6th of February, however, the right honourable secretary had come down to the house himself, for the purpose, as he stated, of vindicating his own character, and moved for the production of those very papers, which, on the 3d of February, he contended could not be disclosed with safety, and the production of which, on the 8th of February, he had resisted on another: so that, according to Mr. Canning, the public convenience and safety were not to be put in the balance with his personal feelings and interests! The reading of extracts on the 3d of February, was not preparatory to a proceeding, but on the very model of a proceeding that was to terminate in adjudication. And it was upon this ground that he pronounced the secretary Canning's conduct to be wholly irregular and highly censurable. If a libel was published on any member of the house, he might move that the libel should be read in the house; but the house would not grant any proceedings upon the libel till it was on their table. That this practice had been invariably adhered to, and that it was irregular in debate to quote any paper which had not been regularly submitted to parliament, Mr. Adain proved by many precedents, and a uniform analogy. But if there were no precedent for what he was about to propose, he reminded the house, that the circumstances were also altogether novel, and on this ground be hoped, that that the house would create a precedent. Mr. Adam having pointed a great variety of prejudicial consequences that might arise from the practice of quoting partial extracts, if not checked,

Vot. L

concluded with moving the following resolutions:

"That it appears to this house, that one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state did read to this house dispatches and other commu nications to and from the accredited ministers of this country at foreign courts, relative to the subjects of their mission; and that he has stated and read other matters respecting the transactions of this country with foreign powers, none of which were communicated to this house by his majesty's commands, and some of which this house has determined to be unfit to be produced.

"That such conduct is subversive of the ancient and approved usages of parliament, is destructive of fair discussion and decision, and has a direct tendency to injure the public interest, by making the reso lutions of this house proceed on inaccurate statements, which it cannot correct by reference to the documents from which those statements are made; or to force on the consideration of this house, papers which, in its wisdom, it may deem unfit for public production.

"And further, that such conduct is contrary to the trust reposed by the constitution in the confidential servants of the crown."

Mr. Canning spoke at considerable length in his own defence. The substance of his speech was, a statement of precedents for quoting partial extracts on the part of former ministers; an inquiry into some of the statements that had

been made by Mr. Adam; and a claim to the right of using, as one of his majesty's ministers, a discretionary power. Was the honour[F]

able

able and learned gentleman, who had moved the resolutions, prepared to say that no information was given to parliament, but that which came in the more regular and authentic shape of a message from his majesty? In this case, uo minister could ever afford satisfactory information to either house of parliament. But, it might be said, the question might be fair, but the answer not correct! How was correctness, or incorrectness, in such a case, to be judged of? Was it proper to tell whence you borrowed the intelligence? Through what channel it came? Was it to be communicated by extract or in detail? To all these modes of communication objections were started, yet no reason had been started, why one should be preferred to another. By partial statements, it was said, great mischief might be committed, and much injury done, to our diplomatic agents. To a detail of the information, equally strong objections were offered. What, then, could be the guide of a minister's conduct, but his own discretion? And where could that discretion reside, but with the very person whose discretion the learned and honourable gentleman moved resolutions to criminate? Mr. Canning, having concluded his speech, withdrew, not thinking himself competent to vote when a criminal charge was brought against his own conduct. A debate ensued, in which Mr. Adam's motion was supported by Mr. Windham and Mr. Whitbread; and opposed by the chancellor of the exchequer, lord Castlereagh, and Mr. Sturges Bourne. Mr. Adam replied to all the arguments that had been used against his motion, and insisted that the conduct of the

right honourable secretary, which he called in question, was against the usage of parliament: that this was proved by its never appearing to have been the practice of the house, and by its being checked each time when it was resorted to. As to modern practice, whatever it might be, he cared not, because that did not defeat the ancient usage founded on the principles that formed the common law of the country, the practice of the house, and the acquiescence of the people. And he contended, that his doctrine was confirmed and established by the entries of the 8th of February, which he had read to the house, the only entries of the sort to be found on their journals. He was perfectly satisfied that he had discharged a most important duty in bringing this most important law and constitution of parliament into discussion; both to counteract the entries on the journals, and to check a course of proceeding which placed the means of swaying the decisions and acts of that house, by misrepresenting facts, and by withholding and detaining the evidence of them entirely in the bands of the ministers of the crown. On the previous question, which had been moved by the chancellor of the exchequer, the house di vided; Ayes 168-Noes 67.

While the great question respect ing our seizure of the Danish fleet, and in consequence of this, as was alledged by the members of parlia ment in opposition to the present ministers, the alienation and hostility of the emperor Alexander to this country, was the grand topic the attention of parliament was also called to the late unfortunate expedition to the Dardanelles, and to Alexandria,

Alexandria. This subject, however, was not brought into discussion as a party measure, or a movement of either ministerial or antiministerial tactics; but by a gentleman who appears to have been unconnected with any party. Though the expedition to the Dardanelles was thought by Mr. Canning, and other speakers on his side of the house, au excellent Argumentum ad hominem, and had become a kind of standing joke, neither the justice nor the policy of an attack on Copenhagen, could possibly be evinced by the injustice, impolicy, or bad management of the expedition against Constantinople. Still less disposed, it may be presumed, were the late ministers to recall that miserable attempt to the attention of the legislature and the public. Yet they were not altogether displeased that it was brought under review, because it afforded an opportunity of shewing clearly in what it differed from the attack on Copenhagen, with which ministerialists af fected to confound it, in every respect, except its want of success. In the debate of February 8th, on the subject of the Baltic expedition, Mr. Whitbread expressed great satisfaction and gladness, that the business of the Dardanelles was soon to come on, when he feared a great source of Mr. Canning's drollery, always laughable, if not always very dignified, would be entirely removed. Other gentlemen expressed, on different occasions, the same sentiment.

