The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-24 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION

LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1870.

The Protecting Powers, during the last forty years,

over the modern Kingdom of Greece, have been—
England, France, and Russia. It becomes a matter
for very serious consideration, after these four decades
last past, to discover what good, if any, the three
allied Powers have secured, either to Greece, or,
through Greece, to the rest of Christendom, in their
united capacity as a Protectorate.

Contrast, for a moment, the incidents which have
recently occurred in the immediate vicinity of Athens,
and the attitude ever since then adopted towards
the Greek Government by our own, with the inci-
dents occurring exactly twenty years ago in the
same capital, and the course instantly pursued at
that time by our Administration. Subjects of the
CROWN, peacefully travelling through Greece,
and nominally under the shelter of its Govern-
ment and under the mgis of their own, are
lawlessly seized by bandits, are infamously detained
as hostages until an exorbitant sum shall have been paid
over as a ransom, and are then, by the insensate
proceedings wantonly adventured upon by the
administrators of King GEORGE, deliberately doomed
to assassination—the captors of ourunfortunate coun-
trymen,from havingbeen pursued at a moment themost
inopportune, being transformed thereby from robbers

into murderers. Twenty years ago what was the
grievance England had to complain of—and for which
at the cannon's mouth she demanded instant repara-
tion ? Was it an outrage in any way comparable to
the one we have just now particularized? Listen to
our reminder, here, of facts long since recorded on
the page of history and then answer !

According to the statements put forth by
the then Foreign Secretary of England, Lord
PALMERSTON, the reigning Sovereign of Greece

(Onfo) had, while clearing the ground for the con-
struction of a Palace, near Athens, taken possession
of a portion of s garden belonging to a Mr. FINLAY,
a British subject, long settled in that kingdom; while
just about the same time another British subject (in
point of fact a Portuguese by birth, as was indi-
cated by his very name)—Don PACIFICO—had had
his house broken into and pillaged by a Greek mob
—no redress having been obtained in either instance,
on the one hand from the parties implicated in the
burglarious outrage, or on the otherfrom the spoliating
Government. Don PACIFICO had lost neither an eye
nor a tooth. Mr. FINLAY had been deprived neither
of life nor of limb. In answering the diJomatic com-
munication in which the claims preferred upon the
Greek Government, under those two heads were
duly set forth, that Government replied that they
were willing to give a reasonable compensation, and
that they would consent to a settlement of the claim
by arbitration. France, on her parr, warmly sup-
ported the reasonableness of that proposition. Car-
rying matters with a high hand, however, Lord PAL-
MERSTON (Don Pacifico, as he was humorously dubbed
en revanche, not long afterwards by Lord STANLEY)
determined vi et armis to demand instant concessions
at the muzzle of her guns. Admiral PARKER, then
returning with the British squadron from the
Dardanelles, was ordered [it is exactly twenty
years ago, now, namely, in the May of 1850] to make
sail for Athens. Obeying these instructions, Ad-
miral PARKER anchored his fifteen ships of war off
, the Piraeus, repeating, there and then, in the name of
his Government, their peremptory demand for repa-
ration, accompanying the demand with the intima-
tion that the harbour of the Piraeus was in a state
of siege. In consequence of these extrordinary pro-
ceedings, the Protecting Powers were directly after-
wards upon the very verge of war. The French Am-
bassador, M.DROUYN DE LHUYS was recalled from En-
gland. The Russian Ambassador, Baron BRuNow, was
preparing to obey similarinstructions from St. Peters-
burg. It was at this critical juncture that Lord STANLEY
brought the whole of this extraordinary diplomatic
imbroglio under the consideration of the House of
Lords, insisting upon it that the character of a great
and powerful nation had been degraded before all
Christendom by an endeavour to enforce unjust, be-
couse exorbitant, demands upon a small State, a
State, by comparison with itself, utterly weak and
powerless. Lord STANLEY'S motion was carried by a
majority of 37 in a House of nearly two hundred.
Viscount PALMERSTON thereupon placed his resigna-
tion in the bands of the Prime Minister, Lord JOHN
RUSSELL. Declining to accept the resignation
of his colleague, the Premier referred the
matter in dispute before Parliament to the con-
sideration of the popular branch of the Legislature.
Then it was that Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice, on
the 20th of June, of a motion approving of the
Foreign Policy of the Government. Then it was, o n
the very day following, that commenced in the House
of Commons, a debate of historical importance, at
the close of which (on the fourth night) Lord
PALMERSTON delivered the most famous of all
his orations—the great speech, occupying four
hours and a half in its delivery, a speech, then
and since then, regarded as among the most power-
ful and effective ever heard within the walls of
Parliament! This was the memorable speech in which,
while vindicating his Foreign Policy, Lord PAL-
MERSTON grandly referred to the old Roman
saying, whenever its citizens were brought to trial
in a foreign land, Civis Romanus sum! By a nett
majority of 46 in a House of 574, Lord PALMER-
STON'S Foreign Policy was formally approved and
a very signal triumph assured to the whole Govern-
ment. The upshot of it all was, nevertheless,
strange to tell, a collapse—Lord PALMERSTON, the
haughty vindicator of the outraged majesty of
England, assenting in the end, to what France
had all along been urging upon our consideration,
namely, that the disputed claims should be
submitted to arbitration, the arbiters even-
tually awarding about one-thirtieth of the
sums originally demanded through a long series
of fiery despatches and, at one time even, urged upon
the Government of Greece at the cannon's mouth.

