With regard to the case of Pacifico, against whose character many accusations had been brought, his lordship continued:

"If the man were guilty, punish him if you will; but do not pursue him as a pariah through life. His case was this. In the middle of the town of Athens, in house which, I must be allowed to say, is not a wretched hovel, but which, in the early days of King Otho, was, I am told, the residence of Count Armansperg, the chief of the regency-a house as good as the generality of those which existed in Athens before the sovereign ascended the throne-M. Pacifico, living in this house, within forty yards of the great street, within a few minutes' walk of a guard-house where soldiers were stationed, was attacked by a mob. Fearing injury when the mob began to assemble, he sent an intimation to the British minister, who immediately informed the authorities. Application was made to the Greek government for protection. No protection was afforded. The mob, in which were soldiers and gens d'armes, who, even if officers were not with them, ought, from a sense of duty, to have interfered, and to have prevented plunder-that mob, headed by the sons of the minister of war-not children eight or ten years old, but older-that mob, for nearly two hours, employed themselves in gutting the house of an unoffending man, carrying away or destroying every single thing the house contained, and left it a perfect wreck. Is not that a case in which a man is entitled to redress from somebody? I venture to think it is. I think that there is no civilised country where a man, subjected to such grievous wrong-not to speak of insults and injuries to the members of his family-would not justly expect redress from some quarter or other. Where was he to apply for redress at Athens? The Greek government neglected its duty, and did not pursue judicial inquiries, or institute legal prosecutions, as it might have done, for the purpose of finding out, and punishing some of the culprits. The sons of the minister of war were pointed out to the government as actors in the outrage. The Greek government were told to search a particular house, and that some part of M. Pacifico's jewels would be found there. They declined to prosecute the minister's sons, or to search the house. But, it is said, M. Pacifico should have applied to a court of law for redress. What was he to do? Was he to prosecute a mob of 500 persons? Was he to prosecute them criminally, or in order to make them pay the value of his losses? Where was he to find his witnesses? Why, he and his family were hiding or flying during the pillage, to avoid the personal outrages with which they were threatened. He states that his own life was saved by the help of an English friend. It was impossible, if he could have identified the leaders, to have prosecuted them with success. But what satisfaction would it have been to M. Pacifico to have succeeded in a criminal prosecution against the ringleaders of that assault? Would that have restored to him his property? He wanted redress, not revenge. A criminal prosecution was out of the question, to say nothing of the chances, if not the certainty, of failure in a country where the tribunals are at the mercy of the advisers of the crown; the judges being liable to be removed, and being often actually removed, upon grounds of private interest and personal feeling. Was he to prosecute for damages? His action would have been laid against individuals, and not, as in this country, against the hundred. Suppose that he had been enabled to prove that one particular man had carried off one particular thing, or destroyed one particular article of furniture, what redress could he anticipate from a law-suit which, as his legal advisers told him, it would be vain for him to undertake? M. Pacifico truly said "If the man I prosecute is rich, he is sure to be acquitted; if he is poor, he has nothing out of which to afford me compensation if he is condemned. The Greek government having neglected to give the protection they were bound to extend, and having abstained from taking the means to afford redress, there was a case in which we were justified in calling on the Greek government for compensation for the losses, whatever they might be, which M. Pacifico had suffered. I think that claim was founded in justice. The amount we did not pretend to fix. If the

