The Sun. — London, England, 1850-06-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESD ktbitrary and despotic countries, or to count ries there courts of justice are so organised as to be tinder the control of the Government; but they have ii4l l 3 ly stated, that in all countries our subjects are simp l y L share that protection which the law of the land Rives them. I deny that proposition.—(General cheering . ) say that it is a doctrine under which no foreign Minister !Yer yet has acted. It is a doctrine which the people of Eng land will never suffer any Minister to act upon.—( Hear, b ear.) Do I mean to say that British subjects abroad are to be above law, or to be exempt from and taken out of the t eope of the laws of the land? I mean no such thing—l kettend for no such principle. Where the law is anpli cable, 4 ritish subjects are bound to have recourse for redress to the means which the law of the land affords them. That is the °Pinion which our legal advisers have given in innumerable i nstances, and upon that principle we have founded our re- Plies in cases where our aid and interference have been ap plied for. I have heard mentioned, with regret, aspersions east upon the character of the legal advisers of the Crown, f rom a quarter from which they ought not to come; those 'hat were cast by a person who has been hims e l f in 'Sat office, and who must have known, not only the knowledge, independence of mind, but also the justice of lodgment that qualify the individual who holds the office of 'Queen's Advocate.—( Rear, hear.) I should have thought !tut hoped that the knowledge possessed of those qualities by a man who had been in the Foreign-office would have Protected the Queen's Advocate from those aspersions altar. ) Sir, I may be departing from the strict orders of the House in what I have just said, but I felt it due to an honourable public servant, on an occasion like the present, I , 4 _apeak in favour of and in vindication of his character. -- ( Rear, hear.) If our subjects abroad have complaints against individuals or Governments who are liable to the Proceedings of courts of law, no doubt it is to courts of ltistice British subjects ought to apply, but there are an , infinity of cases in which either there is no confidence 1 4 those tribunals, or the tribunals, from their composition and nature, are not of a character to inspire us with any hope or confidence of obtaining justice.—(Hear, hear.) &any of those tribunals are so completely under the con !pi of the Government that justice cannot be expected. here are also nominally constitutional Governments, there the tribunals are not free. But who is ,to be the cadge? The British Government or the Government of the state from which you would expect redress?: I will take a ease which occurred not long ago, and one in which Lam altre the people of England would not hold that a British !libject was to be amenable to the laws of a foreign country. am not now going to talk of the power of sending a man to 4 iberia, nor of a country the constitution of which vests arbi tjary power in the Sovereign, but I shall state a case that ' 4 l)pened not long ago in Sicily. There a decree was passed that anv man found with concealed arms in his possession should be immediately brought before a court martial and t ried, and, if convicted of the offence, shot upon the spot. here was an innkeeper at Catania brought before a court martial, and charged by two officers of police with this offence. They stated that they discovered in an open stable 4 1 his yard a knife, and this was considered to be a concealed f or The examination having been ended, the counsel the prosecution said, " I give up the case. I think it 4 evident that there is no proof that either this knife be- I t'nged to the man accused, or that, if it did, he was aware that it was in the place where it was found." The counsel f or the defendant stated, " Such being the opinion of the into for the prosecution, it is unnecessary for me to go 'hto any defence. I leave the matter in the hands of the eourt.' The Court pronounced the defendant guilty of the offence charged against him, and the next morning the h t han was shot. Now, I would ask what the people of England would say if any of them were left to seek redress 14 such a tribunal as that?—(Hear, hear). Yet that man W as executed .according to law, he having been declared glfilty of an offence by one of the tribunals of his country. Our doctrine is that redress should be sought through the ourts and laws of the country where those courts were free act, but there are numberless cases where, if British sub tets were confined to courts of law for redress, they would e deprived of that protection which they are entitled to re !ive.—( Hear, hear.) Then the question arises as to hew that rule applies to demands made upon a Government. I ° L oght here to remind the House, and I shall do so in the shortest possible manner, of the nature of our relations With Greece, anti the state and condition in which Greece has been, because that state and condition is a material e 1 Went in the consideration of the propriety of the course to have taken.—(Hear, hear.) It is well known that the Greeks revolted from Turkey in 1827 or IS2B. England, ranee, and Russia determined to interpose, and they ern 00yed forcible means to bring Turkey to acknowledge the independence of Greece. Greece was in 1830 and 1833, by Protocols and treaties, erected into a separate and inde pendent state. And whereas, from the year 1820 up to the tre e when the protocol of 1830, on which the treaty of 1e33 Was founded, Greece had been a Republic, and governed by 44 Assembly and President, the three powers were deter kined that Greece should have a monarchy. But while, on 'he one hand, the British Government consented to this arrangement—(l do not say consented, because it was 1 ,,i 8 own opinion that Greece should assume that f orm of Government)—on the other hand it was of opinion 'flat Greece sould have a constitutional Government. The British Government would not consent to place Greece under a more arbitrary form of government than that from which it had revolted. Consequently, when the three powers, in the exercise of that function devolved upon them by the General Assembly of Greece, chose a Sovereign for Greece, he then being a toinor, the three powers, in announcing to the Greek nation the choice they had made, announced, at the same time, that that King would, in concert with the representatives of the s 'eople, give them a representative constitution when he locarne of age. That choice was ratified by a decree made by the King of Bavaria. It was agreed that, during the minority of the King, the question of the constitution should he suspended, and that, when he became of age, he and his tkople should arrange the form of the constitution. When, owever, he became of age, no constitution was given. There was a disinclination on the part of those who advised him to eilei that engagement. The Government of England, in Various ways and through various channels, expressed its °Pinion that that engagement ought to be fulfilled. — (Hear , gear.) Opinions of a different kind reached the royal tar from other quarters.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Other °ountries naturally—and I say this without any imputation a gainst them—preferred their own form of government. ''"ach Government thinks its own form the best, and wishes to see it extended elsewhere ; and, therefore. it is not from any intention to cast reproach on Russia , Prussia , or Austria that I say that those three Governments being at 'oat time entirely despotic. their advice was given and influ- Ittee exerted to prevent the King of Greece from granting a representative constitution. We thought that in France we might have found sympathy with our opinions, and also sup- Ptrt and advice. We were unfortunate in that respect. The Government of France, though not at all undervaluing con stitutional institutions, thought that the time was not yet tome when Greece was ripe for a representative Govern kent. Bavaria leant to the same side, and, therefore, from 'he time the King of Greece came of age to several years afterwards, the English Government stood alone. We were a nxious for the fulfiment of an engagement to which s all the other powers were, either adverse or not, equally sesirous to see fulfilled. That • placed us in a situ ation which, to say the least of it, exposed us to die favour on the part of other Governments. I do not think :oe people of this country will be of opinion that we ought, 'or the sake of obtaining the good will of the Greek Govern kent, is have departed from the principle which we had laid down. —(Hear, hear.) People talked of the antagonistic 'ofluence that existed at the Greek Court, and stated that tit Minister and the Ministers of foreign Courts differed ‘a to which should have the appointment of nomarchs and inarchs, but that is a mistake entirely at variance with the 'Sets. Our Minister Sir E. Lyons, never, from the time he Went to Greece till the time he left .it, asked for any favour °f the kind, and therefore there could have been no contest °I that mean. low, and petty description referred to. The (141 y conflict was about that which I stated, namely, whether sreecs should have a representative constitution, while the i nfluences of other powers were exerted the other way. One result of the absence of constitutional institutions was that the whole system of government grew to be full of !Very kind of abuse. Justice could not be respected while ~,`1 , 1 4 tribunals were at the mercy of the advisers of the gown. Finance could not be expected to be in any order When there was no public responsibility on the part of '4oBe who either collected, spent, or accounted for the re- I tenue. Every sort of abuse was practised. In later times ',II Greece, there has prevailed, on account of the daring habits of the people, a system of appropriation (Laugh ler)—the forcible appropriation by one man of that which o elonged to another—a thing very disagreeable to those on Ithorn it, is inflicted, and exceedingly injurious to the social 'ontlition of the people, and calculated to impede their pros- Derity. In fact, what a foreigner would call " brigandage" Prevailed among them. The police of the Greek Govern ,kent practised abuses of the grossest description.—(Hear, hear.) And if you wanted any evidence in support of that 4 . l aertion I should appeal to the Hon. Gentleman who just kit down, who, in a pamphlet which most of us have teed, has detailed instances of barbarities practised by the police which are most revolting.—(Hear, hear.) have here the depositions of persons who have been sub acted to the most abominable torture which human inges t ioity could devise—torture inflicted on both sexes—(Hear) torture of the most revolting and disgusting kind.- 1 1- lear.) Moreover one of the officers of the Government, a I fan of the name of Zeno—who was at the head of the po lee, was in the habit of inflicting the most diabolical tor glees on th e unhappy people of Greece, as well as upon 'Curies and other foreigners. This man, instead of being Punished as he deserved, not only by the laws of nature but Sao by the laws of Greece, for the perpetration of these atrocities, not only escaped punishment, but was actually held .! great - favour. Well, Sir, then this being the state things, we had in Greece, and have always h +tl7a, a great number of persons whom we are "ound, to • protect. There are, in almost every town Greece, a great number of Maltese and lonians; 'afire are also a certain number of British subjects. It be tame the practice of those Greek authorities to make , no dis `4letion between these Maltese and lonians and their own reels s ubjects. Vie shall be told, I know, by some, " No f oreigner has a right to be. better treated than the people of 0 uountry ; and if the people of th e country were liable to 11l eave heavy stones placed on their breasts, and persons Seing upon them—if they are li a ble to have their heads "ed to their knees, and in.that po s iti on are t o b e swu ng like pendulums and bastinadoed as they swing—if they are : I _ o llle to have every sort of horrible practice inflicted upon 'atm, foreigners have no right to be better treated than the il etives—(llear, hear, and langhter)—and therefore we have 110 business to interfere. We may be told that, bat that ' 3 not my opinion, and I think it, is not the opinion any , reasonable man. —;(Hear, hear.) Well, Sir, ' h en I say, considering the case of these lonians f or whom we have demanded reparation, the House.and the Practices must look to the steteof things in Greece, and to the jactices which are going on there, before they can come to a r ight conclusion as to the step which we took in demanding &alpensation, though, indeed, it was scarcely more than a n ominal compensation, something in the nature of a compen sation, which would be an acknowledg ment that such t h i n g s l ihould not be done in future.