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

claims was wholly our own, referring as it did to
I English honour and English rights. The other was
guaranteed by three separate nations. These facts were,
therefore, most distinctly understood by Baron Gros, and
if any person could 'be particularly marked and careful
in his instructions, respecting them it was the Noble
Lord. His instructions w ere complete and defined to the
Minister, and he said, " Mind, you must drop for the
present all• consideration of the two Wands and the
Joan." It was dear from the statements of M. Drouyn
de l'Huys, that these two matters were taken out of the
instructions giien by the Noble Lord. Baron Gros,
though understanding perfectly before going out what
his instructions were, did change the character of them
some time after he had gone out. The explanation given
by him on first meeting Mr. Wyse wholly demonstrated
the fact that he knew full Well what he was to•do. While
staying in Greece he changed from day to day his office,
and at last pretended to be a mediator in respect to the
whole of our claims. But bare comes the question with
regard to France. While the negotiations were going
on between Mr. Wyse and Baron Gros, M. Drouyn de
l'Huys says to the Noble Lord, " Don't you think we
can settle it among ourselves?" The Noble Lord imme-
diately acquiesced. An arrangement was then entered
into, which did not arrive at Greece before an arrange-
ment had been made by Mr. Wyse. Baron Gros gave
up his mediation, saying, " I will withdraw from
it professionally—l can do no more=therefore I with-
draw." Mr. Wyse acted under instructions, and had
only one course to take. Now comes the point which
gave offence. After Baron Gros had withdrawn from
the mediation, he received a letter from M. Drouyn de
l'Huys, dated the 19th of April. The Noble Lord wrote
to Ms. Wyse on 'the same date, informing him of the
plan, but this letter did not get to Mr. Wyse as soon as
the report had reached Baron Gros of what had taken
place between the Noble Lord and M.Drouyn de l'Huys.
Baron Gros writes to Mr. Wyse, informing him that he
had heard of this arrangement, and, on the 22d April,
Baron Gros writes a letter to Mr. Wyse, of which the
following is an extract:—
"A dispatch, dated the 6th of this month, received by the
last courier,-corrtains word for word what follows. It ap-
pears frqm the language held by Lord Palmerston to M.
Drouyn de l'Huys that,' if the British Envoy should refuse
to accept a compromise which you might judge reasonable,
and to which the Greek Government had acceded, the affair
must be referred to London, and that until a definitive deci-
sion all things should remain in suspense.'
" If Mr. Wyse (lees not think he can subscribe to the last
amicable arrangement above proposed, and which the Hel-
lenic Government is disposed to conclude, the undersigned
demands of his Excellency the Minister Plenipotentiary of
her Britannic Majesty urgently, and in the name of the im-
portant interest which may be compromised, to consent to
maintain the status quo, and to refer on the subject to his
Court."

