The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-28 00:00:00

• *a 4-
anger upon Greeks.thGreeks...7l his is the wiser
course ; for however it may litittOnto Contenipt
a Journal Ads defended the cause of that much
oppressed 'people with more than ordinary zeal.
at 'a time when their, sofferings had excited. nei-
ther the degree nor the universality of .-Sympathy
which they deserved, it will not bring it into
danger. Our contemporary describes his opi-
nions on the Greek. question to have changed as
soon as the Treaty of the 6th July had been
concluded. We well remember the change.
Among the records of political tergiversation we
believe it would he i'difficult tas': to find its
parallel. It took place on the 12th July. On
the 11th our contemporary declared that nothing
but the intervention of the Allies could save
Greece. On the 12th he declared the inter-
vention of England to be " illll/nee—we pre-
sume by twenty-four hours. Our contemporary
would fain have it understood that he all along
advocated the cause of the Greeks in such a
way as to exclude the idea of an interposition'
like that stipulated' by the Treaty of the 6th
July. IF so, what was the meaning of his words
when he called on England so repeatedly to in-
terpose—when he regretted that France should
be the first to do so---i-when he declared that the
recognition .of the Greek blockade was virtually
an acknowledgment of their independence—and
when he expressed a wish that Russia should in-
terfere with her arms since her notes were useless ?
But it is unnecessary to allude to particular ex-
pressions—it is not, by quotations that '.the ques-
tion of our contemporary's consistency is to be
settled. 'We can refer to the whole drift and ob-
ject of his reasonings for five or six years on this
subject—his leading subject during the whole
of that period—to his prose, to his poetry, to
his selections, to his correspondence—to his
whole tone and temper whenever Greece or
Turkey was directly or indirectly introduced.
We shall, however, for the sake of argument,
piit the question in his own way. He does not
deny that lie advocated the cause of the Greeks,
from the commencement down to the memorable
12th July, with a warmth which 'colder tem-
pered writers, might sometimes imagine mis-
placed, and with a degree of strength which very
strongly contrasts with the pitiful lameness of
argument with which he has saw-es-attempted to
refute hiS own positions. This, we say, he
does not and dares not deny. His sorrows are
recorded more permanently than the wish of the
Man of Uz:aspired to ; they arc not only 'writ-
ten, they are printed. Now, we put to our con-
temporary this plain question :—He says, that
all armed interference on the part of England, or
of France, or. of RusSia, singly or united, is a
breach of the law of nations—an act which should
call down an impeachment on the Ministry of the
first of these Powers : What did he, what does
he, wish to be done for his proteges? Will
he say, " negotiate ?" Does he pretend that
every resource of negotiation had not been tried
long before the Treaty was entered into ? Does
he pretend that during the last twelve months,
and more, while he was daily. calling for. greater
exertions--4or more earnest endeavours—for in-
terference more energetic—in behalf of the
GreekS ; while he was appealing, by turns, to the
feelings of humanityto the sanction of reli-
gion—and, when the report was spread abroad
that America intended, 'on condition of a settle-
ment in the Mediterranean, to give aid td the
Greeks—when he addressed the fears and the
interests of the Monarchs of Europe on the sub-
ject which then appeared to be nearest his hears,
will he say, that while thus stimulating Christen-
dom in behalf of the " slaves of Turkey," as he
has since termed them; there were not negocia!-
tions of the most earnest; pressing, continuous,

no-16 ?—that note upoinri7riiiirrelientintet
upon representation, from the Ambassadors of
England, of Russia, and France, singly and con-
jointly, were not presented ? If negyciation were
all he asked, all he wished, why were his exhorta-
tions resumed from day to day, when ail he sought
for, all he wanted, was granted to satiety ? We
are aware it is no justification of the "treaty of
the 6th July, that our contemporary has unsaid,
Within these last five months, all' that he had said
for five years before, and thus striven to pull
down the edifice which, in his happier moments,
he had so solidly constructed—nor do we mean
it as such. The just and orderly defence of that
Treaty we have already entered on at length,
and with the deliberation it deserved. What
we would effect at present, is, if we can, to in-
duce our contemporary, if he would retain the
respect of the public, to choose some other topic
for Vituperation, than that on which he has long
exhausted all the varied forms of panegyric.? --
New Times.