and gentlemen who celebrate the birth-day of Mr. Pitt, as if their festivities had had some connection with his downfall. Mr. Hus kisson forthwith retired for a time to the continent.

Along with Mr. Huskisson went out lord Dudley, lord Palmerston, and Mr. C. Grant; lord Dudley was succeeded as foreign secretary by the earl of Aberdeen: Mr. Huskisson himself was succeeded in the colonial office by sir George Murray; sir H. Hardinge became secretary at war, in place of lord Palmerston; and Mr. V. Fitzgerald was put at the head of the board of trade, in place of Mr. Grant.

Another change in the ministry happened during the autumn, by the duke of Clarence resigning the office of lord high admiral. The reasons of this step were never given

explicitly to the public; but it was generally attributed to some dissatisfaction which the minister was said to have expressed at the frequent costly journeys of his royal highness, and the costly marine shows which were got up in the course of them, both of which were believed to cause a greater outlay of money than any benefit to be derived from such superintendence and formal examinations could be worth. The Admiralty was again put into commission, and lord Melville was reinstated at the head of the board. In Ireland, too, a change of government was rendered necessary towards the close of the year: but as the events occurring in Ireland possessed more than ordinary interest, they will find a more appropriate place in a subsequent part of the volume.

To give time for carrying into

effect the ministerial arrange ments which followed the resignation of lord Goderich, parliament had been prorogued from its appointed day of meeting, till the 29th of January. On that day, the session was opened with the following speech, which was read by the lord chancellor.

66

My Lords and Gentlemen, "We are commanded by His Majesty to acquaint you, that His Majesty continues to receive from all Foreign Princes and States, assurances of their desire to maintain the relations of amity with this country, and that the great powers of Europe participate in the earnest wish of His Majesty to cultivate a good understanding upon all points which may conduce to the preservation of peace.

"His Majesty has viewed for some time past, with great concern, the state of affairs in the east of Europe.

"For several years a contest has been carried on between the Ottoman Porte and the inhabitants of the Greek provinces and islands, which has been marked, on each side, by excesses revolting to humanity. In the progress of that contest, the rights of neutral states and the laws which regulate the

intercourse of civilized nations,

have been repeatedly violated, and the peaceful commerce of His Majesty's subjects has been exposed to frequent interruption, and to depredations too often aggravated by acts of violence and atrocity.

"His Majesty has felt the deepest anxiety to terminate the calamities and avert the dangers inseparable from hostilities which constitute the only exception to the general tranquillity, of Europe. Having been earnestly entreated by the Greeks to interpose his good offices, with a view to effect a reconciliation between them and the Ottoman Porte, His Majesty concerted measures for that purpose, in the first instance with the emperor of Russia, and subsequently with his Imperial Majesty, and the king of France. His Majesty has given directions that there should be laid before you copies of a protocol signed at St. Petersburg, by the plenipotentiaries of His Majesty, and of his imperial majesty the emperor of Russia, on the 4th of April, 1826, and of the treaty entered into between His Majesty and the courts of the Tuilleries, and of St. Petersburg, on the 6th of July, 1827.

"In the course of the measures adopted with a view to carry into

moved by the earl of Chichester. No amendment was proposed. The discussion, which took place, was confined almost exclusively to the state of our relations with Turkey, more especially to the propriety of the epithet "untoward," applied in the speech to the battle of Navarino, and to some lurking indisposition in the new ministers, to carry through the policy of their predecessors,regarding the Ottoman Porte, which the use of that epithet was supposed to manifest. Lord Holland expended a great deal of historical research in fixing a quarrel on the phrase "ancient ally," by which His Majesty had designated the Turkish empire; contending that the Turk could not be termed, in any correct sense of the words, an ally of this country at all, and much less an ancient ally. "The anti-social race," said his lordship, "which now enjoys the throne of the Constantines, considers itself naturally at war with every nation, with which it has not entered into a formal treaty of peace. But can a treaty of peace be fairly considered as a treaty of alliance? The first treaty made between this country and Turkey, I have no doubt, was considered by the Turks as an act of grace and concession, yielded by them, in the plenitude of their power, to those dogs of Christians, the Nazarene nations. The privileges which were granted to our commerce, were obtained from the Porte about 1699, by lord Winchilsea and sir John Finch. But how were they granted? Were the names of lord Winchilsea or sir John Finch subscribed to any treaty which secured them? No such thing. The privileges were granted as we would throw a bone to a dog: they were given, too, for very special reasons,

