The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

tee ; but the resolution which- had been pro-
posed in effect stated ~that the Bill was
altogether objectionable. He felt it his duty, there-
fore, to propose an amendment, that the words from
" fundamentally objectionable" to the end of the re-
solution should be omitted, and the words " objec-
tionable in some of the clauses" be inserted in their
place.
Mr. C. COCHRANE supported the amendment amidst
much disorder and confusion.

After a few observations from Mr. CONDOR, the
editor of the Patriot, who supported the original
motion,
The amendment and resolution were then put seria-
tim, and the number of hands held up for each were
about equal, but
The CHAIRMAN declared, however, that the amend
ment was lost, an announcement which was received
with loud cheers, interspersed with hisses.
Mr. J. BELL proposed the next resolution—

" That this meeting more especially protests against
the centralising principle of administration contained in
the Bill, whereby:the Ministers of the Crown assume the
duties of local government, by appointing commissioners,
with corporate powers, to purchase and acquire lands,
buildings, and other properties; to nominate and appoint
numerous paid officers; to grant annuities for life and in
perpetuity, and other compensations; to levy compulsory
rates on the inhabitants of all the metropolitan parishes
—virtually, to monopolise the trades connected with
sepulture, and in other ways to deprive the inhabitant
ratepayers of the metropolis of the right of managing
their own affairs, and of controlling their own ex-
penditure."

Mr. JAMES WYLD, M.P., seconded the resolution,
and expressed his determination to resist the Govern-
ment scheme as propounded in the Bill.—(Cheers.)
They all agreed, he presumed, in that portion of the
Bill which affirmed that all interments in towns
should cease ; but at the same time they were unani-
mous in condemning the machinery by which it was
proposed to carry that principle into effect.—
(Loud cheers.) Allusion bad been made to the
repeal of the corn-laws as a proof that Government
had a right to interfere with private interests where
the good of the public was concerned, but the Legis-
lature did not prescribe that foreign corn should only
coma through certain houses.—(Hear, hear.) Nor
did it in the case of baths and washhouses assume all
control to the Government, for the management of
them was confided to local commissioners, who
were chosen by the parish.—(Hear, hear.) They,
therefore, demanded that the principle of local
management which had worked so well in this coun-
try should be fairly and properly carried out in regard
to the burial of the dead.—(Cheers.) It .had been
said, in justification of the present Bill, that theparish
authorities had been guilty of lades. in the manage-
ment of parish affairs; but if they had acted badly,
the Government Commissioners had acted worse.—

(Cheers.) Had, for instance, the Commissioners
of Woods and Forests shown such great
skill and financial ability in the management
of Crown lands as to induce them to trust a body,
similarly constituted, with large administrative
powers 7—(Hear.) In the management of dock-
yards also, Government Commissioners had shown
their incapacity to control satisfactorily any great
public undertaking" Ha belie►ed Sir George
Grey and all her Majesty's Ministers were
anxious to deal fairly and properly by the people,
but the fact was that the opinion of the
country bad), never been fairly tested on the subject
—(Hear)--and it was only by such meetings as this
that the Government could be influenced.—(Cheers.)
All they demanded was, that the ancient principle
of parochial government should be carried into effect
in an impartial and fair manner.—(Cheers.)
The resolutions were supported by other speakers,
and ultimately carried.
A petition embodying the two resolutions was then
agreed to, and Mr. B. Osborne, M.P., was to be re-
quested to present it to Parliament.
A vote of thanks having been passed to the Chair-
man, the meeting separated.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chaii at Four o'clock.
CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAILWAY BILL.
This Bill was set down for a third reading this day, but
Mr. T. EGERTON moved that the third reading be
postponed until Monday next, in order to give the House
an opportunity of considering a clause in the Bill which
had been unanimously agreed to by one of its own Com-
mittees.

Mr. MANGLES opposed the postponement of the
third reading or; the ground that the application was un-
reasonable and irregular.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL supported the motion
fur postponement, thinking it was butTair that the House
should have an opportunity of considering the clause in
question, which opportunity they would not have if the
Bill passed the third reading at once. He must say the
hasty way in which the third reading was sought
to be carried through the House WBB discreditable to the
London and North-Western Railway Company, and
savoured very much of sharp practice, the promoters
having given notice of the third reading one minute
before six o'clock, the hour when the Private Bill Office
closed, on the day of the adjournment of the House.
After some further discussion in which Mr. A. Dun-
combe, Mr. Wilson Patten, and Mr. Glyn took part,
Mr. MANGLES withdrew his opposition, and the
motion fur postponing the third reading until Monday
next was agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS.
The following private Bills were read a third time,
and passed:—
South Yorkshire, Doncaster, and Goole Railway
(Amendment of Acts, Deviation at Doncaster. &c.)
South Yorkshire, Doncaster, and Goole Railway
(Amendment of Acts, Deviation to Worsborougb, &c.)
The following private Bills, as amended, wero con-
sidered:—

Dumfries and Maxwelltown Waterworks.
Gorbals Gravitation Water Company.
Newcuatle•upon-Tyne Improvement, Amendment o
Acts, and New Streets.
New Nortb Road.