—(llear, hear.) Sir, I am sorry t° say that these cases have been discussed elsewhere in a 'Pint and in a tone which I think was not befitting the per -1°,4 concerning whom the discussion to , k place , nor those in Whose presence it took place.—(Hear, hear.) We have had grave matters treated with no little ridicule in a grave as letubly. We have had these claims dealt with lightly, I ° ° o Bely, and grave men have been kept in roars of s aoghter for hours together, because of the poverty of some s the persons concerned—because of the misery of the 7„abitations of some, the nationality of one, and the religion another.— (Hear, hear.) As if, because men were poor, Loud might be bastinadoed and tortured with impunity ! Loud cheers.) As if, because men happened to be born in h eo a tland, they might be injured without redress-e(Hear, Jew —or, because their religion happened to be that of the ish persuasion, they were fair game for any torture that a foreign power might choose to inflict upon them ! ( , beers.) .Sir, it is an old saying, it is one that has been often repeated, that a very moderate share of human wisdom sufficient is for the guidance of human affairs. But there is other truth, which is, that men who aspire to govern man t°l:l ought to bring to that task generous sentiments, cona vs„LlsiOnate sympathies, and noble and elevating views. — ‘ lll %beers). Now, Sir, with regard to the case , I will first take at which I think would first present itself to the mind of les I ,„Englishman—l mean the insult on the part of the Greek "alorities to one of her Majesty's otficers.—(Hear, hoar.) Time has been when men who aspired to public station would have thought it their duty at least to vindicate the honour sf the British navy. Times are changed.—(Loud cheers.) It is said, " What is that.? They were only taken out of their boat; a set of armed men were taken up to the guard house, but they were soon let out. again ; why should you trouble your heads about that?" Why, Sir, did we ask anything extraordinary or unreasonable for that? What we asked was an apology.—(Cheers.) I really thought I should not live to see the day when public men in England would think that a demand of an apology for an arbitrary and unjust arrest of a British officer and of British seamen in the performance of their duty was a demand " doubtful in its nature and exaggerated in its amount."— (Cheers.) Now, Sir: is that the case ? Circumstances have been alluded to with regard to that case which were connected with it, but which do not form part of the statement of the case itself. The case itself is well known. A son of the British vice-consul, being en board the Fantome, was taken ashore by a coxswain in a boat; he was landed on the beach, and escorted to his father's house. The coxswain, on his return, was taken up by the guard. The guard went down to the boat, and, findingmen with arms, the guard wcunded one of them with a bayonet, and they took them prisoners and carried them to prison. After a certain time, by the interposition of the vice-consul, they were then released, and returned to their ship. The excuses were altogether misstatements.—(Hear, hear.) But the gist of the excuse was this, that the guard thought that this boat belonged to die Spitfire, and that they had been seen landing rebels, one of whom escaped. Well, Sir, the fact to which all that referred was this :—lt was the practice. and has been and still is the practice, of the Government of Greece, instead of punishing the brigands by which that country is infested, to amnesty and pardon them from time to time.—(Hear, hear.) It is even supposed that the officers of the police frequently get shares of the plunder. — (Hear, hear.) But that is a matter of opinion. The fact of their being never punished and always pardoned is matter of notoriety. This has given so much encouragement to this system of plunder that they go about in armed bands, and sometimes they actually occupy towns. Well, of these bands there was a leader of the name of Mereditti, who came with a band of armed men to take Patras. But in Patras there was a governor and an armed force to a certain extent. The governor, and the armed force, either thinking that they ought to follow the example of their governor, decided not to resist the banditti—perhaps con sidering discretion the better part of valour, they fled, leav ing the town in the hands of the banditti. The people of Patras, however, did not at all like that result. They found themselves deserted by their natural protectors, and threw themselves on the foreign consuls. They begged and en treated the consuls to intercede and make some arrangement which would save the town from pillage. It was finally agreed that Mereditti should forego his contemplated pillage of the town on payment of a certain sum—l forget the amount. The money was collected and deposited in the hands of the vice-consul. Mereditti and his band march down t 0 the sea-shore, for the purpose of embarkation in a British man-of-war. When the governor, who had retired in the manner I have mentioned, thought that the band was prepared to embark, he bethought him that it woul I be a fortunate thing if he could attack the rear guard of Mere ditti. And it was intended to induce the commander of the vessel to betray the band to the governor. But the officer said, "No ; there is not only honour among thieves, but there is honour to thieves."—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Yon have asked us to make this arrangement, and we gave you a guarantee that we should protect these men." The people of the town agreed to give Mereditti about half the sum which he originally asked. Well, this was the circumstance which M. Rondopulos al luded to when he said that it was not known whether or not it was the vessel containing this armed band that was about to be landed—that was the excuse offered for arresting a British officer and British seamen in the performance of their duties. This was an insult to the British navy, which the Government of any other country would probably have re garded in a different way.—(Hear.) Well, Sir, then we come to these lonians. And first I take the case of those who were plundered •in the Custom-house. These men in their boats pass near to this Custom-house. They see a person habited in the garments of a Custom-house officer. They naturally obey his orders. But when they enter they are told that they are in the hands of a bandit. They were plundered in the Castom-house, and not only plun dered but stripped of their clothes and beat. Well then, Sir, I say, do not tell me that this is a case to be com pared with British subjects travelling through Terra cina, for instance, and insulted by banditti ; and that in such cases the Government of this country did not think of asking for compensation from the Italian Governments. I say that it a Government do not protect its own Custom-house— (Hear, hear)—if a Government permits an armed band of robbers—robbers they were, for they were banditti—and allows foreigners to be robbed and beaten in that Custom house—l say that such a Government should be called up n for redress.—(Loud cheers.) Well, 1 think our demand was a moderate demand. We asked for nothing but an indem nity against the injuries that had been sustained by British subjects. We simply asked for that of which they had been deprived. Then we come to the case of the other lonians. It appeared that, on a festive day, they, according to the fashion of the country, had exhibited flags in front of their houses. But the police came and said they must be re moved. But the removal of the flags would not satiety the Greek authorities. These lonians were arrested, manacled, and thumb-screwed—(Hear, hear)—and in that state they were marched off to prison. It had been said, " How could they take a person to prison by any other " manner except by conducting him through the streets. Why, it is true ; but then there was no necessity for taking them through the streets which did not lie in their way. For the purpose of parading them before the gaze of the in habitants they were taken through all the streets of Patras. Then it is said, " Oh, you say they were thumb-screwed ; but what of that? They were not maimed for life—hew could you call for any compensation for them ? If they were maimed for life you might complain, but as long as they were not so maimed—the mere fact of being thumb screwed and being compelled to take a pleasant evening walk—(Langhter)—why, for that surely, no claim for compensation can be made." Sir, I am of a different opinion.— (Cheers.) I do not think that thumbscrews are like gloves, to be put an and taken off at any time one pleases. Sir, the facts that I have stated, namely, the torture by the Greek authorities of British subjects—l think it is necessary we should put our hand upon this case, and require that a moderate compensation should be pro vided for it, and which has not yet been provided. These lonians had committed no offence ; they were dismissed, no charge being proved against them. As to the two men who had been whipped by the Greek authorities in the pre sence of persons who had deposed to their treatment, there was ample evidence that they had committed no act of infringement whatever of the laws of Greece. Com pensation was duly demanded in this case, not merely be cause of the injury which they had received, but as a token that we should have protection for British subjects.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, we come to the case of the Fantome. It is said that Mr. Finlay was a " canny Scotchman," who speculated in land, as it is said—who bought his land in the cheapest and sold it in the dearest market.—(Hear, hear.) It was clearly a case demanding inquiry, and a guarantee that the same case should not occur in future. Now, Sir, we undoubtedly by our law, and by the law of all countries, if it is thought necessary to take land for public purposes, for a line of public communication, for any great national work—why public utility overrides private rights to this ex tent, that the owner is compelled to give up his property; but then he is entitled to have his property fairly valued, and to receive what may be the true and proper amount of that value.—(Hear.) He is not compelled to take that which the person who in such case desires to have possession of his land chooses to give him, but he is allowed such an amount as is adjudged to be due by him by an authorised valuer. But this land was not taken for any public purpose. It was taken for the private enjoyment of the King of Greece. Well, Sir, I am sure nobody who wishes well to Greece, or who takes an interest in the welfare of the youthful Sove reign of a young state, would say that it was not fitting that there should be a residence proper for royalty in Greece, and that those who happened to have land near the site which was chosen for the palace ought not to give up the property but upon being paid the value of that which was taken from them. Mr. Finlay never bad any objection upon that ground. Mr. Finlay was perfectly ready to give up his land upon being paid the proper value of his land. Well, then, is there any reason in saying that because some Years before lie had bought this land at a cheaper rate than that at which he offered it, he was not entitled to have a price given him proportioned to the increased value which a difference of circumstances had occasioned?—(Hear, hear.) Why, Sir, the commonest principles of justice between man and man would necessarily lead you to this— that you shall not inquire what was the value of his land when he bought it. It might have fallen in value. The only question that had to be considered was, what was the value of the property at the time it was taken from him.—(Hear, hear.) I must say that, in my opinion, all who feel an interest in royalty must have read with extreme pain the proceedings on this subject. I cannot help recol lecting how different was the conduct of Frederick the Great in a similar case. An humble individual happened to Pos sess a plot of land included in the site which Frederick the Great had chosen for the completion of a magnificent place for the residence of monarchy. The owner of this small plot of land, on which he had a windmill, refused to part with it, and the windmill and the plot in question were ulti mately included within the confines of the palace grounds. Frederick the Great pointed with pride to the windmill, and rejoiced that lie had the happiness to rule over people who knew and were determined to maintain their rights.