say, Here is your ancient and faithful ally that is attacked?' Did he say, Here is a power attacked which we are interested in defending?' No. Mr. Pitt knew well enough he must have known from his father that there was no sort of alliance between this country and Turkey, and never had been; but he said this, 'We have established a new system in Europe'-and he prided himself upon it 'Prussia forms a main part of that system, and, for the interest of Prussia, we must prevent the pro posed aggression of Russia upon Turkey.' Mr. Pitt was not the only person who used this language at that time; but neither Mr. Pitt, nor any of his friends, ever spoke of Turkey at that time as our 'ancient ally.' Mr. Burke, too, spoke thus of our ancient and faithful ally the Turk. I have never before heard it held forth that the Turkish empire has ever been considered as any part of the balance of power in Europe. They had nothing to do with European power; they considered them selves as wholly Asiatic. Where is the Turkish resident at our court, the court of Prussia, or of Holland? They despise and contemn all Christian princes, as infidels, and only wish to subdue and exterminate them and their people. What have these worse than savages to do with the powers of Europe, but to spread war, destruction, and pestilence, amongst them? The ministers and the policy which shall give these people any weight in Europe, will deserve all the bans and curses of posterity.' Very strange language this in an English House of Commons, regarding an ancient and faithful ally! This mighty master proceeds. All that is holy in religion, all that

is moral and humane, demands an abhorrence of every thing which tends to extend the power of that cruel and wasteful empire. Any Christian power is to be preferred to these destructive savages.' I do not mean to say that I approve of the sentiments here expressed. I do not quote them as rules for the guidance of your lordships; but I bring them, as evidence to the fact, and for the purpose of showing that the Turk was not considered by public men as the ancient ally of Great Britain. In truth, the first alliance really made with Turkey by this country, was an alliance formed in the year 1798 or 1799, in consequence of the invasion of Egypt by the French, who have often been reproached with being, though they never ac knowledged that they were, an ancient ally of the Ottoman empire. When they invaded Egypt, and not before, we entered into a treaty of alliance with the Porte. My lords, I have looked into that treaty this very evening, and I am surprised to find that, so far from its being a treaty of alliance formed for the mutual interests of Turkey and England as against the rest of the world, or as connected with commerce, so far from being a treaty of alliance, formed for the protection of the Turkish empire against its immediate invaders, it is a treaty of alliance, on the invitation of an old and natural ally, the emperor of Russia, to enter, for the first time, into an alliance with the Turk. The words of the first article are: His Britannic majesty, connected already with his majesty the emperor of Russiu by the ties of the strictest alliance, accedes by the present treaty, to the defensive alliance which has just been concluded between his

majesty the Ottoman emperor and the emperor of Russia, as far as the stipulations thereof are applicable to the local circumstances of his empire, and that of the Sublime Porte.' Thus, all the alliance which we then made with Turkey was made at the express request of Russia. This treaty of alliance itself, too, was limited in its duration to seven years; and, strange to say, long before these seven years had expired, Turkey had broken all the main articles of that treaty which bound it to remain at peace with Russia. It broke them, too, in so far as they related to our selves. By the treaty, Turkey was to have no friends that were not our friends, and was to enter into no relations with those who declared themselves our enemies. But, long before the year 1807, we had occasion to remonstrate against the influence which the agents of Napoleon had acquired in the Divan. That of itself would have been a legitimate cause of war; and three months had not elapsed after the expiry of the treaty, before we were obliged to send a fleet to Constantinople to bring them to reason, and compel them to perform the articles of the treaty with Russia. I do say, then, that Turkey is proved to have been neither an ancient nor a faithful ally. Since that time no alliance has been made. We have preserved the relations of peace and amity, but we have done no more."