Swansea Municipal Corporation.
Tyne Navigation.

PETITIONS.
Several petitions were presented against Sunday
labour in the Post-office.
Mr. G. DUNCAN presented a petition from a place
in the Isle of Arran against the Marriage Affinity Bill.
Mr. M'NEILL presented a petition from In'rerary to
the same effect.
Mr. ELLIOT presented a petition from factory ope-
ratives in Peebles against the Ten Hours Bill.
Colonel THOMPSON presented a petition from
Bradford in favour of the Bill for secular education.
Mr. MITCHELL presented a petition from the
Bloomsbury Savings Bank against the Savings Bank Bill.
Sir J. TROLLOPE presented a petition from Lincoln
in favour of protection to agriculture.
Lord NAAS presented a petition from Queen's
county in Ireland against the national system of edu-
cation in Ireland.
Mr. BOUVERIE presented a petition from Kilmar-
nock against the Marriage Bill.
Mr. GROGAN presented a similar petition from
Dublin. -
Mr. HUDSON presented a petition from the Mayor
and Corporation of Sunderland against any alteration
in the present system of revising the burgess list.
COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY.
Colonel SIBTHORP gave notice that to-morrow he
should move for a report of the number of commissions
of inquiry issued since the year 1830, together with the
expense cif each.
MILITARY KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR.

Colonel SALWEY gave notice that on gbing into Com-
mittee of Supply, he should move that the sum to be voted
for the maintenance of the Military Knights of Windsor
be refused.

RECALL OF THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply,

Lord PALMERSTON rose, and said he felt, in cos-
sequence of what had passed on a former occasion in that
House, with regard especially to an answer which he had
felt it his duty to make to a question put to
forhim
by his Right Honourable Friend the Member
Manchester it was due to himself and the
House to make some explanation.—(Cheers.) His Right
Hon. Friend on Thursday last asked him, if he rightly
good understanding steer
remembered his question, whether there was perfectly
titgace then existing
Government es
ty.s between
Gore r m the
ent
in regard to the affairs of Greeoe.—(Hear, hear.)
He stated, as far as he could recollect, that the French
Ambassador had left London the day before—that ha had
been charged by heriMee •'s Government with expla-
to Government—that the chief ob -
nations to the French Gjoest)
ject of his going was
explanation hims elf
in person, and that he also hboped nothing would
arise out of the matter to ditstwuer
Gthe friendly relations,
heerxismtinagj a
wails€•tread in the
which existed between the
(trearretcbhalliitn_g
veernments.—(Hear,
hear.) Now about that time the;
French Chamber, by General Lahitte,
—no, that was not the proper term to apply
ordering the French Ambassador's return.--
It was thought by many persons, in and out of the'Hoear.)
;hat there was some inconsistency between that letter
and his answer, with regard to the transaction itself—
it was thought, indeed, that he was endeAvouring to
suppress something that the House and the public
had n right to expect from him.—(Loud cries
of " Hear, hear.") Now what passed in regard to
the circumstances was this: A difference of opinion had
arisen between the Government of France and the Go-
vernment of her Majesty as to the affairs of Greece,
and the previous few days' proceedings which her
Majesty's Government had taken in relation to that dis-
pute—in fact, the difference of opinion arose out of
the manner in which the affair had been terminated be-
tween England aad Greece.—(Hear, hear.) On the
Saturday previous to this was the first opportunity he
had had of receiving the dispatch from Greece and com-
municating it to the French Ambassador. On the