Greek government had admitted the principle of the claim, and had objected to the account sent in by M. Pacifico-if they had said, 'This is too much, and we think a less sum sufficient,' that would have been a question open to discussion, and which our ministers, Sir E. Lyons at first, or Mr. Wyse afterwards, would have been ready to have gone into, and, no doubt, some satisfactory arrangement might then have been effected with the Greek government. But the Greek government denied altogether the principle of the claim. Therefore, when Mr. Wyse came to make the claim, he could not but demand that the claim should be settled, or placed in a way of settlement, and that within a definite period, as he fixed it, of twenty-four hours. Whether M. Pacifico's statement of his claim was exaggerated or not, the demand was not for any particular amount of money. The demand was, that the claim should be settled. An investigation might have been instituted, which those who acted for us were prepared to enter into, fairly, dispassionately, and justly." His lordship further stated, "that M. Pacifico had only met with a positive refusal of his claim, or with pertinacious silence; and at length it came to this, that the demand must be abandoned altogether or enforced. Oh, it was said, what an iniquitous proceeding to employ so large a force against so small a power. But did the smallness of a country justify the magnitude of its evil doings? Was it to be held, that if your subjects suffered violence, outrage, plunder, in a country which was small and weak, that compensation must not be claimed? The sufferers would answer, that the weakness of the offending power made it so much more easy to obtain redress. No, it was said, generosity was to be the rule; we were to be generous to those who have behaved ungenerously to our countrymen; and we were to say to the sufferers- We cannot give you redress, because we have such ample means of enforcing it."" His lordship then fully explained the course which had been pursued; the policy he had uniformly acted upon; and the differences with France, which had, however, been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. He vindicated the government on all the points which had been assailed; and especially the sending of a squadron, under Sir William Parker, to the Dardanelles, that the Turkish government might not be coerced, and forced to give up the Hungarians, who had sought a refuge in the dominions of the Porte. That, he insisted, held out no threat to any power: it could only be a symbol, and a source of support to the sultan.

The eloquent conclusion of the noble viscount's five hours' speech was as follows:

"The government of a great country like this is undoubtedly an object for fair and legitimate ambition among men of all shades of opinion. It is a noble thing to be allowed to guide the policy and the destinies of such a country; and if ever it were an object of honourable ambition, it must be more than ever so at the moment at which I am speaking. Whilst we have seen, as has been stated, Europe rocking from side to side, thrones shattered, institutions overthrown and destroyed-when almost every country of Europe has been a scene of conflict, which has deluged the land with blood, from the Atlantic to the Black Sea, from the Baltic to the Mediterranean-this country has presented a spectacle honourable to the people of England, and worthy of the admiration of the world. We have shown that liberty is compatible with order; we have shown that individual freedom is reconcilable with obedience to law; we have shown the example of a nation in which every class of society accepts with cheerfulness the lot which Providence has assigned it; whilst, at the same time, every individual is constantly striving to raise himself in the social scale, not by violence and illegality, but by persevering good conduct, and unremitting application of those moral and intellectual faculties with which his Creator has endowed him. I say, to govern such a people as this, is indeed an object worthy of the ambition of the noblest man who lives in the land; and therefore I find no fault with those who may have endeavoured to place themselves in so distinguished a position.

VOL. II.

C

9

We have not done anything in our foreign policy to forfeit the confidence of the country. I contend that, whether in this matter or in that we may have acted up to the opinions of one person or another—and we know by experience that we do not find any number of persons entirely agreeing on any mattermaking allowances for those differences of opinion which might fairly be expected amongst those which generally concur, yet I maintain that the principles which can be traced throughout foreign nations as the rule and directing course of our proceedings-I say that those principles are such as deserve the approbation of the country. I fearlessly challenge the verdict which the House may give on the question now before it-whether the principles which have governed the foreign policy of the government, whose duty it was to afford protection to our subjects abroad, which we have considered the guide of our conduct, are proper and fitting; and whether, as in the days of the Roman, who held himself to be free from indignity when he called out Civis Romanus Sum,' an Englishman shall be considered protected by the vigilant eye and strong arm of his government, against injustice and wrong ?"

ment.

