'On Tuesday, May 7th, after the Radical Club, at a party at the Harcourts', I learned what the Government intended to do at the Conference or Congress--namely, limit Bulgaria on the south by the Balkans. But I was informed at the same time that they would themselves propose to give Thessaly and Epirus to Greece, an undertaking which I think they did give to the King of Greece, but from which, if so, they afterwards departed. The Greek Patriarch from Constantinople came over at this time, as did the Armenian Patriarch shortly afterwards, and I met both, although conversation with these dignitaries was not easy, for their French was about as feeble as my Greek; but through Gennadius I, of course, knew the views of the Greeks, and in the Armenian question I took no special part.' The question of employing the Indian troops was debated on May 20th. Lord Hartington opened; and Sir Charles replied to Sir Michael Hicks Beach, who followed Lord Hartington. Concerning the discussion, he says: 'The technical point which we argued was a narrow one. Had Cyprus been in Asia, our arguments would not have applied to Cyprus; and it is very likely that the Government thought Cyprus was in Asia, and did not like to say that they had made a mistake, and having first ordered the troops to Cyprus, and then ordered them to Malta (which was undoubtedly in Europe), had forgotten the distinction. The real objection to the bringing of the Sepoys was the same as the objection to the calling out of the reserves--that it was isolated action, and that these military measures and the expenditure which they involved were mere bunkum, and mere waste if the Government intended to give up, as they were secretly telling Russia they did intend to give up, the main points of dispute. Moreover, Russia could do us hurt in India, and Indian troops could not touch her at all.... 'The Government were said to have only "conquered by giving way," for they agreed to put the number of men into the Estimate, and thus avoid making a precedent, according to our contention, absolutely unconstitutional. On the other hand, Lord Beaconsfield's speech in the House of Lords was defiant in the extreme, and Holker's [Footnote: The Attorney-General.] in the Lower House was an assertion of higher prerogative doctrine than had been heard in Parliament since the days of Elizabeth.'