Monday morning the French Ambassador came to
him for the purpose of entering into a discussion of
the dispatch, but, in consequence of his being summoned
that day to give evidence before a Committee of the
House, he requested him to come the next morning.—
(Hear, hear.) The French Ambassador did come the next
morning, on the Tuesday, and they went at great
length into the dispatch which had been received
from Athens, which was read to him, and
he explained to the French Ambassador the
views of her Majesty's Government on the
subject, and told him that her Majesty's Government
did not think the course they bad adopted ought justly
to give any ground of offence to France.—(Hear, hear.)
The conversation was long, and the French Ambassador
left him at rather slate hour, stating that he would return
the next day. At twelve o'clock on the Wednesday he
accordingly came again, and in the course of the con-
versation which then ensued the French Ambassador
read the letter which he had just received from
General De Lahitte.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
That letter expressed the conditions on which the French
Ambassador was to return to France. The French Am-
bassador said " to-morrow the papers will be presented
to the Assembly, and to-morrow there may be a discus-
sion in that Assembly, and it is my duty to be at Paris
before the Chambers meet in order to afford
any explanations they might wish to hear
from him." He (Lord Palmerston) said he
concurred in the course the French Ambassador meant
to pursue. The next morning he (Lord Palmerston)
begged M. Drouyn de l'Huys would communicate to his
Government the substance of the explanations he had
given him, and he furnished that gentleman with certain
of Mr. Wyse's dispatches to lay before his Government,
having previously marked certain passages which he
deemed important. So stood things on the Thursday,
when he (Lord Palmerston) was questioned its this
House. In the first place, he could not have ex-
pected in the ordinary course of things that the letter of
General Lahitte would be read tq the Assembly—
(Cheers) even before the Assembly was in puss
session of the documents connected with the trans-
actions to which his letter related. It certainly
never entered into his (Lord Palmerston's) mind,
that such a course of proceeding would be in
any case adopted ; but he was • also justified
in thinking that the explanations he had furnished would,
if they did not remove any dissatisfaction, the French
Government felt, at all events tend greatly to modity
their feelings and lead to fresh explanations. Now, at
the very moment, he (Lord Palmerston) was giving his
auswer, the French Minister must have been assigning to
the French Assembly reasons fur the return of M.
Drouyn de l'Huys. Now, he would ask any man
in that House who had any just appreciation of the
interests of his country, and of the position of a Foreign
Minister in that House, whether be should not have
been guilty of the greatest indiscretion if he had pro-
claimed to the House the contents of that letter when
he had hoped the misunderstanding bad ceased?—
(Loud cheers.) He would give a further justifica-
tion of the course which be took ; it was dictated
by an earnest desire to avoid and soften if pussi-
ble anything like angry feelings on the pelt of
the French Government which must seriously prejudice
the character of the relations of the two Governments..
Now; the letter itself required that he should make some
observations, because that letter charged her Majesty's
Government, and especially him (Lord Palmerston)
as the organ of that Government, with having
broken faith with the Government of France, inasmuch
as it asserted that, contrary to the negotiations of Baron
Gros, as controlled by the acts; of Mr. Wyse, coercive
measures were resumed. The papers already in the
hands of many Hon. Members showed that the functions
of Baron Gros were not suspended by any act of Mr.
Wyse, but by the act of Baron Gros himself ;
and that Mr. Wyse, so far from giving instruc-
tions to suspend him, had expressed a strong
desire that he should be continued. He (Lord
Palmerston) thought the papers would show that even
after Baron Gros had communicated to Mr. Wyse that
his functions were suspended, and his mission for the
moment was put an end to, Mr. Wyse, so tar from taking
advantage of the earliest opportunity to have recourse
to coercive measures, made a proposition to Baron Gros,
which, if it had been accepted, would have satisfied
those claims, the principle of which were not in
dispute, and have left untouched, or subject to further
discussion any particular points on which differences of
opinion had arisen. Baron Gros's request to Mr. Wyse
was—" Refer to your Government instructions as to the
point of difference which has taken place; retain in
your possession the vessels which you have in posses-
sion, but abstain from taking any more." After the
function of Baron Gros bad been suspended
Mr. Wyse said if the Greek Government
would send him (Mr. Wyse) a sum which
he thought was the just amount of compensation
due for the losses of Mr. Finlay and M. Pacifico,—if the
Greek Government would send 180,000 drachmas, and
would accompany that with a letter,' stating that that
sum was in full satisfaction of all the claims mentioned
on his (Mr. Wyse's) note of the 17th Jaunary, with
the exception of M. Pacifico's losses resulting from the
destruction of his documents, be would then—what ?
put the country in status quo ? No. He (Mr. Wyse)
would immediately release all the Greek mer-
chantmen, and give freedom to the commerce of Greece.
That would bare been a very just arrangement fur the
Greek Government. By that arrangement the terms of
the letter of apology for the insult offered to the British,
and aleo the arrangement for the settlement of
Pacifico's other claims, would have been left to be settled
at a future time. Baron Gros replied to Mr. Wyse
