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

of Lords, ad habitual supporter of the Government, of course
tkv.. arraegeepept avit.h.paem, brought forward the motion in
Chit Houee of approval I of; the course phesued• by the Goa
vertiment, and that it was carded by a majority of 293 to
98, who voted in the minority against Ministere. `'ow
that was a reo:t knee:tent state of circumstances to dietin
guieh between whet took place in 1833 and the present oc-
caeien. The vote of censure of the house of Lords was set
aside by an enormous majority in the House of Conic cone.
Why was it that the Noble Lied who was se fund of citing
precedents when in his favour, had omitted to follow the
whole precedent? Why was it that he had not thought
proper to come forward there and ask explicitly for it re-
versal of the House of Lords' condemnation of their foreign
policy ? (Hear, hear.) if he valued precedent, he was
bound to have done so. If ae had dons s e he would have
found their policy regarding? _ the Greek nation a very
hazardous experiment. The Noble Lrrd thought it neces-
sary 'that the question eh uld be submitred to the House for
its opinion, and in this difficulty the Hon. and Learned
Member for Sheffield stepped forward to their rescue. He
would not say that there had been any preconcerted ar-
rangement between himself and the Government, but he
would say that the Hon. Member for Sheffield had pur-
chased a substantial claim to the gratitude of the Govern-
ment.—(Order.) ,
Mr. SWIERS here rose to order, and said the observation
of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was invidious and unfair,
and uncalled for.
The SPEAKER said he had not heard anything fall from
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman contrary to the orders of
the House.
Sir F. THESIGER was never more surprised than when
he found the Honourable and Learned Gentleman stand for-
ward in this gap, because in a debate in 1843, in which he
(Mr. Roebuck) took a part in reference to the affairs of Alf-
ghanistan, althought there was no immediate and direct
allusion to the foreign policy of the Noble Lord (Lord Pal-
merston), he said he might be unhappy, most unhappy, in
his opinion, but it was his impression that the Noble Lord
(Lord Palmerston) had exercised a most pernicious effect
upon the foreign policy of this country. He had, at the
same time, made use of some ludicrous illustrations, liken-
ing him to Phaeton driving his chariot round the world to set
it on fire, and to a ••lucifer match."—(Hear.) He declared
that the Noble Lord's mischievous activity extended over the
whole habitable globe, and that he looked with suspicion
upon every fact adduced in his vindication.—(Hear, hear.)
Now, those were his sentiments in 1843. The Noble Lord
had returned since then to power, and now presided over
the foreign affairs of this country. He was the same man,
retaining every activity and pursuing the same policy.
There was the " lucifer-match" in the Foreign-office ready,
like another Phaeton, to set the world on fire.—(Hear.)
Now certainly with these impressions on his mind, and not
observing any alteration in his policy, this resolution, as
emanating from him, was one of the most extraordinary
and inconceivable that could possibly be imagined. His
Honourable and Learned Friend had not pursued the course
which was most proper—confining the question to the Greek
question, and to a reversal of the vote of the House of
Lords, but he had taken a much more prudent course, and
made his resolution general, including Greece, but at the
same time including so many topics, and giving so ample a
range to the discussion, that any Honourable Member, if
inclined, could find some excuse for voting with the Govern-
ment. He wished the House to concur in a resolution that
the principles upon which the foreign policy of the Govern-
ment was conducted were calculated to uphold the honour
and dignity of the country. He confessed he thought there
was some ambiguity hidden under the word " principle."
They were all agreed as to abstract principles. He thought
he never meant to confine the House to a question of that
abstract kind, and therefore he concluded that the House
was called upon to approve the principles of foreign policy
as carried out by the Noble Lord the Foreign Secretary.
Again, the words "foreign policy calculated in times of
difficulty and danger to preserve the peace of the world."
Did that apply to our own, or foreign countries? The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had been pleased to explain that
would-be principle, and there was no doubt but that they
were called upon to sanction the foreign policy carried out,
in contradistinction to that carried out by the last Ministry.
