1

his intention to postpone his motion respecting the Dardanelles, which stood for that evening; as he (lord Binning) should be compelled to postpone the further consideration of the distillery business to Monday, in case the bonourable gentleman should press his motion for that evening.

Mr. Taylor replied, that whatever rumour might have prevailed, it was wholly unauthorized by him, as it was his intention to prosecute then the motion of which he had so long given notice, and which he had been so often induced to postpone.

Lord Binning then expressed his intention of postponing the business which had occupied the house last night, till Monday next.

Mr. Ponsonby objected to that arrangement, and complained of the very unsettled mode in which the business was conducted; so much so, that gentlemen were not certain of what would or would not come before the house till they were some time present, and generally not until after a formal debate and division decided what was to come on. He more especially objected to Monday, as there was another business of importance fixed for that day besides, it had been generally understood that there would be no delay in the further consideration of what occupied the attention of the house last night, and what still engrossed the undivided interest of the public.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not see what ground the right honourable gentleman bad of complaint. The distillery question was acknowledged upon all sides to be of the last importance, and there should be as little delay as possible in deciding upon it. If the honourable member (Mr. Taylor) persisted in his motion, that question could not come on to-night, and Monday was the next earliest opportunity of bringing it before the house.

Mr. Taylor persisting in pressing his motion for thisnight, it was then understood that the distillery business should come on on Monday next.

Mr. Claudius Beresford observed, that delay would be mischievous, not only from the inconvenience it might occasion, but from the speculations that would be entered into, owing to the smallness of the majority. Sir John Newport agreed in this. Mr. Barham thought unnecesary delay highly improper, but the delay till Monday

he considered as extremely fortunate, for he imagined it would be physically impossible for those who had attended till five o'clock in the morning, could that night go again into the whole of the matter. It was fixed, that the subject should again come under discussion on Monday.

EXPEDITION TO THE DARDANELLES.

Mr. Taylor rose to move his promised resolutions respecting the expedition to the Dardanelles, but from the manner in which his speech was delivered, it was impossible, with the utmost attention, to catch more of it than suffices for a mere summary. He began by observing, 'that from the public notice which this expedition, with all the circumstances connected with it, had excited, it was necessary that some inquiry should be instituted con cerning it, a thing equally due to those who had ordered it, and those to whom the execution had been entrusted. He stated, that before having seen these papers, he was rather inclined to think favourably at least of the object of the expedition; but he was now of opinion that it was founded neither in justice nor policy. In order to prove the injustice of the expedition, he entered upon the consideration of the nature of the connection between this country and the Porte, and said, that the only ground we had for interference, was, the treaties of 1798, between Russia, England, and the Porte, the obligation of which treaties had become void by the peace of Amiens, after which any right we or the Russians had to sail in the Turkish seas ceased. The Russians had only acquired a right to pass from the Black Sea in single ships, for the purpose of throwing supplies into the Ionian republic, which right was to be at an end when that republic should be settled; and it did end when the whole fell into the power of Buonaparte; and he contended, that our negotiations to reconcile the Porte and Russia, ought to be carried on at Petersburg, rather than at Constantinople, the Russians having been the aggressors. The honourable gentleman then proceeded to consider the policy of the expedition, and maintained that it was extremely unwise for any trifling object to alienate from us the minds of the Turks, who had been extremely well disposed to. us. In order to prove that this was the case, he read a variety

of documents, proving the favourable disposition of the Turks, Mamalukes, and Arabs, in Egypt, and through out the Ottoman empire; observing at the same time, that the persons at the head of the Turkish government were no less favourably disposed towards us than the people. He also found fault with the way in which the orders for the execution of this enterprize had been arranged. By passing the Dardanelles, which we had no right to do, we had commenced hostilities before negotia tion. The ambassador had been unwisely trusted with ' too much discretionary power. The attack on the Turkish ships was an useless object; the number of ships was not equal to the enterprize; and lord Collingwood ought to have been allowed to choose any officer he pleased, to conduct the expedition. With respect to the expedition to Alexandria, he had not been able to see its object and policy, and it had been so mismanaged as to bring dishonour upon the British arms. He concluded by moving a resolution, that his majesty's fleet under sir John Duckworth had appeared before Constantinople on the 20th of February, 1807, and continued there for ten days without doing any thing; and that it was the opinion of the house, that arrangements bad not been made by the then ministry adequate to the occasion.

