were called upon to " rally round the throne of their new Sovereign, to aid him with true devotedness in the work of giving to the state a definitive constitution."

It is evident, therefore, that the interpretation to be given to this term, the "Greek state," is some constitutional authority- -some body representing the Greek nation, independently of the Sovereign, which body does not hitherto exist, and the non-existence of which is a violation of the Treaty, because this body could not execute functions when it was never called into existence; and yet, if the Regency had exhibited symptoms of preparing a constitution, or of calling together any body which might have been called the Greek state, what would have been the opposition of the King of Bavaria may be gathered from our preceding narrative. The non-existence of this body, whilst it shows on the one hand a culpable neglect on the part of the four contracting powers, England, France, Russia, and Bavaria, may, on the other, give the Greeks grounds for resisting the debt altogether.

It is clear, then, that the different Members of the House of Commons, when they talked of the

breach of contract, were wrong in accusing Greece of having been false to her engagements, since Greece, neither in the person of her "Sovereign," nor of the "Greek state," had ever had the opportunity of contracting any engagements whatever. The culpability devolves alone upon the Allied Courts and their Representatives in Greece, who, further, as we have remarked before, failed in an important duty, equally indispensable for the internal good government of Greece, its public credit abroad, and the security of the loan itself; for we hesitate not to assert, that if the Diplomatic Representatives in Greece had fulfilled their duty, the Regency would have been obliged to have framed the annual budget more in conformity with the revenues of the country, and, consequently, would have been obliged to govern Greece more in accordance with the spirit of the nation. Besides, the credit of the country would have been thus unimpaired, and saved from the accusations brought against it by the Russian Minister, whose accusations we thus see in some measure recoil upon himself.

We now come to the resolution proposed by his Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

which is in direct contravention of Article XII. 4o. of the Convention of May the 7th, in which it is stipulated" that the second and the third instalments of the said loan may also be raised, according to the necessities of the Greek state, after previous agreement between the three Courts and his Majesty the King of Greece."

Now, so far from independent action being admissible, as Russia insidiously pretends, there is not a word in the Treaty that gives such a right.

But there are many points necessary to be cleared up: First, as to whether France is with England or with Russia.

It would appear from Lord Palmerston's letter to Lord Durham, intimating that England" would act without the concurrence of her Allies," that France is really siding with Russia. If it had been otherwise, as there is a French Plenipotentiary in London, it would surely have been a more natural proceeding to have sent a joint application to St. Petersburgh on the part of England and France.

Secondly, it would be desirable also to know whether the King of Greece would, or whether he could by his coronation oath, admit of an English

Secretary of State violating an engagement by which was guaranteed the independence, and even existence, of the Greek monarchy.

Has M. Tricoupi, who has hitherto addressed, and been instructed to address, the Representatives of the Conference of London, full powers to address, or confer with, the British Secretary of State separately from the Conference on a matter in which their concurrence is indispensable?

If he has those instructions, why is not his separate application to the King of England laid before Parliament ?

If he has not that authority, the whole proposition of Lord Palmerston falls to the ground, because the arrangements necessary to be made previously have not been entered into.

The previous infractions which we have remarked were grave; for what violation of international engagements must not be so? but the proposed infraction is fraught with consequences of the most serious character, for it altogether contravenes the principle on which not only this treaty, but also the alliance of the three powers respecting Greece, reposes.

Hitherto, the three Powers acted in concert, and

although, like children, they made and unmade, still there was no room for separate action. But here we afford Russia a precedent for independent action, which she has so long courted, and which we have made so many sacrifices to prevent ;sacrifices, too, which were not called for on our part by any stipulations or treaties whatever. Therefore, when Greece is again under the necessity of demanding funds, a necessity which, by the acknowledgment of the Greek Minister, must almost immediately recur, she will have to demand them either from Russia or from France, and these Powers will be able to make separate engagements, as suits their separate or conjoint interests, by which they will be enabled even to destroy every national object for which we combined with those two Powers to secure the independence of Greece.

But we not only afford Russia a precedent for separate and independent action respecting the loan, but on every occasion wr e it may suit her interest. Thus Lord Palmerston's proposition is diametrically opposed to the very principle of the Treaty of July the 6th, which was framed with the intention of preventing Russia, by means of an alliance, from exercising a separate interference