very fact of that dispatch was a cause of. excitement. Piedmont became the assailant, and then the question Arose—did her Majesty's Governmeut do all in their. power to restrain her attacks ? Their exertions, he regretted to say, amounted to .a simple suggestion that Austria was strong and Piedmont was weak. Austria applied to,the Noble Lord for his media tion, and the Noble Lord refused it 'Unless Austria consented to the surrender of Venice as well as Lombardy. It was impos sible to divine the amount of mischief which had flowed from that refusal. Well, Rome was in the occupation of the French array; Lombardy was again 'occupied by the absolute sewer of Russia; Venice had been reconquered ; so that, in point of -fact, there was not to be seen. a vestige. of that liberty which the Noble Lord said he was so anxious, to .preservee .With regard to Sicily, it was open to her Ma jesty's Government to give any, advice; and Sicily bad, moreover, peculiar claims upon our intervention. But the interference that took plaCe Was in terms not very complinientary to his Neapolitan "Majesty; arid not only' in the shape. of advice, but elle British fleet was actually em- Ployed on the coast ot Sicily. The Sicilian liieurgerits thought for aerecenent of tendering the, crown to. the Duke of Game, and they sent a messenger on board a British man of-war, and assurances were given that if the Duke of Genoa would accept the crown be would be recognised by Eng land. 'The King of Naples asserted his . power.. The insur gents bad been encouraged by us;. they relied on our assist ance; they. prolonged their resistance, relying on our assist ance ; they were overcome ; we left them to their fate • and when a large body of these Sicilian refugees fled to Malt; they were retlised admission by: our Governor. These matters he was anxious to have:explained by the Noble Lord.' With regard to the Hungarian refugees, he admitted distinctly in terms ae etrong as could be used by any gentle man, that the message sent by the Emperor of 'Bessie, through au eide-de-camp, demanding either the expulsion or the surrender of the Hungarian refugees, was a harsh measure, ,and . one evbich it became England to prevent. The Course taken by her Majesty's Government in the first • instance was not only unexceptionable, but right and highly honourable;' theiy appealed to the ' generesity and good faith of the Emperor, in a dispatch fine in its tone, And 'yet conciliatory in its character while doing, this. But it was not wise to take any step which could' be construed into' menace. To send a fleet to the' Dardanelles before - an answer was given to that message was imprudent, in the highest . degree. .By • the treaty ofieliukietr- Skelessi, it was , provided that - the . Dardanelles—And.-- the Bosphorees should not. under any pretext, -be passed without e special firman from the. Sultan.. The Eugliah fleet, however, not only proceeded to the mouth of the Dar danellee, but Sir Stratford Canning called on the fleet to go ep to Constantinople and, if he was not 'mistaken, the fleet went part of the Way ; but, be that as it may, it went inside the Dardanelles. When the Emperor of - Russia heard that this hostile demonstration had been made at the mouth .of tho Dardanellts, ho was naturally,. very indignant, and an excuse was made. by the British Government.—(Opposition cheere.) Now, this was a question which touched the honour of the English nation. Was the excuse which was made consistent with the facts or not? The excuse was that• the fleet was driven within the Derdanelles by stress of Weither. Now there eras a living witness, a Alemeer of the' Wiese of Peers, who stated in his place in Parliament, that, so far from being driven in by stress of weather, Sir William Parker weighed anchor On a fine day, arreentered the Dardanelleu in smooth water.—(Hear, hear.)' Now, this brought him to the affairs a Greece. He had already said that the toneus utned by the Noble Lord to foreign linisters was sometiineeso offen sivethat he was not surprised that hostile feelings should be 'generated even 'where it was desirable .that .the relations Should be most amicable. lie heldin his hand a letter.pur porting to be .written by the Noble Lord to' AL t viararchi, 'dated October, 1847, and which_) had appeared in. er e Greek .p4per. The. French, party was at Out time in power at :Athens, and this letter was published there, and had not been contradicted._ (The Right Hon, „Baronet then read the letter ip question, whiele stated thatiSf. Delararchl would do well to abstain 'from — Unfounded accusations against lier' Government, and he ought not to forget that these were net the means by which the relations of the British' anti Grecian Governments could be placed on a more satisfactory , footing. Her Majesty's Government had-heard with great regret the'declaration that MSDelararchi had resolved 'on pur suing the same course which bad been pursued by M..Co letti ; that system had-been a system of illegality, of cor ruption, of violence, injustice; and tyranny, oppressive and disgusting to the Greek nation. Her Majesty% Government had, hoped that thil'ioiquitousS system would haVe ceased with the life of a Minister who was considered as its author, but as M. Delararehi declared that he meant to continue the same eysteni it was evident thht he was acting under an influence equally hostile to the welfare' of 'Greece and to this country.) Was . it not quite natural that there should be some difficulty in preserving amicable• arrangements after &letter so addressed? The Noble Lord took great credit to himself for furthering free institutions. It so--hap pened that after the demise of Mr. Canning, the question of the independence of Greece was unsettled. ,It was not until 1829, when the Earl of Aberdeen was Secretary:for Foreign Affairs, that the independence of Greece was established, and it was not until 18 45 , he thought , that there was - any constitutional geeernment, and it was when his Right lion. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) was in power, and Lord' Aberdeen was at the head of the Foreign department, and • very much in . consequence of representations from our Government, that the ccnstitutionel government was established. Well now, he imagined that, after all, truth and plain •'dealing were the best. Well now, he had every reason to be lieve that Greece *as not innocent of covert inter ference and fornentiag insurrection iu the loniau Islands. Had there been any evidence to sustain the charge, there was ho' length to which we might not have pushed: our hostility. Now Sir Henry WarllS in it speech addressed to his senate:: preferred the eharge in direct-terms. - It was met indignantly by King Otho ; Sir Henry Ward then retracted it, but in the papers presented to the French Chambers in a dispatch dated the ,14th of Merch, by M. Drouyn de Melee :that complaint was again referred to .by the Minister of I'o reign Affairs. Now with respect to these Grecian claims, the claims of M. Pacific() and of Mr.. Finlay, and niore espe cially inrespect of au English boat's crew that had been oeized, much had been said in vindicatiou of them,'bat be must say these appeared 'to him,to be the least important part of this matter. The Honourable and Learned Mem ber for ' Sheffield, who, 'he . hoped, would excuse him (Cr saying so. had with great address taken the part df an able advocate, but passed entirely 'over the claims of the d th iffi etu cu r i s a i n i d ndi d s o p u a b ta t b fa l l e. c; two islands. Sir Henry Ward said that our claim to N se ow did he Venice, When Venice was conquer n e o d t It depended, in fact, te: int.—(Hear, hear.) whether these islands belonged to treaty. Now it was, by must say, that a more • France, and as to whether they bad been transferred to Venice by : a ; previous islands were not seiied in October last, according - to an the merest accident that -these - order; from' the For • office-ro the - Admiralty, and an order from the Admiralty' et) ;Sir William Parker. Neither of these documents wasegiven in these papers, but there was a letter from Sir William Parker acknowledging the receipt of the September, answer was dated instruc A tion n ce or d e nt October. . hasty e and ill-advised order was, never given, AA have bad a ' d bad it been executed it was (iste. plena, that of Sir William Parker, in h • bdli By the prudence en cases • France and Russia would, from a casus federis, This tatirig to execute that order, this complication affairs with France and Russia had been avoided.brought him to the conduct of this country towards France with reference to Greece ; and again he said be deeply regretter . the course taken by her Majesty's Government. Some Gentle men had expressed an opinion that ir - was - right to refuse the mediation of France, and also her good offices. Perhaps he might agree in the prudence of re fusing mediation because the affair had advanced solar ' and we had asserted our rights with so high a hand, that to have accepted the mediation of France might have., been hardly consistent with an independent position ; but:he must say ' France having tendered her medi a ti on, to accept h e r good offices appeared to him to be the surest course to lead to a misunderstanding. But when the convetvion in London had been signed, the natural course would have been, when from some misunderstanding another, arrangement had been extorted by force of arms,,:; the natural course, and the wise course, would bop, been that the convention in London should have been accepted, and he thought it a great misfartune that that contee was not taken. 0: course it would have been said tha we attempted to obtain conditions less derogatory to the dignity of England; but the transaction had ended eI• actly m our accepting the worst of the Conditions thAt could have been obtained from us. lVell now, consequent upon that sotne.negotiation had taken place; and perhaps to wake a point in the House of Lords, some portions of a correspou ' dence had been published charging Baron Gros with a breach of faith. Then another dispatch of Lord Normanby's was in troduced explaining how the mistake had arisen. Then At last, he was sure to the joy of that House and of the country, notwithstanding all these charges and tke jeopardy of a good understanding with France, the negotiations had terminated favourably, the convention of London had been accepted, And that which was likely to end with such fatal consequences hid teriainated'in . peace. Something. bad been ,nßid with I regard to Denmark, and its regions With Prussia. I „o re- I un 'her► own ived , was )plie s Go' here- I i • ,