Mr. Grenville expressed his satisfaction, that after the many delays which had taken place, the accusations against the hate ministers had at length been made in a manner that rendered them tangible, and enabled those to whom the resolution applied, to meet and answer the charges against them. He was so far from complaining of inquiries of this nature, that he thought it one of the most valuable parts of the constitution, that those who bad been entrusted with important offices should be called upon to give an account of their conduct in the charge that had been committed to them. He was not only ge nerally well satisfied that this power of inquiry should exist, and he exercised, but both he and his colleagues were gratified that this inquiry had been ins'ituted, from the conviction that they would be able to give such a sa tisfactory account of their conduct as would root out any undue impressions that might have been created, and set at rest the insinuations and unfounded accusations that VOL. III.-1508,

Р

had occasioned them. As far as he understood those members of the present government who had at all spoken respecting this inquiry, they disclaimed all participation in its institution; but when proposed they assented to it, and agreed to produce the papers. In doing so, he thought they pursued a right and judicious course. If he had to complain of them at all, it was because their conduct had not been so consistent in this respect as it ought to have been. For though they did not institate the inquiry, they had made insinuations and brought forward arguments on collateral subjects, which it was impossible, in such a situation, to combat. When persons in high situations make insinuations of this nature, an impression must unavoidably be produced; because those against whom they are directed are precluded, at the moment, from giving the proper answer. He alluded particularly to the hasty and ungoverned language that had been sometimes used, with a view, perhaps, to procure a momentary advantage in debate: he could not ascribe it to deliberate intention, for he could not do so without supposing motives for it to exist, which it was not in his nature or disposition to impute to the gentlemen opposite; and which, if he could conceive to exist, he could not describe in terms that would be suited to the usage of the house. But was it decent in the secretary of state, who ought to have been better informed, to say, that a requisition had been made at Petersburg for a diversion in the south of Europe, both by troops and ships, and that only one of these had been sent? Though this had been thrown out in the hurry of debate, and for the sake of a momentary impression, he must have been convinced in his cooler moments, that this was not the fact. He had no occasion for argument to prove this, for no one could read the papers without seeing clearly that the expedition had nothing to do with any requisition at Petersburg, but that it arose out of the negotiations of Mr. Arbuthnot at Constantinople.

Having stated thus much generally, he would follow the honourable gentleman as well as he could in the topics which he had touched upon; though he should find it difficult to go so far as under some circumstances he would have thought right; for without any disrespect to him, he doubted whether his arguments were likely to operate on any great character in the house and till he

saw that any other man adopted his line of argument, he should not think it necessary to enter into the discussion so minutely as he otherwise would do, and he founded this on the papers now before the house. Though the honourable gentleman had said, that until the papers were produced, he had been disposed to consider the expedition as a just one; yet it ought not to be forgotten, that when the subject had been first broached, he had been obliged to complain of the terms of violence and reproach that had been used when the inquiry was only beginning. The honourable gentleman, however, it appeared, was inclined to alter his opinion upon perusing the papers; and yet he should have thought it impossible that any one could read them, and say that either the right or the policy to interfere was questionable. The honourable member said, that the only right to interfere was founded on the triple alliance of the 5th of January, 1799. He considered that as the origin and foundation of the connection between the Porte and Great Britain; without adverting to the fact, that the treaty in question respected a long course of negotiation for peace and alliance between Great Britain, the Porte, and Russia. With this object in view, the peace of Jassy had been concluded between Russia and the Porte under the influence of Great Britain. He would not fatigue the house in going through the circumstances attending the triple alliance, for he thought no one could read the treaty, with the comments of Mr. Arbuthnot and lord Howick, without being convinced of our right to interfere with arms in our hands. The honourable gentleman had fallen into a mistake in concluding, that because he could not find documents to justify a right, such documents were not to be found. If the honourable gentleman had consulted any good collection of treaties, he would have found that by which the right of the Russians to send ships to the Ionian islands was specifically acknowledged; and the right once exist, ing, the guarantee was perfectly justified in interfering to protect it. We had therefore certainly a right to support Russia, and the late ministers exercised it in pursuance of that wise policy that had been adopted both by their predecessors and successors, viz. the keeping up a connection between Russia, the Porte, and this country. The right honourable gentleman declared that it was not his intention to weary the house by reading documents. He