— (Cheers.) Well, Sir, what was the conduct pursued by the King of Greece on this subject? For fourteen long years Mr. Finlay was driven from pillar to post, and put off by every sort of shuffling and evasive excuses, and de prived of all compensation for his land, unless be chose to take a sum totally inadequate to its value. Well, in 1843 came the revolution. Up to 1843 the Government of Greece had continued arbitrary. The king declined, under the cir cumstances which I have mentioned, to grant a representa tive constitution. In 1843 the patience of Greece was ex hausted. They rose in Athens, and extorted by force that which had not been granted to reason. When that revolution came courts of justice were established, which were not in dependent, because the judges are not only liable to be dis missed at the will of 'the sovereign, but to be removed from court to court, so that anycourt may be, and often is, packed for trying the case which is to be brought before it.—(Hear, hear.) In 18 t 3 there were courts to which Mr. Finlay might have appealed. In these courts he had no confidence with regard to transactions which had happened before the re volution. Mr. Finlay, therefore, reaped no benefit from the change of government. But then, I heard it most triumphantly, distinctly, and psitvely asserted that when Mr. Wyse made his demand on the Greek Government the claim olr Mr. Finlay was absolutely finally, and conclusively settled.— (Hear, hear.) . Sir, that was by no means the case. There had been, indeed, an agreement made for arbitration, and a most curious sample it was of the manner in which things are carried on in Greece. Mr. Finlay said, " I will refer this to arbitration." " It is a subject," they said, "for arbitration; name an arbitrator yourself, and we shall name another." Mr. Finlay, who has been stated to be a " canny Scot," looking well into the future, foresaw the possibility—which might, indeed, have struck even a man not so far north as he—(Laughter) — that the two arbitrators might possibly differ; be therefore hum bly suggested that an umpire should be appointed. (Hear.) The Greek Government said, "You are quite right; we see exactly how it is; we will appoint an umpire."—( Laughter.) But Mr. Finlay, being a very sensible man, did not like to commit his case to the keeping of three men, two of whom were to be appointed by the Greek Government. And if that arbitration had been gone into, no doubt Mr. Fin lay's claim would have been finally settled. But by the law of Greece an arbitration so appointed must pronounce its award within three months; or if it did not, the matter dropped to the ground. The Commissioners could not make their award without the production of certain documents, which could only be furnished by the officers of the Greek Government; but by some unfortunate circumstance they did not furnish them—(Hear, hear)—and the arbitration, as a necessary consequence, fell to the ground ; and, therefore, at the time when Baron Gros came to examine into the mat ter, he found matters perfectly in the same state that they were when Mr. Finlay first 2. omplained. Baron Gros was at first astonished, and he said to Mr. Finlay, " Why your claims have been subjected to arbitration, the matter is settled, why have you not received your money ?" Mr. Finlay replied, " I did not know that it was so, or that even a sum was fixed as the amount of compensation I am to receive." On further exarahlatioa appeared that the matter was really in the same position in which it was before it was referred to arbitration.—(Hear, hear.) Now, that was a case in which we made no specific demand.—(Hear, hear.) We only asked that Mr. Finlay should receive the value of what the land might turn out to be worth; and the sum ultimately agreed upon was that which the two arbi trators had fixed between them, splitting the differences of amount which one thought was only adequate and the other sufficient for satisfaction of the demand. One of these arbitrators had been appointed by Mr. Finlay, and the other by the Greek Government. (Hear, hear.) I do not think in this case, taking these circumstances into consideration, that the claim was unfounded in justice.— (Cheers.) Well, then, we come to the claim of M. Pacifico, which has been the subject of so much unworthy comment. Stories have been told involving the honour, and imputa tions have been cast out against the character of M. Paci fico. All I know is this, that after the time to which these stories relate, the Portuguese Government had appointed M. Pacifico their consul in Morocco, and subsequently at Athens; and I do not know that it is likel; that the l'or tueuese Government would have selected a man to have tilled these offices upon whom there rested such grievous imputations as is now alleged. For my part, Ido not believe them ; but I say, as has been said by those who have taken part in this debate, that I do not care what his character may have been or what it is.—( Hear.) I can never admit that because he may have done wrong at some former period, he is for all eternity to be injured with out the right to obtain redress. The rights of man turn upon the case in question, and it is nonsense to say you will not give him redress for any injury inflicted upon him, because on some other occasion he may have done something not in accordance with the principles of justice.—(Hear.) Now, what happened to M. Pacifico? Why, in the middle of the town of Athens, his house—which, I must be allowed to say, was not that wretched house which some persons have de scribed it—but no matter what it was—if it was a cabin or a palace, it had a right to be safe from injury, and should be protected—(Cheers)—that house which in early days had been the residence of Count Ormsturm, the chief of the re gency, and which was situated in the middle of Athens. within forty yards of the great street of the capital, and a few minutes' walk from the guard-house, was entered by a mob. They send for protection to the British legation; ap plication is made for that protection to the Greek Govern ment ; but no protection is afforded. This mob, in which were found soldiers and gendarmes, who, if their officers were absent, were, nevertheless, bound to preserve peace and order —this mob, headed by the sons of the Minister of War, not children, but young men of eight and twenty_years of age, enjoyed themselves for two hours in gutting the house of an unoffending man, and destroying and carrying away every single thing which it contained. leaving it a perfect wreck. Is that a case in which a subject was entitled to redress? I humbly think it was.—(Loud and continued cheering.) I think that there is no civilised country in the world where a man has sustained such a grievous wrong, not to say any thing of the iSersonal insults offered to his family, that he would not expect and seek redress from some quarter or other.—(Hear, hear.) Where was M. Pacifico to seek that redress? The Greek Government neglected its duty—it did not pursue those judicial inquiries which it might have done for the sake of finding out and punishing the aggressors. The sons of the Minister of War were pointed at—they were told, "Search that house, and you will find part of the jewels of M. Pacifico ;" but no, they refused to take any such steps; they told M. Pacifico that he must appeal to the courts of justice. What was he to do? Was he to prosecute a mob of 500 persons ctiminally ? Where were his witnesses? His family were hiding and flying, in order to avoid the outrages with which they were threatened. M. Pacifico states that he owed his life to the interposition of an English friend. It was only to a few of the leaders that he could apply evidence sufficient to convict them before a court of justice ; but what satisfaction could it have been to him to have prosecuted criminally? The wrong had been committed. He did not want revenge, he wanted redress. Criminal prosecution was therefore out of the question. To say nothing of the chances against him under a Government where the tribunes were at the mercy of the judges, who were themselves liable to be removed at the pleasure of the Government, if he were to prosecute for damages, what were his hopes of snccess ? If he had chosen a particular individual for prosecution, see his difficulty. No one man had taken all that was destroyed; and snppose he was able to point out some particular article which had been taken; after the trouble of an expensjye lawsuit, his legal advisers informed him that if the party were a rich man he would be sure of an acquittal, and if he was a poor man, from whom was he to look for payment ?—(Cheers.) Well, then, this is a case In which the Greek Government have neglected to give that protection which they had it in their power to afford, and who will say that this was not a case in which we were entitled to call on them to make some compensation?—(Cheers.) I think the claim was founded in justice—the amount we did not pre tend to fix.—(Hear, hear.) If the Greek Government thought the sum demanded was exorbitant, and that a far less sum would have been sufficient, that would have been a question open to discussion. But the Greek Government denied the principle of redress. When Mr. Wyse made his demand, all he renuired was that it should be settled or put in the way of settlement, and when the period was limited to the space of four and twenty hours for the Greek Govern ment to decide, nothing more was desired, and no particular amount of - money was sought. All he wished was, that a claim fairly and justly due should be treated in a fair and equitable manner. Well, then, after these claims had been treated by the Greek Government with subterfuge—in a manner wholly unsatisfactory or with pertinacious silence —it was at last forced upon us that we were either to abandon these claims altogether, or, in pursuance of a notice which we had given two years before, we were to insist upon them by force. It has been said, Sir, " Oh, what an ungenerous proceeding to employ so large a force against so small a territory."—(Hear, hear.) Does the smallness of the country justify immunity for its guilty acts ?—(Hear, hear.) Is it to be held that because a country is small and weak we cannot apply for redress for the injuries it inflicts upon us?—(Hear, hear.) Why the small. ness and weakness of the country make our generosity the snore apparent in employing a force which would render re sistance impossible; or is it seriously to be supposed that our subjects shall suffer without redress because we have such ample means of obtaining it for them?