*

The debate was brought to a close on the 28th of June. On that night Sir R. Peel delivered a most able and argumentative speech: it was the last time his voice was heard in that House. Differing from Lord Palmerston, he frankly confessed, "We are all proud of him." In this his last speech, Sir Robert, as usual, uttered language well worthy of remembrance. We transcribe a few of its sentences. "The honourable and learned gentleman, Mr. Roebuck, says there shall be no mistake as to the purport and import of my vote; that it is not a resolution simply of approval of the policy of the noble lord, but a resolution the meaning and intention of which is this-we are to tell the people of all foreign countries with whom we have any relations, that our power, so far as it is physically concerned, is not to be employed to coerce their rulers; but, in so far as the moral influence of this country and this government is concerned, the world shall know we are friendly wheresoever we find a large endeavour on the part of any body of men to vindicate to themselves the right of self-governI am asked what is the antagonistic principle? I have been challenged again and again to declare it. I will declare it. The principle for which I contend is the principle for which every statesman has contended for the last fifty years-namely, non-interference with the domestic affairs of other countries, without some clear and undeniable necessity arising from circumstances affecting the interests of your own country. That is the antagonistic principle for which I contend. I affirm, that the principle for which you contend is the principle contended against by Mr. Fox, when it was employed in favour of arbitrary government, which was resisted by Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning at the congress of Verona; the principle which was asserted by the Convention of France on the 19th of November, 1792, and was abandoned by that same Convention on the 13th of April, 1793, because France found it utterly impossible to adhere to it consistently with the maintenance of peace. * It is my firm belief that you will not advance the cause of constitutional government by attempting to dictate to other nations. If you do, your intentions will be mistaken; you will rouse feelings upon which you do not calculate; you will invite opposition to government: and beware that the time does not arrive when, frightened by your own interference, you withdraw your countenance from those whom you have excited, and leave upon their minds the bitter recollection that you have betrayed them. If you succeed, I doubt whether the institutions that take root under your patronage will be lasting. Constitutional liberty will be best worked out by those who aspire to freedom by their own efforts; you will only overload it by your help, by your principle of interference."

Many were the brilliant speeches delivered during the course of the debate; and the triumph for the ministry, in spite of the combination of Peelites, protectionists, and the Manchester party, was of the most emphatic character. Mr.

Roebuck's motion was carried by a majority of forty-six; the numbers beingayes, 310; noes, 264. There can be no doubt that the main contributor to this triumph was the noble lord himself. His speech exhausted the question. During the whole time, the attention of a crowded House was maintained unflaggingly: the historical details of his policy, which, in other hands, would have been a dry narrative of facts, served with him as the vehicle, at times, of lofty sentiment, of genuine patriotism, of brilliant repartee, and of broad and irresistible humour. It was universally admitted to be one of the greatest triumphs of parliamentary eloquence that age had listened to. An M.P. walking home that night, said to another M.P., "I have heard Canning, and Plunkett, and Brougham in their best days, and I never heard anything to beat that speech." Undoubtedly his lordship surpassed himself, and exceeded all expectation. Out-of-doors the

enthusiasm in favour of Lord Palmerston was as great as within the walls of St. Stephen's; and with a peculiar and delicate courtesy, within four days of the address which he delivered, a portrait of himself, painted by an eminent artist, at a cost of 400 guineas, was presented to Lady Palmerston by a deputation, consisting of members of the House of Commons, who represented many more of his legislative admirers.

On the Greek question public opinion is yet divided. The weakness of Greece has pleaded strongly in her favour with some politicians, who thought, and justly thought, that the necessity for undertaking offensive measures against such a humble state ought to have been obvious to all mankind; that every effort should have been made to effect a pacific settlement; and that full warning should have been given, not to Greece alone, but to France and Russia, as protecting powers, before the strong arm of England had been raised, even in a just cause, against such a puny member of the commonwealth of nations. There was no glory to be gained in coercing Greece.

Unquestionably, British subjects, when residing in foreign lands, are entitled to protection; and if that protection cannot be afforded them by the legal tribunals of the country, they have a right to look for it at the hands of their own government. But before their claims are endorsed by the Foreign Secretary, he ought to be sure that they are not exaggerated, and that they are, in every respect, honest. If an Englishman makes a fool of himself abroad, he must take the consequences of his folly. It is not enough that the offending power should disprove the accusations of an alien: it is the duty of the injured person to prove, to the satisfaction of his government, before calling upon it for assistance, that his demands are strictly just. If this reasoning be sound, it is impossible to approve, in every respect, of the manner in which M. Pacifico's claims were adopted and enforced. In this demonstration against Greece, there were certainly, especially as regards French mediation, many errors committed; but it is not clear that Lord Palmerston was to blame. Accidents will occur in the best regulated families; the best schemes are liable to miscarriage; the best diplomatic agents sometimes err; and Lord Palmerston never was the man to extricate himself from a false position by accusing his subordinates.