His lordship further expressed his disapprobation of the epithet "untoward," as applied in the speech to the battle of Navarino. If it was meant, by "untoward," to cast any blame on the gallant officer who commanded the fleet at Navarino, he would protest against the baseness and ignominy of such

an insinuation, in the most solemn way. If we are to understand from the word "untoward," that it referred to that which happened by accident, and which stood across the object which we had in view

if that were the meaning of it, he must also protest against it. However much he might lament the effusion of blood which had taken place at Navarino-however much he might lament that we had not yet accomplished so great an object as the pacification of two contending countries, and the liberation of Greece that country from which we derive no small portion of all those virtues which exalt and dignify our nature, and to which we owed all that gives life and animation to our debates→→→ however much he might mourn over the deferred hopes of a gallant people-still, if by that word it was meant to say, that the battle of Navarino was an obstacle to the independence of Greece, he could not agree in such views. He looked upon it as a step, and a great step, towards the pacification of Europe: and considered it of more use than a contrary policy could have been in promoting that great and desirable object.

The duke of Wellington maintained, that the epithets, which had excited lord Holland's disapprobation and spirit of research, were, in both instances, fairly and truly applicable. The Ottoman empire, he said, had long been an ally of this country: the Ottoman power was an essential part of the balance of power in Europe; its preservation had been, for a considerable number of years, an object not only to this country, but to the whole of Europe; while the revolutions and changes of possession which

an

had taken place had increased the importance of preserving the Ottoman power as an independent state capable of preserving itself. Its preservation had been essential object to Russia as well as to ourselves. Had it not been for the influence of the councils of this country at Constantinople, the disaster of Napoleon in 1812, which led to the establishment of Europe in its present state, would not have occurred to the extent to which it did occur. As to the designating the battle of Navarino an "untoward" event, the sense in which the epithet was used, was this. Under the treaty it was particularly stated, as one of the stipulations of the alliance, that its operation was not to lead to hostilities, and that the contracting powers were to take no part in hostilities. Therefore, when unfortunately the operations under the treaty did lead to hostilities, it certainly was an untoward occurrence. The former govern ment had expected to accomplish its object without hostilities; this was manifest both from the treaty itself, and from their providing such a force for the execution of the measure as rendered it almost impossible that there should be hostilities. That being the case, when the measures of the late government assumed the character of hostilities, instead of that of peace, it was an untoward event. As he understood, moreover, that there was some prospect, after the intelligence of the conflict reached Constantinople, that it might have ended in war, it was, in that sense, too, an untoward event. Yet assuredly it was not meant to make any charge against the naval commander. His majesty, and his late government, who had had the

gallant admiral's conduct under their consideration, had wholly acquitted him of blame; and he (the duke of Wellington) certainly had no right to come forward and say that the gallant admiral had done otherwise than his duty to his king and his country. I will say, said his Grace, that the gallant admiral was placed in a very delicate and peculiar situation. He was in command of a squadron of ships, acting in conjunction with admirals of other nations, and he so conducted himself as to acquire their confidence, and to induce them to allow him to lead them to victory. This being the case, I should feel myself unworthy of the high situation which I hold in his majesty's councils, if I were capable of uttering a single word against the gallant admiral. Meaning, as I did, that the government should carry the treaty fairly into execution, it would be highly blameable in me to insinuate a against a man who was charged with the execution of difficult orders under that treaty.

censure

Earl Grey, the marquis of Lansdown, and lord Goderich, all agreed, that, whatever might have been the character of the conflict at Navarino, no blame could attach to the admiral who commanded. The marquis of Lansdown said, that, on the intelligence of the affair reaching this country, it was found that further information was wanted. That information had been supplied; and, being supplied, it had shown that sir Edward Codrington was entitled to the warm approbation of the government and of the country. In regard to the conflict itself, although it was no doubt an unfortunate occurrence, in as much as it occasi oned the destruction of life, and led

to those consequences which always tended to alienate friendly powers, yet he should be ashamed not to declare that it would be childish to have expected, that, when an armed interference had been determined on by treaty, it could take place without the risk of war. War no doubt was not to take place, if the objects of the intervention could be effected without it; but the consequences of opposition must have been foreseen by those who framed the protocol and the treaty of London. There was no meaning in establishing a hostile intervention, unless we were prepared to encounter all the consequences which might result from it, melancholy as they might be. Earl Grey could not help considering the event as an untoward and most unfortunate one; for war was the issue to which it might naturally have been expected to lead and lord Eldon could not see how the epithet of "untoward" could be denied to hostilities taking place in the face of two treaties, one of which aimed at the re-establishment of peace, and the other provided that hostilities should not be committed.

