same people who now blamed Lord Palmerston, in 1822 blamed Mr. Canning, and for similar reasons.

The Conservatives might well be anxious to get rid of a Foreign Minister ready to aid the cause of constitutional government on the continent. The Emperor Nicholas was also of a similar opinion.

In the Lords the victory was easily won. All Palmerston's political adversaries combined against him; and the House of Lords passed resolutions by which his policy in general, and his conduct to Greece in particular, was emphatically censured. The only defender of Lord Palmerston was the Marquis of Lansdowne, who commenced his remarks by saying "That in the House of Commons, where his noble friend had a seat, none of his opponents durst trust themselves with bringing forward such a motion." Earl Grey, who was usually forward enough. to speak on the policy of the government, was silent on this occasion; and it was generally understood, from personal disapprobation of the policy of his colleague. On the other band, the whole force of the opposition, Protectionites and Peelites, voted in favour of the censure; and the government, in consequence, was put in a minority. In curious coincidence, however, with what Lord Lansdowne had said, none of the protectionists ventured to follow up their victory by proposing a similar motion in the House of Commons; and it was left for an admirer of Lord Palmerston's foreign policy to introduce the question. He asked Lord John Russell, the leader of the House, what the government intended to do in consequence of the adverse vote of the Peers? Lord John Russell replied, "That they meant to do nothing. That the vote of the House of Lords would have no effect upon them, one way or another;" and then, bursting out into a tribute to his colleague, which was eloquent in its manly tone of admiration, he reminded the House of the position in which his honourable and noble friend stood; that he was not the minister of Austria or of Russia; but that he was the minister of England. When the hearty cheers that spontaneously greeted this declaration had subsided, Mr. Roebuck said-"That he was not quite satisfied with the constitutional ground of the doctrine which the noble lord had laid down; and that therefore he would give the House of Commons an opportunity of declaring whether they agreed with, or dissented from, the views of the Lords; for he would move a vote of approbation of the noble lord's policy." As M.P. for Sheffield, Mr. Roebuck was a man of mark: he was not a party follower. In many respects he was an Ishmaelite; and his hand, or rather his tongue, was against every one. The course which he took was, therefore, the more valuable; and, as regards Lord Palmerston, the more complimentary.

In many quarters it was thought a majority of thirty-seven against the government was fatal to its existence. "On referring to history," said Lord Russell, "it would be found that, 140 years ago, the House of Lords passed a resolution, which they embodied in an address, declaring that it would not consist with the honour and safety of the country to make any peace with France that would leave Spain and the Indies in possession of any branch of the House of Bourbon." The executive government, notwithstanding that address, proceeded to negotiate a treaty. In 1833, another instance occurred. When an address, moved by the Duke of Wellington, had been carried against the government, Earl Grey continued to act on the policy previously adopted; from which, in the House of Commons, Lord Palmerston had declared he would not swerve. Ministers, Lord John Russell intimated, were not disposed to give the reins of power out of their hands in consequence of the course adopted by the Lords.

Yet the attack, led on by Lord Stanley in the upper House, was of the most vehement description. He condemned, in toto, the conduct of Lord Palmerston. On a claim made, of £20 each, for two Ionians, the speaker commented with much severity. He said "If the British flag is insulted, the Secretary of State does not think it necessary to ask for an apology. If a boat's crew is plundered, a sum of money is demanded. All we want is the money. Is a boat-hook lost? Put it

