represented as presenting a spectacle of desolation, the exports in the first three months of 1850 had exceeded those in the first three months of 1849 by 1400 hogsheads. With reference to the question whether free labour could compete with that of slaves, he should observe that in several islands the annual average produce of the last six years exceeded that of the six years previous to the abolition of slavery. He showed, likewise, that, even including the year 1846, the imports of colonial sugar had increased, whilst those of foreign sugar had diminished. The project of buying slaves in Africa and sending them free to the West Indies the Government would not adopt, though they were prepared to facilitate the introduction of other free labourers. He was happy to say that from many of the Colonies accounts not unsatisfactory had been received; and, looking at what was going on in the West Indies, and the exertions made to increase production by a better cultivation of the land, he trusted the House would not check this growing spirit of energy, and inspire the delusive hope of a revival of protection.

Mr. Gladstone said, the case really before the House was that of the West Indies, and one of the great difficulties of this question was, that when the principle of protection was extended to the West Indies with reference to their peculiar circumstances, it reached other portions of the empire which had no special claims. It was not emancipation which had ruined the West Indies, but the false policy that succeeded it; for the artificial scarcity of labour there Parliament was responsible. Then came the Act of 1846, the

fruits of which were only now appearing. Sir R. Peel had justly regarded the West Indies as furnishing an exception from the general catagory of free trade; and if he (Mr Gladstone) believed that the restoration of protection would be an effective cure for the evils of the sugar-growing colonies, he would be prepared to vote for it; but not believing it would be a permanent cure, he was still of opinion that the scale of duties ought to be arrested in its descent. This was not merely a planters' question; it affected the best interests of the negro population, who by our legislation had gained an artificial command of the labour market, and had at the same time fallen back in their social condition far below the point at which they stood in the years of slavery. On their behalf, as well as that of the ill-used West India proprietors, he claimed for the latter such a reasonable term of fixed protection as would enable them, with aid, to surmount the difficulties by which they were oppressed.

Lord Palmerston expressed his surprise at the inconsistencies which had been exhibited during the debate, and which had been crowned by Mr. Gladstone, who was about to vote for a resolution to perpetuate protection, which he condemned. It was a mistake to suppose that it was slave-grown sugar which pressed our colonial sugar in the market. To effect the object of Mr. Gladstone, the differential duty must not be confined to slave-grown sugar, but must extend to foreign free-labour sugar. It was not, however, by these means that the great evil of the slave trade could be put down. By the measures now in progress,

by rendering the maritime police more effectual, by treaties with native chiefs, and other expedients, he hoped that next year it would be seen that the measures taken for the diminution of the slave trade had not been so unsuccessful as some had imagined. On every ground, both of expediency and principle, he objected to the mo

tion as injurious on the score of humanity, and as leading to a restoration of the principle of protection, which would be injurious to our commercial relations and fatal to the industry of this country.

Sir E. Buxton replied, and the House divided, when the motion was negatived by 275 against 234.

BY

Y far the most important question of foreign policy which engaged the attention of Parliament during the present Session was the affair which arose out of our relations with Greece. Early in the year in telligence arrived that, in consequence of the refusal of the Greek Government to afford compensation to certain demands which our Government had made on account of the claims of certain British subjects, Admiral Sir Wm. Parker had been directed to proceed to Athens, and not obtaining the satisfaction which he required, had resorted to the strong measure of blockading the Piraeus. The news of these events occasioned on their first arrival considerable dissatisfaction, many persons regarding so peremptory a line of policy towards a friendly and weaker Power as unworthy of the dignity, and discreditable to the reputation, of a country like England. Upon the meeting of Parliament the prevalent feeling of the public soon found an expression in the Legislature, and gave occasion to a controversy which was not set at rest until, a few months later, it shook the Whig Government of Lord John Russell to its foundations. In the present chapter we shall trace the progress of the discussions which from time to time arose out of the Greek transactions, until in their further development they involved the pacific relations of this country with France, and became preg. nant with very important political consequences. The first notice that occurred of the subject was in the House of Lords, on the 4th of February, when, in a tone of much earnestness, Lord Stanley adverted to these events as being of no inconsiderable importance. It appeared