The address was agreed to without a division.

66 a

haps misplaced; and he assured the House that lord Liverpool confided cordially in the new administration, was persuaded that it embodied all the interests to which he had himself been so long attached, and approved of it as containing many, if not all, the distinguished persons, with whom he had himself been so closely connected. The debate, if so it might be termed, regarded principally the state of our relations with Turkey, and the changes which had taken place in the government. Mr. Brougham said, that he wished at once to record his dissent from that paragraph of the speech which designated the affair of Navarino as an occurrence to be lamented, but which he would term glorious, brilliant, decisive, and immortal achievement." It had been reserved, he said, for some of the men of these times, to triumph and to be afraid-to conquer and to repine-to fight, as heroes did, the contest of freedom, and still to tremble like slaves-to act gloriously, and repine bitterly -to win by brave men the battle of liberty in the east, and, in the west, to pluck from the valiant brow the laurels which it had so nobly earned, and plant the cypress in their stead, because the conqueror had fought for religion and liberty. He hailed as a bad omen the designation of a great naval achievement as an "untoward event." He complained of this passage, on the part of certain honourable gentlemen, who formed a portion of the late, as they did of the existing administration, but who were not present to state their sentiments with reference to this point. The censure, which it contained, was directed either against Mr. Grant and Mr. Huskisson, who

are

had formed part of the last ministry as they did of this, or against the gallant officer who was employed on this important occasion. "In this dilemma," exclaimed Mr. Brougham, "in this dilemma, my Lord Field Marshal Duke of Wellington and Prime Minister, you placed; out of this dilemma, not your finest manœuvres, not your most accomplished movements, be they ever so bold, ever so nimble, ever so well constructed, will be sufficient to extricate you. Either you blame Mr. Huskisson or Mr. Grant, or there is no blame whatever imputed by you to them. In that case the blame is all meant on the other side: it is directed against those who fought this glorious battle, against those who led our gallant seamen to victory. They must be the objects of blame, if Mr. Grant and Mr. Huskisson are not." The learned member forgot that his dilemma was harmless, because the cabinet on the one hand, and the admiral on the other, did not exhaust its conditions, and because the phrase that was used implied no censure at all. The battle of Navarino might be an untoward, a very untoward event, and yet neither the one nor the other be blamed, or intended to be blamed. The word is one which refers merely to the consequences of an occurrence, not to the moral dispositions of the actors who have borne a part in it. And so long as nobody could have been surprised, had Turkey declared war against the friendly powers, who burned her fleet, by way of manifesting the absence of all hostile intentions, so long could those, who desired the continuation of peace, give the battle of Navarino no other epithet than 'untoward-if they refrained from marking it by a somewhat harsher appellation.

As to the new administration, Mr. Brougham declared he would look to its measures, not to its members; and if the former were good, the latter would receive from him as hearty and active a support as if he were sitting among them. But there was one circumstance connected with the present administration, to which he felt a very great degree of objection. He alluded to the commander-in-chief of the army having been placed, by his sovereign at the head of the government. No man valued more highly than he did the illustrious services of the noble duke, as a soldier. But, though he entertained the highest opinion of the noble duke's military genius, still he did not like to see him at the head of the finances of the country, enjoying all the patronage of the crown,-enjoying, as he did enjoy, the full and perfect confidence of his sovereign,-enjoying the patronage of the army,-enjoying the patronage of the church, and, in fact, enjoying almost all the patronage of the state. To the noble duke also was intrusted the delicate function of conveying constant and confidential advice to the ears of his royal master. As a constitutional man, this state of things struck him as being most unconstitutional. He was, indeed, told, that the noble duke was a person of very great vigour in council, and that his talents were not confined to the art of war. It might be so; but that did not remove his objections against the noble duke's being placed in possession of such an immense mass of civil and military influence. It was said, that the noble duke was incapable of speaking, in public, as a first minister of the crown ought to do. Now, he conceived