down in the bill. It is really difficult to speak seriously on such a question. It would be too absurd, too ridiculous, too foolish to make it the subject of recital in your lordships' House, were it not for the momentous fact, that it is upon such fooleries the peace of Europe is made to depend. The noble lord reminds me of a story where a man is thrown out of the window of an inn, and the assailant, when charged with the offence, exclaims, Put it down in the bill.' Whatever is done, put it down in the bill. Here is £20 for this, and £10 for that; and when we present our bill to King Otho at last, his treasury not being in an overflowing condition, we will show him what it is to insult Great Britain. Now, I ask your lordships, I put it to any rational man, whether this is a case upon which we are justified in going to war; in which we are warranted in employing a more powerful fleet than that which won the battle of the Nile, to threaten a friendly sovereign, and demand a certain compensation, just or unjust?" He criticised several demands; but the case on which his lordship dwelt most, was that of an individual, known as Don Pacifico, which he described to present such "an astounding combination of mendacity and audacity, of all that was ridiculous and disgusting, that he was ashamed to bring it before their lordships. The circumstances under which that person made his claim were these "The Athenian mob take great delight, on Easter Sunday, in burning a representation of Judas Iscariot; but on Easter Sunday, 1847, in consequence of the presence in Athens of the Baron C. M. de Rothschild, the government, out of compliment to that gentleman, took measures to prevent the assemblage of the people. It is clear, then, his lordship inferred, that the loss M. Pacifico has sustained, is traceable to the presence of Baron de Rothschild in Athens. If the baron had not been in Athens, the figure of Judas would have been burnt; and, possibly, M. Pacifico's house would not have been plundered. An opinion, however, arose that M. Pacifico had obtained the discontinuation of this annual celebration, and a mob assembled, and most indefensibly made an attack upon M. Pacifico's house, and destroyed what furniture there was in it; and, indeed, according to his statement, everything else. The rapidity with which the mob effected this destruction appears to have been wonderful; but, no doubt, they did great injury to the house, and caused considerable alarm to M. Pacifico and his family." His lordship continued-"As I do not wish to exaggerate or over-state anything, I will say, that, looking at those papers, it does not appear that there was any great activity manifested by the Greek police, either in putting a stop to the riot itself, or endeavouring to identify the rioters. It seems, indeed, that the police were deterred from taking such steps in consequence of persons who had high connections in the state being concerned in these outrages-a circumstance which entitles M. Pacifico to compensation. But when we come to the gentleman's bill of costs, it is really one which passes credibility. Mr. Wyse states that M. Pacifico's circumstances were insufficient to afford him the power to redeem some plate lodged with the Bank of Athens as security for £30 advanced to him for the purpose of lending out small weekly loans to poor people at exorbitant interest; and yet he claims more than £31,000 for his losses, nearly £5,000 of which is demanded for furniture destroyed. But, my lords, either M. Pacifico must be a man of extraordinary powers of memory, or else, amidst the universal destruction declared, the plunderers must have been obliging enough to leave behind them a precise inventory of every item of furniture, and the value of each. No upholsterer's catalogue can be more complete, enumerating, in the minutest detail, every article in the house, from the sofas and chairs in the drawing-room, to the stew-pans, the jelly-moulds, the skimming-ladles in the kitchen. Every article, too, in its proper place; in such a box, so many coats, and other articles of M. Pacifico; in such a cupboard, so many gowns. of Mrs. Pacifico; so many silk stockings of Miss Pacifico; with all the minutiae of male and female apparel. Why, the house of this petty usurer is furnished-is represented to have been furnished-as if he had been another Aladdin, with full command of the genii of the ring and the lamp.

For

one couch, the enormous sum of £170 is charged; and, for a lit conjugal, £150." In conclusion, expressing great regard for the noble lord at the head of the foreign department, he felt bound to speak of him on this occasion as a minister, not as a man; and thus feeling, he continued-"I must, in this case, express my deep regret at the conduct which, as a minister, he has felt it his duty to pursue; and call upon your lordships to recollect that this is no case in which personal feeling ought to be indulged. I must call upon you to remember that you are here in the discharge of a great public duty; that you are here acting in a judicial capacity; that you are here acting, possibly, as the means of reconciling differences between contending nations: at all events, that your judgment to-day may go forth to the world, and vindicate you from the stigma and opprobrium which, as I think, must attach to that great and mighty power which prostitutes its undoubted superiority by enforcing unjust or exorbitant demands upon a feeble and defenceless ally. My lords, I beg to move your lordships to resolve, that while the House fully recognises 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 peace of Greece, and calculated to endanger the continuance of our friendly relations with other powers."

Mr. Roebuck, after such a powerful censure had been endorsed by the Lords, might well think that an appeal should be made to the Commons; and that if that appeal were not successful, then the path which ministers ought to take would be clear. With this feeling he gave notice to the House that he would move, "That the principles which have hitherto regulated the foreign policy of her majesty's government are such as were required to preserve untarnished the honour and dignity of the country, and, in times of unexampled difficulty, the best calculated to maintain peace between England and the various nations of the world."