to him that we had proceeded to an act of unjustifiable violence towards a foreign State, the very weakness of which demanded forbearance on our part, and the peculiar standing of which, with respect to other nations, required that our acts should be regulated by discretion and moderation, rather than rashness or precipitation. He recapitulated the facts as he found them in the ordinary channels of information, with a running commen-. tary; characterising the expedition to the Dardanelles as an ill-advised expedition, and the demands made on the Greek Minister as of unusual character; and expressing a hope that the language attributed in some of the accounts to our Minister had never been used by him. He hoped that it was impossible that a British Minister should have said, "Be they just or not, his demands must be complied with." It was stated that, compliance with our demands having been refused, the British fleet had been employed to enforce compliance; that the Piræus was blockaded, and a notification published that all Greek vessels of war would be seized if they ventured to leave that port; that the mediation of Russia and France had been tendered, and been refused by the British Minister. Lord Stanley asked information on several points; among others, whether "at the time Her Majesty's Ministers declared that we were on terms of peace and amity with all Foreign Powers," orders had been sent out by them, leaving no discretion either to Minister or Admiral, and commanding them to commit acts of hostility against a friendly and weakly Power?

The Marquess of Lansdowne said he would willingly give all the

satisfaction in his power, both now and by the production of information hereafter.

The proceeding, which had assumed somewhat of a hostile character from the share that Sir William Parker had taken in it, was founded on the previous proceedings of many years. The best and highest legal authorities declared our claims to be well founded. The Greek Government had made promises which were never fulfilled, or intended to be fulfilled-had put us off with one evasion after another, and had at last given a flat denial of the redress to which we were entitled. Every other measure having failed, our representative at Athens had been empowered to solicit the presence of Sir William Parker in the waters of Greece. The Admiral was returning from the Dardanelles, and arrived under circumstances in no way derogatory to the Government of Greece, if it had been disposed of its own accord to do an act of justice; and on his arrival he conducted himself in the most courteous manner towards the Government of Greece, tendering his respects both to the Sovereign and to the Minister. Negotiations on the differences ensued; verbal explanations proved unsatisfactory, and were changed for written explanations, and these resulting in a denial of our claims, Sir William Parker resorted to the mildest course which could be adoped under such circumstances: for it was not true that he instituted a blockade of the Piræus; he only served a notice on a Greek vessel of war then in that port, that it would not be allowed to leave until our demands were complied with. The information of the Government did not extend beyond that point. With regard

to the offer of the French and Russian Ministers at Athens to mediate, that offer was made without authority from their respective Courts, and seemed only made for purposes of delay. Our Minister had acted with great discretion and good sense in refusing it.

The Earl of Aberdeen admitted the great blame to which the Greek Government was liable for the nonfulfilment of its engagements, and its evasion of our demands with the most pesevering duplicity. But our clains were not indisputable, though they might be just; and our proceedings had been violent. Going into a criticism of the points connected with the disputed cession of the islands Elaphonisi and Sapienza, he observed that France and Russia had guaranteed the integrity of Greece, and Greece might not think that she ought to place in our possession the islands we claimed without the consent of the guaranteeing Powers. It might be better for our Government to "be in possession of Sapienza; but even wisdom is only to be obtained by legitimate means.' (Laughter.) With regard to the blockade, the French Minister, at any rate, considered that we had been doing what was equivalent to a blockade.

Lord Lansdowne explained, that our claim to the two islands had formed no part of the peremptory claim which the British Minister and the British Admiral were then enforcing. That question, it was admitted, must be the subject of further explanations.

Lord Aberdeen admitted that, if the fact were so, his observations about the cession of the two islands had no application.

Lord Brougham threw some ridicule on the insignificance of the