—(Cheers and laughter.) Well, then, was there anything so ungenerous in sending this imposing fleet, which would make it palpable to all the world that resistance was out of the question ? On the contrary, it was mere consistent with the honour and dignity of the Government on whom we made the demand to send an armament which would show the vanity of resist ance. It would have been an indignity if we had sent a frigate and a sloop. of war, or any force which they might have thought it possible to have measured their force with, or to which they would not have felt it dignified to yield. Therefore, so far from being open to blame for sending the force which happened to be on the spot, I think that circumstance ought to be matter of satis faction to the Greek Government, as it removed the humi- liation they would otherwise have experienced in being obliged to give that which they had so long refused. Well. then, did we in the application of that force either depart from established usage, or do anything which pressed harshly upon an innocent unoffending nation? I say innocent and unoffending nation, because it was against the Government, and net the nation, we made the claim. The course pur sued by Government in cases like the present, where an in. jury has been inflicted for which redress is refused, are either of the three following :—The first Is commonly called re prisal—that is, seizing something of value and holding it by way of deposit; or, if necessary, applying it by way of compensation for the wrong. The second is a modi fied operation of war, such as a blockade, a measure very frequently adopted by all states and governments. The third course is the commencement of actual hostilities and the adoption of such measures as have been pointed out by some other countries—for instance, by France, when she demanded redress for injuries s us t a i ne d. B y t h e bye, when lion. Gentlemen complain of the peremptory manner in which the demand was made, I merely wish to call the at tention of the House to a case in 'which the French nation were involved, which happened no later than the year 1848. There was an insurrection at Naples. The great street of the town was filled wi:h barricades, and the troops had to force them. To do so they had to occupy the houses upon the right and left as they forced one house after another. They forgot or neglected to fasten the doors after th e m, and they were followed by the lazzaron , who com menced to plunder all before them. Some of these houses were the property of Frenchmen, and they complained to the French Minister, who immediately put himself in communi cation with the French Admiral Godat, who happened to be lying with his fleet at Naples. What does he do? He lays his ship broadside opposite the Palace, and writes a note to say that he has been called upon for protection by the French inhabitants. This letter is dated " "nalf.past one o'clock," and states, unless he receives a satisfactory answer that' the Neapolitan Government will guarantee them full protection by three o'clock, he will proceed to enforce it. - (Cheers and laughter.) Sir W. Parker acted with the greatest moderation. He began with reprisals—he did not begin with a blockade—he wished to avoid all interference with the commerce of other countries; and ' he made these reprisals in a manner in which they had not often been effected. The Government was the offending party, and he took possession of the vessels of the Government. The reason that other nations pre fer to seize vessels belonging to the country are very obvious. Vessels belonging to the Government are gene rally armed, and vessels which are so may feel it their duty to use them—this involves the possibility of bloodshed, so reprisals are generally effected upon commercial vessels, which are not ammunitioned, and where the probability of resistance is not so great. In this instance we began by seizing the armed vessels. As this was found not suffi ciently to answer, he laid an embargo on all vessels, which implied that he had a lien upon them, and ordered that they should not quit their ports. As these means were still unsuccessful to obtain his end, he was obliged to make reprisals and seize some merchant vessels, which he did to a limited number, avoiding as much as possible, or than it was absolutely necessary, in flicting injury on the commerce of the people or of other nations. They had been told that he had seized a number of fishing-boats belonging to the poor. He knew nothing of the circumstance, and did not believe it.— (Cheers.) The embargo did not extend to fishing-boats or vessels ofj small tonnage employed in the coasting trade.—(Hear, hear.) In that state of things the French Government offered their good offices. We readily and cheerfully accepted them, and by a note, dated the 12th of February, we stated the grounds, the conditions, and the extent to which they were to be ac cepted. There could be no mistake about the matter, its we took as a precedent the course which had been pursued on the sulphur question when Mr. Thiers was in office.— (Hear, hear.) In that case it was arranged that all hostilities were to be suspended the moment the French Minister was autho. lised to negotiate. In this case the moment the offer was sufficiently made and sufficiently accepted instructions to the same effect were to be issued. In both cases we could not release the ships that had been captured, because, if we had done so, we should have given up the position in which we stood. It has been stated that some misunder standing arose between the Governments of France and England in the course of the mediation and good offices. I cannot say that there was any misunderstanding between M. Drouyn de l'Huys and myself, because it will be seen by his statements in the French Assembly that he clearly under stood the grounds on which these good offices were accepted, and he repeatedly states, " England gives up none of her de mands, none of the principles of her demands, and the only questions our negotiator is allowed to discuss are questions which do not involve the negation of the principle of the de mand." What were the questions? Why the amount of money to be received by M. Pacifico and Mr. Finlay ; not the question whether he was to receive anything or nothing.— (Cheers.) A question arose, What were the circumstances on which the good offices were to cease? It was distinctly understood upon my part, and that of M. Drouyn de PHuys, that Mr. Wyse was not to take it upon himself to say when this mission had failed, but when Baron Gros announced it himself.—( Hear, hear.) It was further agreed specially, on the 9th of April, if a difference arose between Baron Gros and Mr. Wyse on those points which Baron Gros was com petent to discuss, that he was not to stand out on his differ ence, and if he did not think it possible to give way, in that case he was to refer home for instructions. And it is now said that it was very wrong of me not to have sent out to Mr. Wyse information of the understanding to which I had come with M. Drouyn de l'Huys. In the first place, I had sent, on the 25th of March, instructions which, if acted upon, would have rendered further reference unne cessary, for at last, when Baron Gros and Mr. Wyse came to the question of - the — amount - of money which -ought to be ipaid, Baron Gros said he would counsel the Greek Govern ment to pay 150,000 drachmas- Mr. Wyse said he was willing to accept of 150,000 drachmas, and that being the ' difference existing, between them, Mr. Wyie at last, acting in a much more prudent manner than if he referred the point to the Foreign-office, and so exposed Greek commerce to restraint by the continuance of the statu quo for a whole month, stated, " If other things are agreed to, I will come down to that amount, and accept of the sum which you say you are disposed to recommend the Greek - Government to Ipay."— (Hear, hear.) Therefore, practically, and in the result, that case did not arise to which those instructions Icould apply. If these instructions had reached Mr. Wyse, they would not have applied to the differences which had arisen between him and Baron Gros, for the difference was this:—lt turned on the claim of Don Pacifico. Baron Gros on the 16th of April was willing to recommend to the Greek Government to undertake an engagement for the investiga tion of Don Pacifico's claims, arming out of the destruction of those documents which constituted his demand on the 1 Portuguese Government, and that they should deposit—l i mean the Greek Government-150,000 drachmas as a pledge 1 of their good faith in the execution of that engagement. The only difference between Mr. Wyse and Baron Gros on that day was this—that Baron Gros proposed that the deposit should be lodged in shares of Athens in that bank—that is to say, in the custody of the Greek Government—and Mr. Wyse insisted that the deposit of the money s hould be made in the Bank of England, or, if Baron G ros required it, in the Bank of France.—(Hear, hear.) Now that seemed to be a difference of opinion that could easily have been adjusted. But on the 2ed of April Raron Gros altered his mind. He retracted his opinion on that point. He said that later in formation bad convinced him that Don Pacifico's claims on the Government of that nation were ill founded, and that he would not consent, therefore, to recommend the Greek Government to enter into any engagement to pay Den Pa cifico anything on that ground; that investigation might be entered into, but if there was a claim at all on the part of this individual, it was on the Portuguese and not on the Greek Government; and, in short, that I s acifico's claim was undergoing a further consideration. Now, Sir, that was not a point which it was competent for Baron Gros to act upon, much less to decide.—(He ar , h ear. ) It was in clear violation of the very terms upon which we accepted the proffered good offices of France, nor would Mr. Wyse have been authorised in departing from the instructions which he had received on the 25th March, those instructions being clear and positive for the guidance of his conduct. Then Baron Gros withdrew from the negotiation. On the 23d, Baron Gros not only ceased to act, but wrote a formal letter to Mr. Wyse, and another to the Greek Government, an nouncing finally his withdrawal.—( Hear, hear.) On the 24th it seems that Baron Gros receives a dispatch from Ge neral de la Hitte, which dispatch purports to give an acs count of a conversation which passed between M. Dronyn de l'Huys and myself on the 9th. That account is not correct, and it dwells upon generals instead of particulars. It is there said that I agreed to the arrangement proposed by Baron Gros; but it is, not stated in what re spect I had limited that consent. - It is not, therefore, a correct description of the arrangement which had been come to between M. Drouyn de l'Huys and myself. M. Gros, however, on the 24th, wrote to Mr. Wyse, express ing his willingness, in consequence of the note of General de la Hitte, received on the 24th, to retract or correct his note of the 23d, and to make a reference to France and England. The impression has gone abroad that, on the 24th, Baron Gros received, and communicated to Mr. Wyse, not merely an account of the conversation between myself and M. Drouyn de l'Huys, but also an account of the basis, and of the nearly approaching arrival, of a draft of the conven tion which was for the first time proposed to me on the 15th, which was discussed in terms on the 16th, which was agreed to on the 18th, and sent off on the 19th. Mr. Wyse has been greatly blamed by many persons, both here and in France, upon the assumption that whereas Baron Gros informed him, on the 24th of April, that the English and French Governments had come to an agree ment as to the essential basis of the convention that had been signed between the two powers, and that Mr. Wyse, being in mane] possession of that information, and knowing of the existence of that convention, had nevertheless, with a full knowledge of that fact, renewed coercive measures, by which he compelled the Greek Government to agree to his proposal. That assertion, Sir, is, as far as he (Mr. Wyse) is concerned, utterly and positively untrue.—Gear, hear.) Mr. Wyse received no communication from Baron Gros on the 24th, or at any time earlier (I believe) than the 2d of May, realative to the draft of a convention of any sort or kind.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Whether Baron Gros re ceived the communication or not is to be settled between him and his Government.—( Hear, hear.) I declined, from the statements of General de la Hitte, to believe that he did not receive that intimation. "Our own correspondent" of the Times—(A laugh)—stated that Mr. Wyse had received this intimation from Baron Gros, and was a most valuable auxiliary to some who had spoken and written on these matters; but the information was not correct, as the blue book established. The correspondent of the Times distinctly stated—and, no doubt, public opinion in this country was much formed upon those statements—that the British Go vernment did inform Mr. Wyse on the 24th of this conven tion, and that he did receive by the ship Vauban information of the convention. and yet that, in spite of this, Mr. Wyse proceeded with his coercive measures. I understand the French Government now to say that they were, in the first instance, under a mistake, and to acknowledge that Baron Gros did not receive by the Vauban information of the con vention. and therefore, no such communication having tuken place, Baron Gros could not communicate, and Mr. Wyse could not receive it. —(Hear, hear.) Therefore, Sir, the complaint against Mr. Wyse, come from what quarter it may, is now disavowed and is no longer perse vered in.— (Loud cheers.) As to the next complaint, that I did not write on account of what passed on the 9th of April, my answer is, that Mr. Wyse was already in posses sion of instructions which were tantamount to a communi cation, and that, had those instructions been agreed to in spirit and substance, the arrangement would have been carried out on the spot, and reference to home would have been out of the question. But, said those objectors, why not send out instructions by the Vauban, as the French Government did? Why, I was in London, and General de la Hitte was in Paris. The steamboat was at Tou lon, and to send a steamboat from London the journey would not have been performed in so short a time as by the ordinary testae by Marseilles and Trieste.