The whole nation was excited at finding ministers thus put upon their trial. The debate lasted four nights, and excited unexampled interest. It commenced on the 24th of June.

Mr. Roebuck, after alluding to the condemnation of the administration by the House of Lords on their foreign policy, said "It became the duty of the House of Commons to declare their opinion in similar unmistakable language. He believed that, as regards individual wrongs and rights, with reference to foreign nations, the object of the noble lord had been to extend the protection and the shield of England to her wandering sons, who were carried by commerce or otherwise to the various regions of the world. With regard to the interests of this country," he proceeded, "I believe his policy has been to maintain the peace of the world-not by truckling to despotism, but by teaching all foreign communities with whom we have any relations, that in so far as she is permitted to do so by the rules regulating internal communication, she will maintain peace by warning foreign governments to make ready and proper concessions to the increasing enlightenment of the people. In 1789, broke out that grand result of the increasing enlightenment of Europe--the first French revolution. The whole result depended upon England. What were called the legitimate governments of Europe banded together; and, unfortunately, England supported them. The consequence was a contest the most terrible that the annals of mankind record. In that fearful lesson we read a rule for our guidance in future. The Duke of Wellington was at the head of the English councils when that mighty conflict of the people of France resulted in again dispossessing the Bourbon family of the throne. The Duke of Wellington commenced a new foreign policy on the occasion, and at once acknowledged the government which the new revolution in France had established." After praising Lord Palmerston's policy with regard to Belgium, Mr. Roebuck continued-" On a sudden this House is surprised by a resolution

of the other House, embracing an alliance with France, Russia, and the protectionist party in this country, formed to overwhelm the noble lord. To find in Greece a monarch coming from Bavaria-a man educated at a small German Court, and with all the feelings that such an education must create-and acting, in everything, under the instruction of Austria and Russia, I must confess that, with such a council and such diplomacy, I feel somewhat degraded when I hear the name of England being mixed up in any of these discussions. We have seen evinced at Athens a constant sympathy with Russian diplomacy, which still looks forward to the possession of Constantinople as her portion of the spoil of the world, contemplated by Napoleon. Austria is Russia's implement and slave; and woe and shame to France for suddenly forgetting the great guiding principles of her conduct; and, truckling with the Russian despot, she has joined in this attempt to insult the greatness of England. Well, at this time what has occurred? The people of England are suddenly informed, through their Foreign Minister, that the fleet of Admiral Parker has been ordered to the Piræus. At once Englishmen erect their ears. They do not like the idea of it; and that power which is always ready to oppose anything like liberal government, which can give a majority against freedom, suddenly interferes. They do not like prodigally to use their power. I have heard many threats, and often, of the ministry being left in a minority in the House of Lords; but there was one very curious thing which I learned just before these occurrences took place; and I would ask this House seriously to bear it in mind. The people of Hungary had risen against the despotism of Austria, but had succumbed to the united power of Austria and Russia. The patriots escaped, and were afforded shelter by Turkey. With bloodhound pertinacity they were instantly demanded by the two despots. The noble lord worthily represented England on that occasion, and said, 'It shall not be.' Our fleet told those two despotic powers that such a violation of the rights of nations should not take place. England stopped those wretches. It was shortly after that circumstance that Count Nesselrode, writing to M. Brunow, said 'It is painful that this should have occurred just as Admiral Parker has been to the Dardanelles on his very disagreeable mission.' Now the charge brought against the noble lord is, that his demands are unreasonable; the amount claimed insignificant or exaggerated; and the time for making the demand inopportune or improper. There is first to be considered the question as regards the demands made on the Grecian nation. The next question is, how the French people have acted in the business? I will begin with France. We are told that this sort of proceeding was altogether unknown until originated by the noble lord, the Foreign Secretary, in the case of Greece. The cases in which the noble lord interfered were five or six. Now, I believe it is well known that, in 1831, a French fleet appeared in the Tagus to insist on reparation for injuries done to French subjects during the reign of Don Miguel. The mediation of England was offered, and refused by France. They demanded that a Frenchman, subjected to a severe imprisonment for a serious offence, should be liberated, and the sentence pronounced against him annulled by a special act, and that the judge should be dismissed. That was in times when we heard of our dear Aberdeen.' They further demanded that several French subjects should be indemnified; that a rule against arrest without a judicial decree should be observed; that the chief of the police should be dismissed; and that all sentences on French subjects for political offences should be abrogated. It is urged, in France, that this affair of Greece was a petty affair. I think I can find one as petty. In 1842, the French government felt that injuries had been done to some French subjects at the small and insignificant port of San Salvador, amounting, in the whole, to one thousand dollars. A French ship went in immediately, and the captain said-'If you do not pay I will at once bombard the town.' The people refused: the French consul retired, got on board the French ship, and immediately raised the demand to two thousand dollars, and the poor people were obliged to pay the money."