Now, Mr. Wyse writes to Baron Gros a letter, dated
April 24, ,1850, nine o'clock :
" I have just received an express which. gives me impor-
tant news. Lord Palmeaton requires some changes in my
first draft of convention, •which is very incomplete, I con-
fess, but which has been in a singular degree improved as
regards English views. But this is better. than all. He has
said to M. Drouvn de I'Huys, If the arrangement pro-
, posed by M. Gros does not meet the concurrence of Mr.
-Wyse, the negotiation would remain open. Mr. Wyse would
submit the proposals of the negotiator to the British Cabi-
net, and would wait for instructions. Measures of coercion
would be resumed without fresh orders, only in case M.
Gros should declare that he renounces the part of mediator.'
—(April 12.)
" What can be mora.precisa______ _
"Well, then, I.have not renounced the part of mediator; I
have submitted to You a project which I believe to be just
and satisfactory. In. God's name submit it to the judgment
of Lord Palmerston.
" This is what I propose.
" I will withdraw my note ; I will return to you yours ;
all that has happened shall be but as a disagreeable dream"
Mr. Wyse. by this paper, seemed to renounce the idea
of mediation, and had given orders that the embargo
should be reinstated.. It was reinstated; and an agree-
ment made with Mr..Wyse and the Greek -Government.
In the meanwhile comes the statement of the Noble
Lord. And as the sensibilities of the French people
appear to be much aroused in respect to this matter I beg
leave to say a few words. Of the two plans of arrange-
ment that had been taken into consideration, I believe
that of the Noble Lord's to be the most favourable to
the Greek Government. I believe that the only
difference between them is this, that the Noble Lord
had asked for a larger sum down at once than
Mr. Wyse, who did take a portion of it by way of se-
curity. • It was ordered that the parties who complained
should be paid something for redress. The 'Noble Lord
said it was not worth while to disturb what has been
already done, and thereupon up starts the insulted
French nation. But is it the French nation? Was
there not a curious coincidence apparent here? Was
there not a party anxious to get up an emeute in Paris?
Did they not try to cause a diversion by talking of war
with England, that they might prevent the occurrence
of that which they so much dreaded? Were they not
going to make a change upon -their own constitution?
Did they not mean to effect that by getting up an ap-
parent quarrel with England? But the body of con-
spirators, as I will call them, who hold in their own
hands now the power of the French people, and ignorant
of the means of conducting a constitutional government,
are endeavouring by the force of the bayonet to put
down all who say a word in opposition to them—these
are the party that are endeavouring to get up a
quarrel with England. Freedom does not exist in
France. Newspaper after newspaper is put down there;
and in order to gratify their own wishes they will at-
tempt anything. And this is the morality of the ex-
citable 'People who talk of the honour of France. I be-
lieve that the honour of France is like the honour of
England—beyond the reach of such petty artifices.—
(Hear, hear.) If we look around this Eiropean world
of ours, where is the people • save England who could
safely go to war? Could France go to war? Could
Austria go to war? Where would Italy be is such a
case? Could Russia go to war? The fact is we are
forbearing because we are so powerful.—(Hear, hear.)
There can be no doubt that it is weak people thatl are
the most sensitive,—so it is with nations. The most
powerful can ad to receive an insult without being
insolent, and meet petulance without quarrelling.
I acknowledge that it is totally impossible for
me to go over every step that has)-been brought
under our consideration. I will only add one
word as to 'the form of our decision. I hope
that the House will not shrink from a fair
discussion upon this important question. I hope that
my Hon. Friend opposite will not attempt to evade the
difficulty by pressing his amendment on the House. If
the policy of the Government, after being condemned
by the House of Lords, does not receive a clear, distinct,
and unambiguous approval of the House of Commons, it
is impossible that they can remain any longer in the
seats which they now occupy.—(Hear, hear.) It must
be no half opinion. It must be nothing that can admit
of the excuse of one Hon. Member being siek or another
dead. The vote in their favour must be clear, strong,
and decided—such as shall enable the Government to
maintain the dignity of the country. in the face of the
whole world, even if the world be opposed to them. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman concluded by moving the
resolution of which he had given notice. (We regret
exceedingly that the low tone in which the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman spoke, particularly towards the
conclusion of his sentences, rendered it very difficult for
the reporters to catch the actual words he used.)
The question having been put,
Mr. HUME rose to withdraw the amendment of which
he had given notice. He could not exactlymeeseindam
that was said by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who
moved the resolution. He expected that the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman would have been able to vindicate
the whole of the foreign policy of the Noble Lord, cora-
mencing•with theyear 1830. But after mentioning the
proceedings in Belgium, he jumped over a considerable
period to eulogise the foreign policy of the Noble Lord.
No man heard with greater p)easure than he did the
late. Earl Grey's memorable, speech in which he
stated that non-interference should be the ground
of his policy. He certainly would not now stand in
the way of the appeal made to him, lest it might
be supposed that he had improper views on
the question, ' and meant to injure the Govern-
ment. He most anxious that they should retain
their popitiOn; its he thought that the welfare and pros-
periiy of the country required their services. It was
upon that ground he interposed. He was sorry he did
so;, for he found he did not,understand those with whom
he sat.—(Laughter.) He expressed his regret that
anything should pass in this House that should create
anxiety and uneasiness in respect to the relations be-
tween this couutry and France. He believed that the
connexion was essential for the peace of Europe, and he
would be sorry that anything should occur to estrange
the affection that should exist between the two countries,
and upon which the interests of the world mainly de-
pended. He was sorry he had undertaken this most un-
satisfactory'duty,' nd he would most willingly withdraw
his amendment.—(Laughter.) He was never ashamed
to admit when be felt that he had not acted exactly
right. He certainly would not press:his motion.
Sir F. THESIGER said thatcit was impossible,. notwith-
standing the great extent of the motion which had been
made by his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Shef-
field ( Mr. Roebuck), pot to look at the circumstances under
which that motion had been brought forward. On Monday
last a resolution was adopted. elsewhere in these terms :
" That while this House fully recognise the right and duty of
the Government to secure to her Majesty's subjects residing
in foreign states the full protection of the laws of those states,
it regrets to -find .by_ the correspondence recently, laid upon
the table. by her
.Majesty's command, that various claims
against the Greek,Government, doubtful in point of justice,
or exaggerated in amount, have been enforced by coercive
measures, , directed against the commerce and ,people of
Greece, and calculated to endanger the continuance
of our friendly
.:relations , with -other powers." That
resolution was said to have, e been carried by. a
majority far, beyond, the, gloomiest anticipations of the Go-
vernment, and necessarily created some difficulty in their
minds as to, the course which it would be proper for them to
pursue. I'm.: two .days a silencer deep and mysterious,
had been, preserved, when at length his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebnck) asked a
question, _and elicited from the Noble Lord the remarkable
declaration which he made on Thursday last, when,• after ad-
verting to the terms of the resolution, lie stated it was not
the intention of Government to depart from 'their policy or
resign the reins of government, in conseqnence of the reso-
lution of the other House. The Noble Lord (Lord J. Rusi
sell) cited certain authorities as precedents thr• the course
pursued. • In the first place he told them that 140 years ago
there had been a resolution and address of the other House
against the propriety of assenting to any treaty -which
would leave Spain in the possession of any branch of the
house of Bourbon, and yet, notwithstanding, a treaty had
been concluded in direct opposition to that vote. He then
adverted to a resolution of the House of Lords,
moved by the Duke of Wellington in the time of Earl Grey,
who declared that if it was carried he should consider it a
vote of ,censure upon the Government. It was carried by a
majority of ten, and he nevertheless did not resign, and
continued to pursue the same course of policy. In stating these
authorities, the Noble Lord was certainly not very ingenuous,
as he had only mentioned that portion of the precedent
which answered his purpose, and had forgotten toftnention
the other portion of the precedent which he.had not followed.
He had not stated that upon the last occasion he had man,
003164 four days After the resolution wee carried in the lime