It was impossible to have heard the speech of the Noble
Lord, and not to see that there had been a striking differ-
ence between the policy of the Noble Lord and that of the
Ministry of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Tamworth. He called upon them to approve the former as
most likely to uphold the honour and dignity of the country,
in opposition to that of the policy of the last Ministry. New,
that being so, let them trace the policy of the Noble Lord in
his intercourse with different Governments of Europe, and
he would venture to say, that so far from its being calculated
to preserve the honour and dignity of the country, there never
was a course so likely to embroil them with all na-
tions, and which had resulted in the deepest humiliation
to England. He proposed, .in considering the question,
to confine himself to two or three prominent occa-
sions, travell.ng as rapidly as possible over the ground. He
impatiently hung on the words of his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), expecting
every moment that he would make some allusion to Greece,
brit regretted to say—and he felt assured that the House ge-
nerally sympathised with him—that he did not allude to the
subject-matter of his resolution till the end of his speech,
and that conclusion was characterised with an approval of
the Noble Lord (Palmerston's) conduct. In consideration of
this question, he hoped that the House would duly weigh the
position of Greece with respect to the three protecting powers,
England, France, and Russia ; and he felt the deepest regret
that he looked upon those powers seeking more their own
individual interests, by intrigues and cabals, rather than
exercise their great powers for the protection of
a weak and feeble nation, which was the pledge
they had given at the time of establishing Greece
on the constitutional grounds of a nation. He next
thought, considering the strength of England and the weak-
mess of Greece, that the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston)
should abstain altogether from using threats and menaces,
which would not be offered to any strong power of Eu-
rope. He admitted that the claims of British subjects
should be defended, but should at the same time say that
he felt assured that many of them were exaggerated, and
he did not mean to adduce this in the light of a mere as-
sertion, but would support it by the most irrefragable argu-
ments. First, he would refer to the claims of Mr. Finlay,
in which case he considered the conduct of the Noble Lord
(Lord Palmerston) as most ungenerous and unbecoming ;
and he regretted to add, that he feared that such a line of
policy as that pursued by the Noble Lord the Secretary for
Foreign Affairs had left an impression on the minds of the
people of France which would not be speedily removed,
and which could not, therefore, fail to do much injury to
this country. He should enter into the details of Mr. Findlay's
case, and show that he, a British subject, in 1830 had pur-
chased a small plot of land, not much more than three-quarters
of an acre, for which he paid 101., or 300 drachmas. Now
when it was deemed necessary by the Government of that
country that this plot of ground should be taken for the
King's garden, an offer of 3,000 drachmas was made, but re-
fused by Mr. Finlay, on the ground that the land was
worth four thousand five hundred drachmas, or 1,5001, for a
piece of land for which he paid only 101.—(Hear, hear.) At
the time of this altercation between Mr. Finlay and the
Greek Government there were 100 other claimants of a
similar nature, but all agreed to the proposition of that Go-
vernment, as they knew that a constitutional government,
formed in 1843, placed their property . under different cir-
cumstances to what they had been previously. However, as
Mr. Finlay persisted in his demand, it was considered most
judicious on both sides that the matter should be left to ar-
bitration ; and should the arbiters not agree, that an umpire
of unprejudiced opinions should decide as to the sum to be
paid. He should here say, that the wish of the Greek Go-
vernment at first, rela'ive to the appointment of an umpire,
was not just or fair, because they required that one of them-
selves should be appointed to the office of umpire
in case the subject of litigation should go beyond
the arbitrators. Now he had one remark on the
matter to make, which was to be found in the blue book of
1850, page 50, that the case of Mr. Finlay was closed on
the 9th of August, 1849. He therefore referred to this im-
portant question, whether it was justifiable on the
part of the British Government to interfere with an
armed force as they had done, particularly as the matter was
closed, according to the above quoted evidence between the
two litigant • parties. He should say that he felt really
startled when his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for
Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) asserted that there was nu inter-