Twenty years ago that haughty boast was uttered
by Lord PALMERSTON—Civic Romanus sum. Twenty
years ago !--and now the echo of it resounds, like the
cruellest mockery, over the graves of our slaughtered
countrymen. No wonder that the friend and bio-
grapher of Lord PALMERSTON, no wonder that a great
and veteran master of our diplomacy like Sir HENRY
BULIVER, should at la,t exclaim, on Friday night, in
word* of burning indignation, " I cannot condescend,

in view of the mangled bodies of my countrymen, to
turn this into a miserable arena of politics, and spe-
culate who may next misrule that unfortunate coun-
try which is under our protection—if the men in
power be infamous, and their possible successors
more infamous—the fact may induce me to consider
whether that system has not lasted long enough
That, in truth, is the summing up in eight words of
the Greek Question, as it is now thrust most urgently
upon the consideration of England, as one of the re-
cognized and responsible protectors o the Athenian
Government.

There are some subjects which the public cannot
rightly appreciate, because they are not sufficiently
acquainted with their details, and there are others
which they will not attend to because they are weary
of their constant iteration. Among the latter may
be classed the EDMUNDS scandal, aa it is generally
called. For years it has dragged on, and no one has
seemed to understand its meaning, or if they gave
a partial attention to it their thoughts were speedily
distracted. This wearisome matter has again en-
gaged the notice of the House of Commons, and per-
haps it never assumed a more irritating form or bore
a more unsatisfactory aspect.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE brought its latest phase
before the notice of the House, and asked-the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer if it was true that he was
about to incarcerate Mr. EDMUNDS as a supposed de-
faulter of the Government. He had heard it stated
on good authority that the Government, notwith-
standing imprisonment for debt in all private trans-
actions had been abolished by Act of Parliament, had
ordered a writ to be issued for the apprehension of
Mr. EDMUNDS, whose case was still pending, and
whose only chance consisted in bringing his case be-
fore a jury, which would be done not later than
July.

Mr. LOWE is not famous at any time for the answers
he gives, and it cannot be denied that in this case he
surpassed himself. Far from denying the charge, he
seemed to glory in it, and distinctly repeated all that
had been said by Sir J. ELPHINSTONE, with the satis-
factory addition that he did not mean to hold his
hand. Whether right or wrong, Mr. EDMUNDS found
that he could at last bring his case before a jury and
have the matter settled in one way or another between
himself and the Lords of the Treasury. The arbi-
trators decided that, after all payments made by him,
Mr. EDMUNDS still owed a sum of £7,142 to the
Exchequer. He disputed that decision.

