[Footnote 117: [General Lahitte was then French Minister for Foreign Affairs. Sir Thomas Wyse was the British Minister at Athens, who conducted the negotiations there, and regulated the coercive measures of Admiral Parker's squadron.]] [Sidenote: THE GREEK DISPUTE.] _May 22nd._--I have read the long series of despatches published by the French Government, and the result in my mind is that they do not make out a case of breach of faith against our Government, supposing Palmerston's instructions to Wyse to have been in conformity with what was agreed upon between the two Governments here. This (the most essential) part of the case lies in a narrow compass. It was all along perfectly understood that if Gros threw up his mission, being unable to induce the Greek Government to consent to equitable terms, our Minister was at liberty to recommence the coercive measures without any further reference to his Government; but if the negotiation came to a standstill in consequence of Gros and Wyse not being able to agree, then the difference between them was to be referred for the decision of the two Governments upon it, and in this case the coercive measures were not to be renewed. The French maintain that the last of these contingencies occurred, Palmerston contends that it was the first. It is possible that Wyse may have received instructions conformable with this arrangement, and that he may have thought that the course which Gros took brought the case within the former category. This may have been an unsound opinion, but if such was the case it exonerates the British Government from the charge of having violated an engagement to that of France. But in order to make this defence valid, it will be necessary to prove that the instructions given to Wyse were such as the French had a right to expect. It does not appear that these instructions were ever imparted to them. These are minute, however important, points; but emerging from the confusion and perplexity of dates and circumstantial details, the question is, what is the general impression as to the whole conduct of the two Governments, more particularly of our own, throughout the transaction. I reserve the consideration of this till I have seen Palmerston's case as set forth in the papers that are to be laid before Parliament, and in the long and able despatch which he is said to have written in explanation and defence of his conduct.