national law violated by such hostile interference; but such
an assertion he begged leave to gainsay, for it is unjust for any
nation to interfere, except when justice is refused, or when
the right of a subject is violated by the seizure of his pro-
perty, neither of which occurred in the case of Mr. Finlay,
for there was nothing more than a delay, owing to the mat-
ter not being adjudicated on. He was astonished that his
Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) should
hazard such an opinion on the laws of nations, particularly
as the contrary was agreed upon by all philosophers
and jurists,' and also when Montesquieu and Lord
Campbell approved of the opinion given that night by him
(Sir F. Thesiger).—(Hear, hear). Lord Mansfield also said,
that the law of nations, founded on justice and equity, does
not allow reprisals, except in cases where the parties from
whom reprisals are taken are the aggressors.—(lronical
Cheers from the Government party.) If Honourable Gen-
tlemen would not inte-rupt him by such cheers, he would
fully explain, for he did not mean to say that Mr. Finlay
was not wronged, but what he wished to explain was, that
as Mr. Finlay took the matter to a court, he should wait
for the decision of that court before he should apply to
the ambassador of his native country, to assert his claims
by an armed naval force. It would be found in the blue
book of February, 1830, that the interference of this
Government was meat unsatisfactory to France, and
most unfair, and perhaps injurious, to this coun-
try particularly. As far as related, to Mr. Wyse's
letter of October 18, 1849, in which it was stated
that the claims of Finlay were left, with the
mutual consent of both p'arties (Finlay and the Greek Go-
vernment), to arbitration, and that such a line of procedure
was the best that could be adopted for the decision of the
question at issue, he therefore, under those circumstances,
considered it most unwise and unjust that an armed inter-
ference should take place, and expressed his regret that the
high honour and unimpeachable character of this country
should be looked upon in the light that she now was
by the other nations of Europe, and for that reason he con-
tended that the case of Finlay should not: be made ex-
clusive for the introduction of the hostile interference of this
country. (Hear, hear.) He would next refer to
another case, and should at the same time express it as his
strongest hope that no Honourable Gentleman would for one
minute suppose that he bad any unreasonable prejudice
against any one because of his religious persuasion, or that
because of his religion he would make an exorbitant claim,
and he therefore did not question whether that individual
was a Jew or a Christian ; but in the case of Pacifico, he be-
lieved that there could not be a more exaggerated case, for
while he (Sir F. Thesiger) admitted that some of his furni-
ture was materially injured by the mob in that country, he
could not be induced to believe that it was worth 4,916/., as
the man was in most needy circumstances, being obliged to
pledge his plate for 301., that he might lend out to the poor
people of that country, at a very usurious interest, and he
consequently confessed that he did not believe that be was
possessed of all the drachmas which he alleged he lost on that
occasion ; and he also wished to add, that when the mob left
his house they did not take with them the accounts which
stated the amount due to bim by the Portuguese Government.
He therefore felt astonished that the Noble Lord (Lord Pal-
merston) should support such a claim as that of Pacifico for
such a sum ; and not only support him, but to enforce that
claim by force of naval arms. For he considered that a
Foreign Secretary should. act with the greatest gentleness
and urbanity towards all other nations, particularly towards
a nation that he was bound to protect; particularly as
Pacifico also left his case to arbitration, on which occa-
sion he endeavoured to implicate six persons, who were
all acquitted by the court.—(lronical cheers from Mr. Roe-
buck.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck)
must know that that trial was not brought on for the in-
demnification of the losses sustained by that person, but for
the punishment of those six persons, should they be found
guilty of having violated the law of the country. He should
say that the tribunals of the country were open to Pacifico,
and that he should have gone to those tribunals before he
would plunge the honour and character of this country in
jeopardy, which latter course would be only justifiable,
should he, as a British subject, meet with injustice in those
courts. Suppose that in 1780 a violent and infuriated mob
had broken into the house of a Roman Catholic (a foreigner),
many of which cases had then occurred, would the Hon.
I and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) agree with the fo.