T HE

T

SIT N,

of Lords, an habitual supporter of the Government, of course
by arrangement with them, brought forward the motion in
that house of approval of? the course pursued by the Go-
vernment, and that it was carried by a majority of 263 to
98, who voted in the minority against Minister& Now
that was a most important state of circumstances to distin-
guish between what took place in 1833 and the present oc-
casion. The Tote of censure of the House of Lords was set
aside by an enormous majority in the House of Commons.
Why was it that the Noble Lord who was so fond of citing
precedents when in his favour, had omitted to follow the
whole precedent? Why was it that he had not thought
proper to come forward there and ask explicitly for a re-
versal of the House of Lords' condemnation of their foreign
policy ?—(Hear, hear.) If he valued precedent, he was
bound to have done so. If tie had done so, he would have
found their policy regarding the Greek nation a very
hazardous experiment. The Noble Lord 'thought it neces-
sary that the question should be submitted to the House for
its opinion, and in this difficulty the Hon. and Learned
Member for Sheffield stepped' forward to their rescue. He
-would not say that there had been any preconcerted ar-
rangement between himself and the Government, but he
would say that the Hon. Member for Sheffield had pur-
chased a substantial claim to the gratitude of the Govern-
ment.—(Order.)
Mr. SOMERS 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 Aff-
ghanistau, 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 that 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, bear.)
Now,-those were his! sentiments in 1843. The Noble Lord
had returned since then • to_ power, and now presided over
the foreign affairs of this country. lie was the same man,
retaining every activity arid 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 hie 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 Mau 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 calbulated 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, travelling as rapidly as possible over the ground. He
impatiently hung on the words of his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), expecting
every moment that he would make some allusion to Greece,
but regretted to say—and he felt assured• that the House ge-
nerally sympathised with him—that he did not allude to the
subject-matter of his resolution till the end of his; speech,
and that conclusion was characterised with an approval of
the Noble Lord (Palmerston's) conduct. In consideration of
this question, he hoped that the House would duly weigh the
position, of Greece with respect to the 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-
ness of Greece,. that the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston)
should abstain altogether from using threats and menaces,
which would not be offered to any strong power of Eu-
rope. He admitted that the claims of British subjects
should be defended, but should at the same time say that
he felt assured that many of them were exaggerated, and'
he did not mean to adduce this in the light of a mere as-
sertion, but would support it by the most irrefragable argu-
ments. First, he would refer to the claims of Mr. Finlay,
in which case he, considered the conduct of the Noble Lord
(Lord Palmerston) as most ungenerous and unbecoming;
and he regretted to add, that he feared that such a line of
policy as that pursued by the Noble Lord the Secretary for
Foreign Affairs had left an impression on the minds of the
people of France which would not be speedily removed,
and which could not, therefore, fail to do much injury to
this country. He should enter into the details of Mr. Findlay'a
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 8,000 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, relative 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 tope 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 no inter-
national law violated by such hostile interference; but such
an assertion he begged leave to gainsay, for it is unjust for any
nation, tointerfere, 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 front
whom reprisals are taken are the aggressors.--(lronical
Cheers from the Government party.) If Honourable Gen-
tlemen would not interrupt 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, 1850, that the interference of this
Government was most 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 parties (Finlay and the Greek Go-
vernment), to arbitration, and that such a line of procedure
was the best that coulthbe 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 thti hostile interference of this
country. (Hear, hear.) He would next refer to
another case, and should at the same time express it as his
strongest hope that no Honourable Gentleman would for one
minute suppose that he had any unreasonable prejudice
against any one, because of hia,religieua,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 het(Sie F. Thesiger) admitted that some of his furni-
ture war materially injured .by.the mob in that country, he
could mot be induced to believe.that it was worthet,9l6/., as
the man was in most needy circumstances, being obliged to
pledge -his plate for 301., that henaight lend out to the poor
people of that country, at a very usurious interest, and he
consequently confessed that he did not believe that he was
possessed of all.the drachmas which he alleged he lost on. that
occasion ; and he MSc) wished to add, that when the mob left
his,,hottse they did not take with them the accounts which
Stated the amount due to him 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 slim; 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)
twist know that that trial was not brought .on for the in-
demnification of the losses sustained by that person, but for
the punistompt pf those six persons, should they he,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
hag hr9ketn,into the house of a lioina4 Catholic (a fcryigner);
itiany otwhich" casoB had- then -deans d, Wottld"tius,Hoib
and Louneletatlomva MI Roebuck) pot YfitirtVi ro!'