Mr. Roebuck quoted various cases to show that, in the judgment of other enlightened nations, a course similar to that which had been used by the British government on the present occasion, was justifiable. He spoke disparagingly of the conduct of France on this occasion, and treated lightly the idea of war being likely to arise from it. Finally, he expressed anxiety that there would be no cavil on the question at issue-no half approval. There must be so broad, so clear, so strong, and so positive an approval, that there could be no doubt ministers had maintained, and would continue to maintain, the dignity of the country in the face of the world.

On the second night of the debate Lord Palmerston spoke in his own defence. The interest created by the debate was intense, and the House was crowded in every part. Referring to the resolution passed by the Lords, he said it involved the future as well as the past. The country was pledged by the resolution; and, so far as foreign nations were concerned, the future rule of government was to be, that in all cases, and under all circumstances, British subjects were to have that protection only which the law and the tribunals of the land in which they might happen to be would give them. That proposition he denied, and he declared it was a doctrine upon which no British minister had ever yet acted, and on which the people of England would never suffer a British minister to act. His lordship continued-" If our subjects abroad have complaints against individuals, or against the government of a foreign country, if the courts of law can afford them redress, then, no doubt, to those courts of justice the British subjects ought, in the first instance, to apply; and it is only on a denial of justice, or upon decisions manifestly unjust, that the British government should be called upon to interfere. But there may be cases in which no confidence can be placed in the tribunals. I will take a transaction that occurred not long ago as an instance. An inn-keeper of Catania was brought before a court-martial, accused of having concealed arms in his possession, contrary to a recent decree, declaring that a person found guilty should be shot. Some police officers declared that they found, in an open bin in an open stable in his yard, a knife, which they denounced as a concealed weapon. Witnesses having been examined, the counsel for the prosecution stated, that he gave up the case, as it was evident that there was no proof that the knife belonged to the man, or that he was aware that it was in the place where it was found. The counsel for the defendant said, that such being the opinion of the prosecution, it was unnecessary for him to go into the defence, and he left his client in the hands of the court. The court, nevertheless, pronounced the man guilty, and the next morning he was shot. Now what would the English people have said if this had been done to a British subject? Yet everything was the result of a law, and the man was found guilty of an offence by the tribunal of his country. Owing to the absence of constitutional institutions, the whole system of the government of Greece is full of every kind of abuse. Justice could not be expected where the judges of the tribunal were at the mercy of the advisers of the crown. And with regard to the police, I have here depositions of persons who have been subjected to the most abominable tortures which human ingenuity could devise-tortures inflicted on both sexes, most revolting and disgusting; and that the parties guilty of such practices, instead of being punished, are held in great favour in quarters where they ought to have received nothing but marks of indignation. Well, this being the state of things in Greece, we have to do our best to afford protection to the Maltese, Ionians, and a certain number of British subjects, whom we have bound ourselves to aid. The Greek police, however, made no distinction between their treatment of the Maltese and the Ionians, and that of their own subjects, whom they were permitted to torture as I have described; and I saw the necessity of putting a stop to the extension of those abuses to British subjects by demanding compensation, scarcely more than nominal in some cases; the granting of which would be an acknowledgment that such things should not be done towards us in future."