that be was no longer the official mediator, but that he
would recommend the adoptian of those terms in his
private espacity. That was on the 24th, and on the
morning of the next day Baron Gros informed Mr.
Wyse, by a private letter, that it was prcbable that the
British Minister would Wore evening receive that sum
of money and the desired letter. On this understanding
Mr. Wyse bad suspended the resumption of coercive
measures, and it was not until five o'clock on the same
day, when the money and the letter had not arrived,
that he again gave orders for the resumption of
coercive measures. They were therefore justi-
fied in saying • that it was certainly not
Mr. Wyse who put an end to the mission of
Baron Gros, or that he had refused to allow coercive
measures to be suspended. Mr. Wyse considered that
Baron Gros had voluntarily withdrawn himself from his
mission. And he (Lord Palmerston) thought that the
French Government were entirely mistaken in supposing
that there was any departure from the clear understand-
ing that it rested with Baron Gros, and not with Mr.
Wyse, to put an end to his functions as mediator. As
to the second question, giving credit to Mr. Wyse for
having judged right.in Ins opinion that Baron Gros had
withdrawn himself from the mission, and he (Lord
Palmerston.) certainly thought he was right—as to the
second question, whether the point upon which they
differed was one in which it was right for Mr. Wyse to
refer to his own Goverment for further instructions,
and in the mean tine to allow matters to remain in statu
quo; it was clearly understood that although the English
Government accepted the good offices of France, it was
fur the purpose, and with the hope, of obtaining that
satisfaction which it had already began to endea-
vour to obtain, and it was at the same time clearly
understOod that this Government could consent
to abandon any one of its claims: And that there was
no misunderstanding on this point was perfectly plain
from the dispatches of M. Drouyn de l'lluys which were
already published, he supposed, from authentic sources.
In these dispatches M. Drouyn de l'Huya clearly laid
down what be understood to be the limits of the media-
tion of Baron Gros. lie was not to enter into any
negotiations which at all touched upon the principle of
the demands of this Government, nor to enter
into the sums which had been fixed as a. satisfactory
compensation to be obtained. The good offices of Baron
Gros were not to be employed on fixing the amount of
their sums in any case unless they were not expressly
stated by this Government. The principle of our de-
mand was contained in six articles transmitted to the
French Government, in which were advanced the claims
for compensation for certain lonians who had been
ill-treated at the hands of the Greeks; and also for
the claims of Mr. Finlay and Pacifico. On the 16th of
February Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys wrote to say that the
question to be settled was one which would not at all
infringe upon the principle of the British claims. In a
dispatch of the 22d of the same month ha again ex-
pressly repudiated anything that would seem
to be a negation of the claims of the British
Government; and he there remarked that it only
remained to be settled what [should be the amount of the
indemnity to be granted to Pacifico and Finlay. On the
22nd of March he also repeated the same, and laid down
what he understood to be the extent of Mr. Wyse's powers
It was distinctly understood by that-dispatch, that the
Portuguese claim should be a separate question, and
should remain to be afterwards settled. There appeared,
however, to be some misunderstanding at Athens on the
subject, and on the Bth April M. D'Lhuys wrote another
letter to General Lahitte in which he explained to the
French Government that if any difference of opinion
should arise between Baron Gros and Mr. Wyse as to
the compromise which the negotiator proposed relative
to the only points they had to examine, then, and only
then, would Mr. Wyse and Admiral Parker have
to consult with their own Governments. Some doubt
it appeared, then arose between Baron Gros and Mr.
Wyse, and the former. intimated that he would with-
draw from
the
mth ematterupon which
ch this he question b
to
do u thenr
o a tn e to
this—did difference
betweena
t s
theb en
e badg o theof-
ti
a opinionter h had
d arose,to
set t forme,
er
nonoet?of
Htheetphooinngthstwhheich(Lthoerdnve gaol
refer-
ence to the amount to be given to kW. Finlay and Dr.
el' :el
Ref:: ors rrGt Pal-
merston)
Governments
had
ndt amhdahe tnaclearlythat
s e clearlyat shownhaem nnel yuwb understood
droeeit nrhtstehts oesde twhichr
having
Paciffico. Now it seemed that the negociation broke off
not on those points, but on the question whether the Greek
Government was or was not to make an engagement
'kith the view of not only examiniug into the losses of
M. Pacifico, but of agreeing to pay him the amount of
any loss which_ it might be proved he had sus-
tained by the instructions of his Government.
Baron Gros had not only agreed on the 16th
t) the engagement, but had actually consented
that there should be a deposit ef 150,000' drachmae, as
security fur the fulfillment of the negotiation. The only
difference of opinion between him and Mr. Wyse, on
thnat(thi
eeddoßecpcaeartlshsliciatootnf,,
hEwtohnau:si:l
lat 1
n sat
:ace;
or, j Baronrhetilyfd
oGi
nr ot
Ivy cboyn t eGnrdeeedc e
iiidt
tt:o
e
England, while Mr. Wyse, on the contrary, con-
te
Bsahroennl dGrebs opt e
fdcerpr oe sdi t
itd,
in the bank of France. Baron Gros, however, consented
to take the matter into further consideration, but he
afterwards altered his opinioo. and said he was not sa-
tisfied that the claims of Paciffico were deserving of any
serious consideration. Mr. Wyse showed his
insruc-
tions to Baron Gros, and said he could not deviate from
them, but Baron Gros appeared to have acted on an er-
roneous impression produced by a dispatch of M. Drouyn

1850.