— (Hear, hear.) When it is said that those demands of ours are so much repudiated by this Governments of Russia and France that our putting"them forward would cause the risk of involving us in a war with these powers, I must be per-' mitted to say that, with regard to Russia, the dispatch of Count Nesselrode to Baron Brunnow, of the 19th of February, totally negatives any such assertion as regards Russia.—(Hear, hear.) In that note the idea of our finally resorting to coercive measures is distinctly admitted—that two years ago, in October 1847, he was of opinion that the time was coming when he should think it necessay to have recourse to coercion, and that at the moment when we should have recourse to these measures, we ought to ask those powers for their assistance, •so that they might use their efforts in order to obtain that which' it wteeclear we could not post pone indefinitely in 'deference - to their wishes.—(Hear, hear.) So far as to Russia. Then as to France. What was the basis of the convention of the 19th of -February ? it was a convention acknowledging all the principles of our demands and even the amount which France thought we had a just right to demand.—( Hear.) lam sorry that that convention did not arrive before another settlement took place. But that was not the fault of our negotiator. It was not Mr. Wyse who put an end to Baron Gros's interference. Why, Sir, it was Baron Gros himself.—(Hear, hear.) Heformally and officially, by a written communication, withdrew from 1 the negotiation. Baron Gros addressed his letter of with drawal, not merely to Mr. Wyse, but to the Greek Govern ment. I repeat he withdrew voluntarily and formally. —(" Hear, hear," and cries of" No.") I say he withdrew formally.—(No, no.) Yes, he was willing to retract his j letter, and on the 24th he sent back the note of Mr. Wyse, saying " I cannot do that, but I have another proposal to make—a proposal which I have made before and which I om authorised to make. You ask me to refer to England. I will do so, but in the meantime to keep those Greek vessels in custody for a whole month, whilst the reference is being made, would be rather hard—it would inflict a great hard ship on the Greeks and subject them to apprehensions of fur ther violence. I propose, therefore, that if the Greek Go vernment will send me 180,000 drachmas, which is the sum I require, with a letter stating that that amount is in satisfaction of all our claims, except that claim of Don Pacifico with regard to Portugal, I will"—do what? Con tinue• the status quo?—No, but said Mr. Wyse, "I will at once release all the Greek merchant vessels—l will only de tain two or three Government vessels as a pledge that some settlement will be made of Pacifico's claims." The effect of that arrangement would be that the discussion and adjustment of Pacifico's claims would be left to the future, the points upon which Mr. Wyse and Baron Gros dif fered would be allowed to stand over, the convention would have arrived in.time, and the only final difference would be that whereas the convention fixed upon 220,000 drachmas, Mr. Wyse was content with 180,000 drachmas. —(Loud cheers.) But what was Baron Gros's 'answer to that? Why it was this :—" I have withdrawn from the negotiation." So that, not merely did Baron Gros announce his withdrawal on the 22d or 23d, but he repeated that state ment, and he refused to act officially, or, as the organ of France, to make any representation to the Greek Govern.. ment. Baron Gros would, had he done so, have kept matters open for investigation and for convention. But Baron Gros, although he said he had officially withdrawn, and therefore could not assent to the proposal of Mr. Wyse, in a private letter, intimated that he had made known Mr. Wyse's offer to the Government of Greece, and that by five on the following after noon he had recommended that the money and the letter asked for by Mr. Wyse should be sent by the Greek Government. But was Mr. Wyse in a great hurry to resume aggressive measures? Did he seize upon the first moment, as he might have done, after non-compliance with the demand, to direct Sir W. Parker to renew his opera tions? Far from it; he waited from the '23d to the 24th, from the °4th to the 25th, and did not in any way manifest the slightest impatience, but, on the contrary, the greatest reluctance to act upon the offensive.—(Hear, bear.) Why, Sir, after Baron Gros had withdrawn. Mr. Wyse still offered to accept of the same terms as before, and to acquiesce in the private suggestions of Baron Gros. The negotiations which have since then taken place between the Governments of England and France have at length brought those mat ters to a satisfactory conclusion.—(Cheers.) We are, and were, perfectly 'ready to accept of such parts of the proposed convention as were applicable to the matters which as yet remain unadjusted—to accept of the arrangement proposed by the convention instead of the corresponding arrangement of the 27th of April, which was drawn up on the spot. We do not of course, having received 190,000 drachmas and distri buted them, insist on the difference between that sum and that proposed in the convention. The arrangement made in Athens will not be carried into execution as regards the claims of Don Pacifico on Portugal and the destruction of such papersof his as refer to that claim. A pledge has been given that the matters will be adjusted. Of course, as M. Londos has written a letter pledging the Greek Governinent to a certain course, it would be preposterous to ask him to take back that letter and sign instead a much better one, written bp M. Drouyn de l'Huys, written here for his signa ture.—(Cheers.) Among the questions which remain to be settled is this one regarding Pacifico. Baron Gros's ar rangement was the exchange of notes, but the exchange of notes binds only the Minister by whom the notes were ex changed, and might be disowned by his successor. Mr. Wyse, therefore, required substantial security, to consist of the lodgment of a deposit of a certain suns of money, and the investigation was to be made by the Governments of France and England. The convention of which I drew up the de tails in concert with M. Dronyn de Lhuys contained a di nlomatid guarantee, because the convention was concluded by plenipotentiaries, and was to be ratified by the two So vereigns, who were to provide commissioners of arbitratian— those commissioners to be named by the two Governments, for the purpose of investigating those claims. We are perfectly ready to substitute that of the Greek Go vernment if they wish that we should do so, and we have prepared, and are sending out, the draft of a convention which substitutes an arrangement respecting those claims. Of course, if we get a diplomatic guarantee, a substantial L guarantee is no longer necessary. Mr. Wyse acted, I think, judiciously, having heard that the Greek Government was collecting and beating up for claims against the English • Government for damages occasioned by our interference in 1 providing against the concession or preferment of any such .EVENING, JUNE . 26, 1850, claim. :I cats-attaeh-no value-whatever to a claim-preferred ander such circumstances, by whomsoever put forward or supported. Such a claim has no foundation whatever -it bas no foundation upon right or order, and must be entirely and utterly rejected. The value of the provision of Mr. Wyse lies in effectually closing the door against such a de mand, and so preventing a renewal of the discussion, and causing, perhaps, the interruption of our friendly relations with Greece after the whole matter had been ,settled.--... (Hear.) But her Majesty's Government are, instead of that provision in the convention, willing to accept- of the good offices of the Government of France, which, from the posi tion in which France now stands in towards Greece, are sure to prove successful. Francothereforeirill advise the King of Greece not to make such claims, and with that advice we will remain satisfied. Thus has terminated all our differ- ences with Greece in respect to those matters. (Loud cheers.) I- believe, if it had not been for the discussion which was coming on in the French Chamber of peculiar importance, it was the intention of the represen tative of Fiance to . be pre - sent at this debate. Now, Sir, hav ing said so•much on•the affairs of Greece, which I have taken first in order, there still remains the question of the far-famed islands of Sapienza and Cervi.—( Hear, hear.) As regards these i4ands, my Opinion is most Clear and definite—(Cheers) —and I am supported in that opinion—as has been stated in the course of this debate—by my predecessor in office, Lord Aberdeen. (Cheers.) The case is simply this. There are certain islands on the coast of Gieece, opposite the coasts of the Morea . and Albania, which originally belonged to Venice, but according to the terms of treaty entered into between Austria and the Porte, soma of these islands were erected into a separate state, and placed under the suzerain of the Porte, and under the protection of Russia. In 1800 _ . the constitution was formed, and in 1894, in ex- ecution of the terms of this constitution, the 'islands were formed into municipal districts; the stnaller islands were then allotted to the larger islands, and accord ing to the terms of a public decree, which I cannot but believe was made known to Russia and the Porte, Sapienza was annexed to Zante and Cervi to the island of Cerigo. . . These islands have been considered by the British as belonging to England, and it is well known that British officer's, On taking in water at Cerigo, are in the habit of going to Cervi. Be this as it may, however, the limits of Greece were specifically laid down by the protocol of 1830. With the exception of some differences abOut the northern frontier, the whole frontier of Greece was settled by the, ,rotocol of 1830. The limits of the frontier were specified' by a line drawn on the map, but the islands were desig nated by name in the protocol, and it was well known and arranged that in these islands were not included Cervi—still less Sapienza, and therefore it was impossible to suppose that either was included in the kingdom of Greece. If the Greek Government have taken possession of the lonian State, it was not the British Government who took possession.—(Hear, hear.) That question, however, is not settled by cur demand, but still remains to be settled with the other powers. • A boat conveying :convicts from Cerigo was driven on shore on the island of Cervi, where the prisoners were liberated by officers of the Greek Go vernment, who acted as if it were their own territory. It was necessary to call for answer to this outrage, and if no answer were given, then it was necessary to take possession of the island, which was effected by a boat's crew, and was not a matter in which the employment of any great force was rendered necessary.—(Hear, hear.) And now, Sir, having disposed of matters relating to Greece, I have now to enter on the wider range—(Cheers)—taken last night by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Gra ham).