The Lords of the Treasury expresssed great indig-
nation against him in a minute, and this gave him an
opportunity of vindicating his honour. The action
for libel which he brought against Mr. GLADSTONE
in common with Mr. LOWE, and Mr. STANSFIELD, was
compelled to stand over till the next sittings, and the
delay threatens to prove fatal to the unfortunate
plaintiff. Surely this is a most inopportune moment
to issue a writ against Mr. EDMUNDS, and prevent
his proceeding with the trial. It could have made no
difference to wait a short time, and allow the merits
of this unfortunate affair to come out, but
Mr. LOWE thinks otherwise, and has acted
accordingly. We do not think that even the
arbitrary nature of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
can force the House of Commons to believe that a
man can proceed with an action quite as well when
he is in prison as when he is free, to come out and
go where he likes. It is not with Mr. EDMUND'S
case in itself that we have to deal, though he has
certainly had many hardships to endure, but with the
course pursu by the Government in respect to it.
Allowing for the sake of argument that he is en-
tirely wrong in his action, that does not improve the
case of the Treasury. Where can be the harm of letting
a jury pronounce on the matter. A great deal
of mischief may be wrought, and many hardships
inflicted in the name of the law without it being easy
to ascertain where the blame exactly lies, and all this
may be attributed to the influence of example and
the force of precedents. But it is no exaggeration
to say that the House of Commons does not expect
to see sharp practice in vogue among its Cabinet
Ministers, and anything which can in a remote de-
gree bear that interpretation is alike unworthy of
themselves and the position they fill. IS'o doubt
Mr. LOWE feels aggrieved, no doubt Mr. ED-
MUNDS acted under mistaken motives, and very
likely too much fuss has been made about the matter,
but the best frionds of the Government will be those
who tell them to " hold their hands." Let their
triumph come in its natural course, or, their defeat
be met as it best can. Either way the result would
not be very damaging or very creditable. But they
may rest assured that, whichever way would have
been the right one to pursue hitherto, they have
fixed on the wrong one now: They have cer-
tainly hit upon an ingenious way of making
the EDMUNDS case notable again, and putting it
in a new form before the House and country, but
they may find the endeavour cost them too dear.
Sir J. ELPEINSTONE said that he and many others
thought Mr. EDMUNDS an ill-used man. The general
public may not take this view of the case, but they
will certainly feel great indignation at being told
that a man is prevented from having his rights made
known or his wrongs redressed, because he has been
imprisoned at a critical -moment, not by the sharp
practitioners of law but by the Ministers of the
Crown. Before it is too late let us hope Mr. GLAD-
STONE will come to the rescue ; he must know the
mistake which his colleague has made, let him pre-
vent him from carrying it out in its entirety, and so
save the Ministry from a great reproach and the coun-
try from another and a worse scandal than any that
ever attached to the EDMUNDS' affair. To sum up
in a few words, such a proceeding as this of
incarcerating a man on the eve of an explanatory
trial may do very well abroad, and be in- keeping
with existing forms and usages, but till a very
different order of things shall prevail it will not be a
practice that is in conformity with the wishes or
suited to the tastes of the English public.

(FROM A CORRESPONDENT.)

As was expected, the formality of announcing the
results of the plebiscitum in France was made the
occasion of a speech from the Emperor. On the whole

it was one of the most satisfactory he has
yet made. It contains fewer of the cus-
tomary appeals to vague generalities with which
an impatient nation has been put off for so many
years. It is true that his Majesty cannot forbear an
allusion to the blessings of universal suffrage—" the
certainty of its instincts, the fidelity of its sympa-
thisers"— as if universal suffrage under the Empire
had any instinct which the officials did not
carefully instil into it, as if, in short,
the merits of universal suffrage could be
tested at all except under conditions of
perfectly free action. But this is almost the only
paragith of the old inflated, verbose, meaningless
style. The Emperor's speeches have usually been to