House of Commons, Feb. 15.Mr. Taylor rose, pursuant to notice, to move for papers necessary to convey a proper understanding of the particulars connected with the expedition to the Dardanelles

and to Alexandria. The frequent references to these transactions in the discussions on the affair of Copenhagen, to which they had been assimilated in principle, rendered a more particular investigation of them necessary. But it was not merely to estimate the right and propriety of these attacks on neutral powers, that the papers he was about to move for ought to be before the house. By these attacks we were involved in a war with Turkey, and no communication whatever had been made to parliament on the subject. It was no private or party motive that had induced him to bring forward this motion. He was not connected with any party, and he had communicated with only one or two members on the subject. Having for a short time been resident in Turkey, and conversant with the manners of the people and their political attachments, his attention was naturally engaged by the dispatches of his majesty's ambassador and commanders in the Dardanelles; and with every attention that he was able to give, he could neither discover why the armament went, nor why it had come away. Whatever might be the morality, or the policy of the Copenhagen expedition, it at least afforded a conspicuous example of judicious management, and able execution. When a transaction of that kind was thought by some to call for inquiry, he could not think that a transaction, in which the character of the navy, the favourite service of the country, was brought in question by ill success, ought to be suffered to pass without investigation. These were the motives which induced him to bring this subject before the [F 2].

house,

house. He would abstain from pronouncing any opinion till the papers, which were to guide his judgment, as well as that of the house, should be properly considered. He would, however, enumerate briefly the circumstances of the transaction. The British fleet appeared at the entrance of the Dardanelles, on the 29th of January, 1807, while the British ambassador was still at Constantinople. The British fleet attacked the castles and forced its passage, burning a Turkish frigate. The British fleet remained twelve days before Constantinople, and then came back the same way, without doing any thing further. This situation was one, in which no British officer would wish to remain, or ought to be suffered to remain, without inquiry. The papers he should move for would tend to shew why the British squadron had gone to the Dardanelles, why it had come away, and what had been done there. He moved, that there be laid before the house, a copy of the treaty of alliance, offensive and defensive, between his majesty and the Ottoman porte, signed at Constantinople January 5, 1799, by his majesty's ministers, sir Sidney Smith, and Mr. Spencer Smith; also a copy of any secret article of the said treaty, regulating the passage of the Dardanelles by British ships of war; a copy of a dispatch of lord Elgin, relative to the exchange of the ratifications of the said treaty; a copy of any treaty existing between the Porte and Russia on the 19th January, 1807; copies of the letters of the secretary of state to Mr. Arbuthnot, his majesty's ambassador at Constantinople at the time of the British squadron's proceeding to

that place, and of Mr. Arbuthnot dispatches after the arrival of th squadron; copies of the instruction issued to lord Collingwood, and those issued by him to sir Joh Duckworth, relating to the burnin of a Danish ship in the Dardanelle and copies, generally, of all the co respondence of lord Collingwood and the officers sent by him on th service.

The earl of Temple seconde the motion.

Mr. secretary Canning, afte waiting a few moments to see any one on the opposition benches the side of the house most inte rested in the present question, woul rise to deliver his sentiments, con sidered himself as called on, i consequence of their silence, to stat what he thought necessary on the present motion. The motion, a he had observed on a former occa sion, was brought forward withou his concurrence or knowledge, as had also been stated that night by the honourable mover himself, with whom he had not the honour of a acquaintance. He had no means of ascertaining the nature of the information he meant to call for till the honourable gentleman trans mitted to him that morning a list of the papers he meant to move for. Having gone over the list and stated for the satisfaction of the honourable gentleman who had made the motion, how far it was possible and proper to comply with each of the motions, he declared that, for his own part, he saw n ground for instituting an inquiry under the present circumstances He was not aware of any practica benefit that could arise to the coun try from the investigation proposed But, after what had been said or

the

The other motions, comprehending all letters from lord Elgin, Mr. Arbuthnot, sir Sydney Smith, and the admirals Collingwood, Duckworth, and Lewis, were also put and agreed to. — In addition to these papers, Mr Grenville, February 18, moved, That there be laid before the house, the substance or extracts of the instructions under which his majesty's minister at the Porte was acting, at any time since the commencement of the present war, with respect to the aid to be given to Russia, in any discussions that might arise between that power and the Porte; and especially so far as relates to the instructions, under which he acted, after the formation of the continental confederacy in the year 1805."

Mr. Canning agreed with Mr. Grenville, that the production of that paper was necessary, in order

that the house might be enabled to take a clear view of the subject.—— The motion was then agreed to.

House of Commons, May 20.Mr. Taylor rose, to move his promised resolutions respecting the expedition to the Dardanelles. Iu order to prove the injustice of that expedition, he reviewed the nature of the connection between this country and the Porte. The only ground, he maintained, that we had for interference, was the treaties between Russia, England, and the Porte, the obligations of which treaties had become void by the peace of Amiens. 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 repubIc should be settled. And it did end when the whole fell into the power of Buonaparte. With regard to the policy of the expedition, he thought it was extremely unwise to alienate from us the minds of the Turks, who had been extremely well disposed to us; the truth of which proposition he proved by reading a variety of documents. By passing the Dardanelles, we had commenced hostilities before negotiation. The attack on the Turkish ships was an useless object; the number of ships not being equal to the enterprize. And lord Collingwood ought to have been allowed to choose any officer he pleased for conducting the expedition.--With respect to the expedition to Alexandria, he had not been able to discover its object and policy, and it had been so mismanaged as to bring disgrace on the British arms. He concluded by moving a resolution, "That his majesty's

[F 3]

fleet