—(Cheers.) I think the Right Hon. Baronet took a proper view of the question before the House, for the resolu tion does not confine itself to any one act of the Government in relation to its foreign policy, but opens a consideration of all the topics to which the Right Hon, Baronet alluded. I agree with some of those Hon. Members who have spoken in the course of this debate, that the resolution does not in volve the expression of an entire approval of all we have done, for it could hardly be expected that men acting on different information, entertaining: different views, and not knowing the grounds on which he acted, should be asked and expected to approve of every particular act, but I agree that the Right Hon. Baronet took the right view of the larger question. The Right Hon. Baronet must allow me to set him right on the first point with which he started. He stated that, when we were both members of Earl Grey's Admini stration, he concurred in the foreign policy which I, as its organ, adopted, and instanced this concurrence by a refe rence to the separation of Belgium from Holland. In doing so, the Right Honourable Baronet did full justice to the views which actuated the Government in the part they , took for the purpose of effecting this separation, which di rectly infringed the treaty of Vienna. But, he said, this was a very different case, for every step throughout the negotia tion was taken with the concurrence of the five powers. He said he had also concurred in some other things which were done, and which were beyond the sphere of negotiation —the siege of Antwerp and our embargo on the Dutch ships, were these measures taken with the concurrence of the five other powers—(Cheers)—were they of that description which would render our friendly relations with other coun tries less disturbed ? (Cheers) He must recollect that Austria, Prussia, and Russia dissented from our views, and for a time withdrew from the conference —(Cheers. ) He must recollect that the presence of the Prussian army ren dered it necessary to the French to send a large force to Antwerp. The• Right Hon. Baronet has, therefore, made a mistake. I know that when persons are out of office their memories are not always tenacious on matters which oc curred when they were in power—(Cheers and laughter)— but a mistake there was, and one, too, of some importance, as bearing on the particular question. I think with the Right Honourable Baronet that this was s wise determina tion on the part of the Government I think that the beneficial arrangement of 1815, by which a power of some consideration was formed in Europe to interpose between France on one side and Germany on the other, was rendered by the course of events of a contrary nature. The two people of Germany and Holland could not coalesce, and if their union had been forced upon them, it doubtless could not have been effected without a war, and even if effected, would not have lasted, but would have laid the foundation of future inevitable destruction.—(Loud cheers.) We, how ever, carried our opinion on this point. It is needless to deny, at this time of day, that it was not with the, will of the three powers to which I have alluded, who would have been glad to have seen the union enforced. These nations committed no breach of faith—they acted in perfect faith, but still they entertained an opinion which differed from the opinion of France and England. Our opinion prevailed, and was this an arrangement which de served the censure of the Right Hon. Baronet ?—( Loud cheers.) I have been told of our little experiments in esta blishing monarchies; but if ever there was a .successfhl ex-, periment, the erection of Belgium into a successful state was that successful experiment.—(Cheers.) When convul sion was rife throughout Europe, Belgium remained tran quil—(Cheers)—her people entertained a :ove and affection for their Sovereign, and the Sovereign for' his people ; they had made rapid advances in the sciences and the arts—thus reflecting great honour on themselves—and had, moreover, acquired the sentiments of nationality which entitled them to respect. I think, Sir, this is a case to which . we may refer with pride—(Cheers)—and on which we can claim the approbation of Parliament.—(Cheers.) It was not without difficulty we could carry our negotiations to so successful an issue. The Right Honourable Baronet nye he was also a party to another operation as regards Portugal. We have been accused of interfering here and there in the affairs of other countries, and I presume it is on this that the Right Hon. Baronet founds his disapprobation of err foreign affairs under my management as their organ. A question arose in Portugal between Donna Anna Maria, her father Dom Miguel, and her uncle Dom Pedro. Was it of any import ance to England whether Donna Maria or Dom Miguel reigned in Portugal? but we regarded absolute Government on the one hand, and constitutional Government on the other. —(Loud cheers.) You may ask what interest had we in that either? Prima facie, we might have preferred the former, for if a nation wishes to use her influence she, can more easily do so where the Government resides in a Court and a Cabinet than where it exists in the representative assembly of the people. We, however, spurned this adqvin= tag,e—we knew there were other advantages which would countervail it—we knew that the best chacce of remedying the evils which existed in Portugal, and of developing her resources, would be by securing the inestimable advan tages of a free constitution.—(Loud cheers.) Thinking there was right on the side of the party, we espoused the cau•Ze, and concluded a treaty with Spain, France, and Por tugal, by which Dom Miguel was expelled by force, and Donna Maria placed on the throne. Sir, I think that in this instance the Government acted well ; and I think also that the Right Hon. Baronet is entitled to share with me the credit—(Cheers) —above all, as he conclrred with me in resorting to force.—(Cheers.) I shall be told we were not successful, and that another insurrection Croke out in Por tugal when our interference lay in an opposite direction. Now, no man can suppose that, when you ?lant free institu tions in a soil in which it has not hitherto grown, the tree will all at once reach maturity and bear fruit.—(Bear, hear.) It takes time to educate men for representative government —it takes time to teach governors to submit to the control of representative government.—( Hear, hear.) The whole his tory of the world, and of this country more than any other, will furnish instances exemplifying the trath of this state ment; but can any man compare the present condition of Portugal with what it was? Evils may exist, but her preseut condition is as different from, her past as light from darkness.—(Cheers.) In 1147 car conduct was approved of by, the Right Honourable Gentleman, but disapproved of by my Honorable and Gallant Friend (Mr. Osborne), who has, however, given us his support on this question. The . throne of Portugal was ein danger, and the Government applied to ui under the treaty into which we had entered with France and Spain . We did not acknowledge the treaty was in force, but we had to con sider the case on its merits. I know that many men think the more prudent course would have been to let the contest go on, whatever might be its results between the parties; but I thought then, as I do now, that the course we adopted was the right one, and am convinced that, though for the time we disarmed the Liberal party, we saved that Liberal party, which would otherwise have been involved in the most imminent danger. BlyCOnvictidn Tstcat,if England had not adopted the course she did, the object would have been accomplished by foreign interference, but not with the condi tions which England attached. These conditions were ample and complete amnesty for all those engaged in the civil war, the revocation of all illegal edicts, an immediate convocation of Parliament as soon as an election could take place, and the formation of a Government consisting neither of the Cabral party — the High Tory party I may call them — (Laughter) ---or of the members of the Junta of Oporto. ! it is said you have got back Costa Cabral, and your object was to get quit of him. The fault I find with those who attack me elsewhere—(Laughter)—in that House and in other countries, is that they try to bring every question to a personal bearing.--(Cheers.) If the object be to op pose the polity of England, then the cry is—Let us get rid of the organ of that policy.—(Cheers.) Why that is just like knocking down a policeman. As long as the English people are actuated by the spirit Anti dpinions which now characterise them, you may knock down twenty Foreign Ministers, but no Minister can keep bis place who does not act in accordance with the national sentiments. — (Cheers.) It is said again—You interfered in Portugal, in 1847, not for the benefit of that country, but you ranted to get rid of Costa Cabral. Nor did it signify to England whether Costa Cabr .1 was Minister of Portugal or not? We felt and knew that if, at that moment of popular excitement, a member of the Cabral faction was made Minister, it would inevitably lead to a renewal of the civil war which we meant to terminate, and therefore we made the exclusion, not for ever, but till such time as the Cortes should determine in whom their confi dence was to be placed, and, till that should be done, mem bers of both parties were to be excluded. Then come we to Spain. In regard to that country, as the 'Honourable Baro net stated, he was not in office when the independent article of 1535 was added to the treaty of 1834. But what was the treaty of 1834, or the treaty of Quadruple Alliance, as it is called? Its object was to expel, not only Dom Miguel, but Don Carlos, who was at that time at the head of a body of troops, and.therefore, as far as the spirit of the treaty is concerned, the Right Hon. Baronet could not ride off upon the plea that he did not consent to the additional article. At that time Don Carlos was in Portugal, and ready to give battle to Spain. He subsequently evacuated the Peninsula, came to this country, and then returned to Spain, where a civil war was incited. It was then that the additional treaty of 1835 was agreed to ; and its object was to give to the Queen of Spain such assistance as was required to enable her to main tain her ground. In one point of view, it was of no consequence 1 --to England -who-shouiciiiit tbe throne of Spain,-..mhetharAlie. female branch or Don Carlos. Questions ofsuccession have been matters with which other, Countries hive concerned them:- selves, but only . where . distinct interests were. involed. But it was in • Spain as in Portugal-:it was a question between arbitrary and constitutional Government; and we thought the interest of England, in every point of view, commercial and political, would be benefited by the esta blishment of constitutional government in Spain.-(Cheers.) If England , has an interest in regard to Spain,it . is that Spain may „be independent-that she should be Spanish, and that she should be for the Spaniards. 7 -(Cheers.) It was deemed of a dvantage to thig country that Spain should not be ,placed under the' dictation' of other powers. It was deemed for the interest of this. country that, should she have the misfortune to have dispute, or to be - at war with other, countries, She should not be at war with Spain also-(Cheers)=and we thought that - , that inde pendent course of action was more likely to be purSned by a . Government contrelled by a National Assembly than by a Government purely, arbitrary.- (Cheers.) - The policy suc ceeded ; and althqugh Narvaez, as the,Right Hon. Baroutt stated, is ,Minister of Spain.. I cannot see any defeat of the policy of England -in that circumstance. Narvaez is , Minister ; bet the constitution is in force•-(Cheers)-and 'that constitution has of late been much more strictly oh served than at the period to which the lido. Baronet al hided. _The Hon. Baronet found fault with a certain cominu:- nication of mine, 'written in 1846 to Sir Henry Bulwer, and he Stated that. it, was objec',,ionahle, no. only on'the ground, of interference, but in manner and in tone. Now, with re- - spect to manner'and tone„there have beencertain communi cations made to.other Governments liy i perpons in whom the Right Honograble Baronet has conduce - ( Laughter)- couched in language that might poiSibly admit of the ap plicability of some of the criticisms which .have been applied to mine.-(Laughter.) There was a certain dispatch ad dressed by the Earl of Aberdeen to Sir Edmund Lyons, and which was read elsewhere-(Laughter, the Noble Lord pro ceeding leisurely to search for paper on the till4e)-and of which I have a copy here.