During the summer of this year there was a prospect of {388}war with France on account of certain claims which England had against Greece that had been acknowledged, but never settled. Matters were brought to a crisis by an English admiral, who stationed himself off the Piræus, and prevented a Greek vessel from leaving. France and Russia took offence at this; but the first notice England had of such being the case was when, at the levee given on the queen's birthday, the ambassadors of the two countries failed to appear. This event led to one of the most remarkable debates that ever took place in the English parliament. A question arose as to whether the Whig ministry, then in power, were free from censure in their dealings with the Greek government. Lord Palmerston, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, was put upon trial, as it were, with some of the most powerful of the representatives opposed to him. But he was undaunted. His speech on the occasion was considered a masterpiece. He explained the whole course of his policy, and ably defended it. The stand he took was one that appealed to the citizenship of the nation; for he contended that he had been prompted in his actions by a determination to protect the rights of even the poorest claimant to the name of Englishman against foreign oppression. He spoke for five hours without a note, a pause, or a sign of fatigue, and held even his adversaries spell-bound with wonder and admiration. His success was complete. "No man," said Mr. Gladstone next day, "had listened with greater admiration than himself, while from the dusk of one day to the dawn of the next he defended his policy, before a crowded House of Commons, in that gigantic, intellectual, and physical effort." This, it must be remembered, was the generous remark of an opponent. Such another was made by Sir Robert Peel, who described Lord Palmerston's {389}defence as "that most able and most temperate speech, which made us proud of the man who delivered it, and in which he vindicated with becoming spirit, and with an ability worthy of his name and place, that course of conduct which he had pursued." Lord John Russell and Mr. Disraeli followed Sir Robert Peel in the debate, which terminated, after four nights, in the complete triumph of the ministry. This does not prove, however, that the laws Palmerston had enforced were just, or even that the members of the cabinet who defended his action thought so. In private they condemned it; but for reasons which it would be difficult to explain to those not versed in diplomacy they felt bound to stand by the ministry. However, Lord John Russell, who defended the policy of Palmerston, declared that it would be impossible to remain in office with him.