The doctrine of Roman citizenship is more plausible than sound. Undoubtedly, at the time, it made Lord Palmerston intensely popular. John Bull, even nowwhen an adventurer, and the son of an adventurer, with an audacity almost sublime, has climbed up the steep ascent of empire, and with his armed legions bids all Europe tremble-flatters himself that England sustains the same relation to the modern, that Rome sustained to the ancient world. Under the broad sun of heaven he sees no more exalted personage than himself: he insists upon his rights in the remotest corners of the globe. In the presence of the pope, whom he considers as little better than one of the wicked; under the shadow of the gigantic despot, who holds France in his mailed hand; before Austrian kaiser, Russian czar, Yankee backwoodsman, or astonished citizen of Timbuctoo, he exclaims, "Civis Romanus Sum!" In his own opinion, it is his proud prerogative,

C 2

11

wherever he wanders, to break all laws; to violate all customs; to pour contempt on all prejudices; and to run all risks. Now Lord Palmerston was supposed to aid and abet all this; and in 1850 this idea culminated in a triumph, which must have satisfied even his ambition. Englishmen were astonished and enraptured. All swore by Lord Palmerston. Even the professors of the refined science of gastronomy-the disciples of Ude-Carême Soyer-caught the enthusiasm, and a Palmerston sauce became en vogue. In the four quarters of the globe his name was a terror, and a tower of strength. Vienna illuminated when Lord Palmerston left office. In the troubled years of 1848-'9, a German popular couplet intimated, that if the devil had a son, that fortunate individual was England's Foreign Secretary." Suda Palmerston Seechas" (hither Palmerston forthwith), was, we were told, during the Crimean war, the cry with which the Cossack of the Ukraine stilled his steed when restive, or urged it on when weary. Nay, more; at dinners at Damascus, Mr. Disraeli makes an Eastern emir exclaim-"I cannot endure this eternal chatter about Palmerston: is there no other statesman in the world besides Palmerston ?" Actually when the Harper Ferry affair broke out on the other side of the Atlantic, we read in an American paper, that the act of Brown and his followers was owing to Palmerston alone. The public were pleased. The conclusion naturally was—if the Foreign Secretary was thus great and potent, how great and potent must be the country of which he was the minister.

The ablest opponent of Lord Palmerston was Mr. Gladstone, who repudiated, in the debate, the Civis Romanus Sum doctrine, which, after all, was never advanced by Lord Palmerston in the mischievous sense his opponents affirmed. In another matter Mr. Gladstone did his lordship injustice; and that was in the distinction he drew between the intervention of Mr. Canning and his lordship. Mr. Gladstone affirmed, that the earlier statesman had been successful in his interference in Portugal and South America; while the Foreign Secretary of the Whigs had been, in almost every instance, unsuccessful and inexcusable in his meddling with the affairs of other countries. Mr. Gladstone even selected for panegyric, Mr. Canning's extraordinary sentence about calling the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old; and considered such intervention as a perfect model of wisdom and success. But, in fact, Mr. Canning's South American republics were decided failures; and the British troops had scarcely been withdrawn from Portugal, when the constitution which he virtually, though not directly, attempted to save was subverted. It seems, then, almost impossible to believe that, if Mr. Canning's intervention in Portugal and South America was quite right, Lord Palmerston's intervention in Portugal and Belgium was quite wrong. The latter was blamed for perilling our relations with the great monarchical powers by his constitutional propagandism. Mr. Gladstone argued, with much force and eloquence, that if England set about diffusing her political opinions and institutions, other states would take the same course; that the name of each government would be the symbol of a party, and a system would ensue destructive to the peace and happiness of the world. Well, actually this was the

What was the holy alliance but a scheme of propagandism of the most universal character? Lord Palmerston only did what others had done before him. His offence was, that he had, wherever practicable, lent the aid and the arm of England to constitutional, in preference to despotic governments. If his lordship was a sinner in this respect, it was a sin which surely an Englishman should be ready to forgive. In the upper House, where Liberal principles are always viewed with dislike, we cannot wonder that his lordship's policy had been emphatically condemned: but we should have been surprised if that verdict had been ratified by the Commons and the public at large.

Perhaps the best vindication of the Palmerston policy may be found in the following fact:-After the great issue had been decided, and the session of 1850 closed, Mr. Gladstone went in the autumn to Italy, and found himself at last in Naples. He was travelling with no political object. Private reasons alone had