--,(Continued laughter.) It May be taken as a specimen of a mild mode of interfering with the internal arrrangements of ,other eountrieS. - Everyone knew who Sir Richard Church was. He was a diatingnised soldier - who fought for . Greek independence, and was long deserved honoured and trusted by the Greek Government but, Sir Richard being supposed - to sympathise with that party who had extorted the constitution from the. King, in 1844; he was removed from the appointment, , he, held, of Inspector-General of the Army, and was succeeded by ai cer tain General Grivas, whose former conduct had not been altogether free from some imutation as to loyalty to the i • existing droiernment. The following s Lord Aberdeen's letter of instruction to Sir. Edinnnd Lyons " Foreign-office, Dec. 2, 1814. " Sir,-Her Majesty's Government have learnt, with deep . concern, the dismissal of General Sir 4icharcl Church, by, his Majesty King Otho, from the post of•lnspectOr.:General, of the Greek Army, which post he had so honourably and 'so usefully filled for many years. Their regret is increased 'by finding that General (Irma, who was so recently engaged in open rebellion against the Throne, has been appointed to, succeed him. " Her Majesty's Government do not propose to interfere in this matter, since, howeier Unjust the deprivation of Ge neral Church, and however injudicious the elevation of Ge neral Griva.s may have been,_ those acts were certainly within the competence of the Greek Government. ""But although her Majesty's Government abstain from interference, they deem it an imperative duty on their part, considering theposition in which Great Britain stands with regard to Greece, as a creating and a guaranteeing p . ower, to express in the strongest terms their sense of the injus tice done to Sir Richard Church, ,one of the best, most dis interested, and most efficient supporters' of Greek inde pendence, by an abrupt and ungracious disiniasal, unacciani panied by one word of Commendation or .acknowledgment of his great services to Greece ;,.and also their Sense of the excess of imprudence and impolicy exhibited in .the ap pointment to one of the most responsible offices under the Crown of a man whose recent conduct has shown him to be an enemy to the throne and a deliberate - p,eryerter of order and discipline. Her Majesty's Goiernment 'consider. theniSelves to be fully warranted by,the overt acts of General. Grivas himself to instruct you to make' known these sentiments diitinctlY, in their name, to the Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs, as well as to the King himself, ishould,a favourable opportunity present itself ; and, at the same time, to warn his Majesty , seriously and solemnly of the danger to which he will ex pose his country and his throne by a perseverance in so fatal a line of policy as . he has recently pnrsued. "I am; &c., • ABRILD'XEN. (Signed) " Sir E. Lyons, Bart., G.C.8." [This letter was read with much gusto by the Noble Lord, who took care to point out the more prominent . points as he went along. The House was kept literally in " a roar" during the reading.] It is the writer of that dispatch who condemns me for my letter of July 19, 1846, to Sir Henry- Bulwer. My letter, be it remarked, was not a communica tion to a Sovereign-( Cheers) - and the closing paragraph I think the Right Hon. Baronet might have read as well as the other parts, because it explains the use I intended should be made of my communication. It is as follows:- " It was certainly not for the purpose of subjecting the Spanish nation to a grinding tyranny, that Great Britain entered into the engagements of the cluadruple Alliance of 1885, and gave, in pursuance of the stipulations of that treaty, that active assistance which contributed so materially to the expulsion of Don Carlos from Spain. But her Ma jesty's Government are so' sensible of the inconvenience, of in terfering, even by friendly advice, in the internal affairs of independent states, that I have to abstain from giving you in structions to make any representations whatever to the Spanish Ministers on these matters; but though you will of course take care to express on no occasion on these subjects senti ments different from those which I have ,thus explained to you, and although you will be careful not' to express those sentiments in any manner or upon any occasion so as to be likely to create; increase, or encourage discontent, yet you need not conceal from any of those persons who May have the poWer of remedying the existing evils, the fact that such opi nions are entertained by the British Government."-(Cheers.) Looking at the two commnnicationa-that of the Earl of Aberdeen to Sir Edmund Lyons, and my dispatch to Sir lienry Bulwer, I really do think that it is not from the for mer quarter that any condemnation shoUld coine.-(Cheers.) If I am not worthy of condemnation, at all events my de tractors are not worthy to condemn.- (Cheers.), It was said that the rudeness of my communication to the Spanish Go vernment was calculated to lead to a rupture, and that tai mention of Sir Henry Bulwer as the person I would have preferred sending to Madrid, bad his services been available, was enough to disgust the Spanish Government. I remem ber when the question which arose out of previous transac tions was diecussed, that no man spoke , more handsomely of the character, ability', and services of Sir Henry 13ulwer, than the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tainworth.- (Cheers.) And a similar. feeling seemed to pervade the House. Well, ,it is not always that one is at liberty to tell dipionsatie secrets ; but I am obliged, in self-defence, to take the House into official confidence.-( Laughter.) Well, these two notes-the one of apology, and thebther of answer-were mutually communicated to and approved by each Govern ment-(lmtnense cheering) -they were .communicated con fidentially from the one Government to the other, before, they were officially promulgated.-(Continued cheering.) But, said the Right Hon. Baronet, this affair of Spain was of long_duration, and disastrous consequences arose because It was fulloWed by events involving matters connected With another country, namely, France,. The Right . Hon. Baronet stated that out of the Spanish marriages question a difference arose between England and France, which even led to no thing slighter than the overthrow of a dynasty. Thera again comes in that fancy for narrowing great creations doWn to the smallness of personal considerations, of which I have already complained. -(Cheers. ) The Right Hon. Ba ronet asserted, that it was my dislike which overthrew -M. Guizot, and with it the reigning dynasty. What will the people of Franco Say - a people of high spirit, and full of a sense of their own dignity-when they 'bear" it stated by a Member of the English Par liament, that it was in the power of; • an English 'Minister to overthrow their form of government? (Cheers.) Why,'Sir, the French are a brave, a generous, and a noble minded people, and it they thought that there was &foreign conspiracy forined against one of their Ministers;-(Pro lodged and general cheers) - say, Sir, that if they had reason to suppose that a knot of foreign conspirators were caballing against one of their Ministers, whether directly or indirectly, and for no other reason than that he had a special regard to the interests of his own country-(Cheers)-and if, moreover, they had cause for suspecting that suck knot of conspirators had Coadjutors in their own' country-I know that the French, a brave and noble-spirited people, would cling the closer to, and protect the more, the man against whom they thought the attack was directed.- (Cheers.) If, then, the French Government had' thought that I had wanted to overthrow M. Guizot, the bare suspicion of any such design on my part would only have had the effect of making him stronger.-( Hear, hear.) Sir, M. Guizot was overthrown for very different reasons-(Hear, hear)-and his overthrow was the more to be regretted, since there was scarcely ever a man who might b r ave been better, had he better read the lessons which history and experi ence afforded him --(Hear, hear.) Sir, I will not refer at any length to the question, of the Spanish marriages. I do not wish to re-open questions gone by, or to remind this Hour or the country of the grounds of complaint that we may have had against those no longer in power. But as this question forms one count' of the long indictment that has been preferred against me, I must say, in my own defence, that thetissatisfaction we felt on the subject.of theiSpanish marriages was not,groundless, and that, Judging from coin-, munications that were made to me by the noble individual (t,ord Aberdeen) . who preceded me in the office I have the honour, o hold-judging, I say, from the statements I had from his month in that interview which always takes place between the Minister going out and the Minister coming in, promises were broken in the matter of these marriages ( Hear, 'hear )- promises. too, which had been made, not only between the Minters themselves, but between higher personages.-(Hear, hear)-and such as -have never yet been broken in the history of Europe.-(Hear, hear.) If, then, we did feel dissatisfaction with regard to these mar riages, I think that ,feeling was . a just one - (Cheers), and that, on every ground of national interest and national honour, , we were entitled, nay, bound, to express it. - (Cheers.) And, moreover, with respect to France, I think that the policy we have pursued towards that nation is a policy consistent with the interest of the country, and characterised by those principles which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite thinks ought to cha racterise 'the 'Policy of. this kingdom, and calculated to pre serve the peace of the world.-(Hear, hear.) I think that the relations we 'have maintained with the French nation, and with, the many chiefs under whom its government has been placed, are enough to show that we are animated by friendly feelings towards that nation, , an d th at we cons id er the maintenance of those friendly relations not only consis tent with, but conducive to, the best interests of both coun tries, and that they form the 'firmest foundation for the peace of Europe.-(Cheers.) But, Sir, the Right Honourabl e Gentleman (Sir Jaines Graham ) insinuated list n i g ht that , Lord Normanty, et the period.-immediately preceding the revolution of 1848, was in too intimate' connexion with some of those' - whom the throne of France' was after wards overthrown. Sir, I know• not who ,the Right Ho nourable Gentleman means, put this' I do . kn ow, that the person with w h om .L or d Normanby lived in the most in timate connexion was• Count Mole.--(Dear.) I have yet to learn that Count Mold was likely to have had relations with those who overthrew the monarchy of France ; bu t I can assure this House that if the statement which has b een made was meant to convey.any inaalf/11011 t ha t Lord Nor manby was holding any intercourse inconsis tent with his duiy in the position he held--I can assure this House that any such statement is altogether unfou nded - ( Hear, hear.) And now,Sir, w e have le ft the plains of Castile and the fertile soil of France, and I am now taken to the moun tains of Switzerland, as being a p lace t o which I am to ren der a stricter account of my laughter.) The charge unde r st thisrdewa ' -(Hear, hear, and stewardship,--(Dear, is founded on. a book by M. d'Haussonville, t he contents of which chiefly consist. - o f r ecitals: of the conversation of individuals who little thought that what they were saying would form the contents of a book, and still less that they would ,be brought under the notice ofParliament: Now, as far as I can gather from the Hon. Gentle Man who preceded me, the charge was this - that in July, 1847, I declined a •proposal of the Duke tie Broglie to mediate between the two parties then contending in Switzerland; that I'changed my opinions in November, _lPd_agreed to mediate; that I purposely delayed the media tion, with a vewTo — ellarr; itfirthat — hw lat I was ending -- to Switzerland to urge mediation, I was at the same time exciting the circumstances that were bringing on the war, in order that the mediation might come to an end. Now, Sir, to the first part of the charge I plead guilty, viz., that whan the mediation first arose it did not seem to be a case with regard to which this country should interfere.—(Hear, hear.) The dispute arose between different portions of Swit zerland. The seven cantons that were peculiarly Catholic entered into a separate league, or Sonderbund, as it was called, and , the other can t ons were rang ed under a different aggregation--the ' difference between the two portions being that the • states forming the majority called upon those , that constituted the minority, viz., the seven Catholic cantons, to expel the Jesuits from their territories. This the minority refused to do, and the conserence was a likelihood of this d ffer ence of opinion.leading to an appeal to arms. ' The majority contended that this separate band was inconsistant with the Act of Confederation, and that they were entitled to put it down by farce of arms. - On the 29th of October, 1847, I wrote a dispatch to Mr.' real, then our Chargé d'Affaires in Switzerland, and that dispatch _I will read to the House to show what was 'the opinion of the Government as to the civil war then'on the point of breaking out in that country —What Vas their opinion but a very few days before it did break out—and in order to ask the 'House how that opinion would be consistent, those opinions having been thus ex pre;:sed to Mr. Peel,' and which he was instructed to express to the rresidCut of the Diet, with the report of M. d'Haustion ville, as to what he had understobd was the opinion -Mr. Peel 'Was to communicate the President. The dispatch is as follows :--- _ (Copy.) " VISCOUNT PALMERSTON TO MR. PEEL. - • " Foreip-office, Oct. 29. 