The first was, because the messages, which Charles II. had sent to the sultan, were of an agreeable nature; the second, because Charles II. was considered to be a very powerful monarch among the Nazarene nations; and the last and most ludicrous was, because the sultan had heard that Charles was the arbiter of the differences among them. For those reasons the sultan granted to our countrymen what was called, by a sort of diplomatic euphonism, certain capitulations, but what I believe to have been called, in the Turkish language, boons or concessions. Those concessions or capitulations-call them by which name you please-were merely commercial: they gave to the subjects of Great Britain the same immunities which had been granted, on the same terms, to the subjects of France. We had, however, no political relations with Turkey, in any sense of the word, until the year 1699. In 1692, we offered our services to mediate between the emperor of Germany and the Turkish power, who were then at war; and we did so, in order to leave our ancient ally, the house of Austria,-for Austria was our ancient ally, and Russia, too, was our ancient ally,-in a situa tion to direct her arms, along with us, against the then colossal power of France. And what was the result of that negotiation? We were accused, by French writers,—— I shall not stop to examine whether rightly or wrongly,-of having exercised our mediation with gross partiality, and with having inflicted by it a severe injury on the Ottoman power. One of the articles in the treaty, into which the Turks entered under our mediation, was to this effect, that they should surrender the whole of the Morea

and of Greece into the hands of the Venetians. So that the result of our first political negotiation with Turkey was, to wrest Greece from its dominion; though, unfortunately, not for ever.-In the year 1718, we again entered into a political negotiation with Turkey; but under circumstances which, I contend, still preclude us from denominating her our ancient ally. It is right, however, to state that, by that treaty, we recognized Turkey as the sovereign of Greece, which a fatal war had enabled her to recover from the Venetians.

"In the war between Germany and Turkey, lord Torrington at tacked and defeated a Spanish fleet, because it was suspected of acting under orders hostile to the interests of the empire. The aggression was blamed as a violation of the law of nations, an unjustifiable outrage against a power with which we were at peace. And how was it defended? The two secretaries of state, lord Stanhope, in the House of Lords, and Mr. Craggs, in the House of Commons, defended it on the ground that the attack, made by Spain upon Germany, when Germany was at war with the Turks, was a species of delinquency which rendered all that had been done justifiable was a sort of aggression against the interests of Christendom and of Europe. Strange language this to hold of an ancient and faithful ally! Mr. Addison, too, who was not only a philosopher, but one of the wisest and best men on the face of the earth, remarked upon the bad effect of the numerous journalists in this country, and the great spirit of writing and read ing politics in the country, and went on to say, that, though there

was no absurdity to which people, by this itch for talking and writing politics, might not be brought, he did not believe it possible that there could be persons in England who could think that we were interested in the prosperity of the Ottoman empire. Therefore, after the two political relations we had with Turkey, in one of which we extorted this very Greece from the Turks, we have the declaration of two secretaries of state, and of another man, afterwards secretary of state, as to the interest which this country has in Ottoman politics. But, what happened afterwards? From that period to the year 1770, I do not know anything of political feeling towards the Turks; nor, indeed, until we come to the memorable debate in this House on the affair of Oczakow. Almost every man who had held office, and had authority, stated, that the opinion of lord Chatham was, that we should never have any kind of connexion whatever with the Ottoman Porte; and that opinion was fortified during the seven years' war by a similar opinion of the king of Prussia. In 1770 our allies, the Russians, sent a great fleet into the Mediterranean, for the purpose of overpowering the Turks. What was the policy of this country? To assist the Russian navy. That fleet was refitted in our harbours, and, with the munitions and implements which it received from us, burnt a Turkish town and fleet, and continued cruising in the Archipelago for no less than five or six years. Then we come to the business of Oczakow. We had an object in preventing Russia from possessing Oczakow. Did Mr. Pitt propose an alliance with Turkey? Did he come down and