1847. " "Sir,- With reference to your dispatch of the 18th inst., ' announcing the a.ssembling of an extraordinary Diet to ' decide upon ulterior measures for carrying into execution ' the decrees already passed respecting the separate league "• ' .existing within the Swiss Confederation, I have to desire ' that you *ill state to M. Ochsenbein that her Majesty's Go-: - vernment, animated by the sincerest wish for the welfare of ' SWitzerland, most earnestly recommend the Vorort to pause' ' • and well consider all the possible consequences of the step be- • ' fore they actually commence civil war against the seven • smaller cantons. Her Majesty's Government concur with'thii"'" '• • majority of cantons in thinking the Sonderbund at variance"' ' with the federal compact; but at the same time it, musr b'e," remembered that this union has not any active or aggressiiie" 4 '•''' measure for its object, and there does not seem to be ail " " practicable evil that mast necessaiilyflow from the abitlncnce :• "` of the Diet, from any measures of coercion for' the ptirlibie • enforcing its demand, that the Sonderbund shouldliedisSelVed: ' • On the other hand, evils of great magnitude seem ukilyto produced by a recourse to such measures. The first `alit ' mediate consequence will be a civil war between'thlidiffer- 1 ing sections of the Swiss .nation; and as civil wai df the greatest calamities which can befall a people, besvy intuit*. be the responsibility which will weigh upon those Who, dith- • out an overruling necessity, shall take the first •it?ph in such ' a conflict. The next evil will be the too probsible'hiter- ' ference of foreign powers, as allies of one of the partieS' en gaged in that civil conflict, and thus to the bloodslibd and ' devastation which attend civil war, and the lasting bitterness ' ' and resentments which survive such conflicts, may be added the permanent establishment of foreign influences id the in- - ternal affairs of Switzerland, essentially impairing the politl- ' ~cal independence of the country. , rhe majority ought, moreover, well to, weit ll h their chances of success or failure in the conflict in 6 the ' " are preparing to embark. In order to succeed th must conquer the seven cantons ; are they likely to be able to '• • do so even if none but Swiss were to be engaged in the -. War ?-• • " ' Considering the nature of the country' of !lonia of these . 1 • cantons,' and the character of the people, iflnair 'Well . be ''" doubted whether even in that case the Diet woad • do so. But is it not- probable that these nprghbonring powers, who have already supplied the seven teams-With ' arms and ammunition, and other warlike 861.6; would,' if the seven cantons were rednced to extremitY; and'''*ere to • call for succour, afford them effectual assistance, of still - ' more decided kind? and in that cake is it 'net 'certain 'that the attack of the, Diet would fail, and if that - ittaCk"ebould fail, either by the unaided resistance of the Seveectintons, or by the interposition of stronger pthverif,' •vioild, 'the attacking cantons remain in the same relatibe sitiiiitien in • which they now stand towards the °the?' ? Most assuredly not. 'On the contrary, they would 'be' the beaten party in a war begun by themselves; and the experience of all times show that defeats of such •it kind are attended' with inevitable evils to the defeated party. Her-Majesty's Government entreat the Vorort to take these' reflections into their most serious consideration, and truly re: , • joiced would her Majesty's Government 'be, if the 'Direc tory were, upon mature reflection, to kbstain from a course so replete with hazard, and so pregnant with danger to zerland. "I have to desire that you will read this dispatch confi dentially to M. Ochsenbein, and that you will say that the . . communication is prompted solely by the friend& interests which her Majesty's Government take in the welfare of the Swiss nation. " I am, Ecc. (Signed) " PArancarron." (gear, hear.) On the 4th of November, Mr. Peel writes' a dispatch, reporting the conversation he had had with M. Ochsenbein, when he read to him the dispatch of the 29th of October, and gives the reasons why M. Ochsenbein could not abstaia from following the course on which the Vorort bad already determined. Well, on the 6th of November, after this conversation between Mr. Peel and M. Ochsenbein, in which every motive was urged which he thought likely to induce him to abstain from war, the Duke de troglie corn. municated to me a dispatch from M. Guizot, proposing a measure to be adopted by the five great powers, with a view to put an end to the cidil war in Switzerland. Now, I have been much blamed for not at once accepting the proposal, and for having delayed until the 16th before making a counter one. But what was the proposal of the French Go- vernment? That the five powers should make a collec tive declaration, first, that they would approve and support the arbitration of the Pope as to the religious questions,' the expulSion of the Jesuits,,then pending in Switzerland; andseCondly, that we should offer to the States of the Confederation a mediation of the live powers as to all political questions. The Noble Lord here stated various other provisions connected with this proposal—namely, that a conference being held, the twenty-two cantons should be invited to send deputies to examine and determine— first, the means of conciliation, and next the alterations to be made in the federal compact. It went on to propose that we should invite the cantons to cease from the civil war, and that if they refused we should consider the confederation as , not existing, and afterwards that, to use a diplomatic phrase, nous nous y avisPrions; that is, that we should take counsel as to our future course. Now, in the first place, we could not but feel that to propose the arbitration of the Pope would" ' be rejected, and that with respect to the second proposition it would not be accepted. We could not agree, therefore, to dechire that if the cantons refused our terms we should consider the confederacy as no longer existing, and much lest that we should cOnsider, our eugagements with it as hiving • ceased, one of - those engagements being that Switzer land should be considered as neutral territory., In short, the ca-e was' this,"that if they refused our proposal, it should be enforced by force of arms. Well it • required time to consider a counter proposal. But, on the 16th we did make one, namely, an offer, the basis of which was that the Jesuits should be withdrawn, either by an act of the Swiss Government or by consent to be obtained from the Pope; and that the minority should be reassured by the majority that they had no hostile intentions against them, and that each should disarm. 'The minority, being thus as-' sured, were at once to dissolve the Sonderbund.' I think that was a proposal in accordance with those principles which ought to characterise the foreign policy of the Government. With respect to the French Government the details of the proposal required consideration, and it was not until the 26th that the Duc de Broglie and I agreed upon a note, which each party was to have presented to the Vorort, through its agent in Switzerland. But on the 16th of November I received a communication from the Consul-General of Swit zerland here, founded on a resolution of the Vorort, adopted on the 6th of that month, which gave but little hope of suc cess in our mediation, for it refused to admit of any foreign interference with respect to their dispute with the Sonder build. The note was not sent to Mr. Peel to present, but to Sir S. Canning, who was then going onto Switzerland, which was one of the plaCes to which he had instructions to repair. But he was told to go through Paris in his way, and com municate with the French Government, in order that we might be perfectly agreed as to all the details. lie was told that if; on his arrival, he found the civil war at an end, there would be no use in presenting the note, and he was accord ingly to keep it back. In the meantime, while these com munications were going on, the French Government had communicated their first note to the Courts of Vienna, Berlin. and St. Petersburgh, and it met with their approval. A doubt arose when we came to one of the agreements, • whether the, representatives of those countries would feel themselves authorised to present an altered note, and Sir '5. Canning wrote from Paris to say he doubted whether they had any authority to present such a note. lam quite 'at a loss to understand that Mr. Peel could have .said to M. Bois le Comte, that "if this note, which 'we had agreed upon with the French Government should be sent to him, he would rather resign than present it, because it was totally at variance with all his former instructions." Our note offered mediation, to be accepted or rejected as the parties might choose—it offered no alternative of forte—it went on the basis of the settlement of the dispute respecting the Jesuits, according to the wish of the majority—it went on the basis of the settlement of the threatened hos tilities to the satisfaction of the Sonderbund and corap_late reconciliation between t he two parti es—and how Mr. Peel could say such a note was at variance with the dispatch of the 29th of October passes my comprehension to understand —(Lond cheers)—and I therefore wholly disbelieved that statement.—(Loud and long-continued cheering.) The only s e po xp k la en na o t f io b n y I xtr c . an pe po el s t s o ib m. ly the original note whi c h th e F rench Governmen t had sent to isighlisveloofcoitmtise e:—The note m i g ht have been the other Courts' and which Mr. Peel m i g ht therefore be expecting to receive, and then be would 'be quite right in saying that such a note it 'variance with his former in structions.—(Cheers.) As to the assertion that Mr. Peel sent word to General Dufour to make haste and finish the war for fear this mediati on should I never 'wrote him a sin pri vate l public, l or can sy is,w ssyhollualbdlec,oine, al that he ever did anything could Itistif):_such a course.- (Cheers.) Neither have I had any intimation, verbal, writteneos:r, hear, and cheers.) I have been told of the " Let he had a conversation with Mr. Timperley,. p erson Lyons said to be sent, and Mr.' Tim but that he bad no orders to make perley admittedt that he did go to head-quarters to see what was going o n, any com munication of the sort or kind from Mr. Peel.— ' (Loud and continued cheers.) I must say the manner in which this admission is said to have been extracted from Mr. Peel does not inspire me with any great confidence in it. I would rather be the object thin the worker of such a ' m anoeuvre.—(Loud and long-continued cheering.) Th a t two Ministers representing two great powers should take ad vantage of private intercourse, and, like two gre3 houndi turning a nare, set themselves to extract, by artifice' and stratagem, from the representative of a third power dome- thing they thought he had done, is most (Loud cheers.) After all, I can suppose that Mr. Peel, see ing through the artifice, may, in order to mystify them, have feigned to fall into their trap.—(Loud cheers and laughter.) But Mr. Peel had no authority to take any such step—l do not believe that he did take it—l have no grounds for think-; ing that he took it—and the evidence of Sir E. Lyons goes di rectly to negative such an assumption.—(Cheers.) We should. have been glad if that mediation had succeeded, because it would have restored peace to Switzerland, and have left the . minority on better terms with regard to the majority; but circumstances over which we had no control ren dered it impossible, without the opprtunity of its being effected by any studied delay on our part. It has been said, however, that Switzerland is an instance of the bad effects of our interference. I think; on the con trary, that it might be quoted as an instance when'the prin ciples we have advocated have led to good results, because, while all the rest of Europe has been more or less convulsed, the Swiss, who had effected, by our recomMendation;changes in their internal organisation, wholly ' esCaPed:—(l , ond cheers.) Now, Si r , I will travel over the Alps to the smiling plains of Lombardy.---(Cheers.) / h a v e been ac cused of great injustice to Austria, in withholding a certain dispatch from Prince Metternich to Count Galore& The simple ;facts are these:—The Austrian Government sent dispatchei to their , Minister to be comdinnlcited to - ns,, in- Li ,he it of iv. its ;0 s Uri ord his