pounds and has but twenty, if he lays that twenty out in a lottery ticket, with the hopes of being thereby enabled to pay off the whole forty? The chances in this case are, in my opinion, still greater against us." No

thing venture nothing have," is a saying, which, like almost every other good saying, is frequently abused in the application; for, the chances against success may be so great as to render it madness to venture, or rather, to render it no venturing at all, failure being inorally certain; and such appears to me to be the prospect of this expedition. I should suppose, now, that this scheme must have originated with some Frenchman: a Frenchman not an enemy to England, but whose hatred against Napoleon, and whose implacable thirst for revenge, have totally got the better of his reason. This description of persons are men of enlarged minds, as to matters belonging to war; they talk with great volubility and eloquence upon the subject; and they fre quently succeed in imparting their enthusiasm to others. But, as is usual in such cases, they overlook obstacles and are not very nice as to the facts. When, however, a project has once been proposed or espoused by any part of the cabinet, it gets a footing which it does not easily lose, and from step to step, it proceeds, until reflection, when it comes, if it comes at all, comes too late, though embracing the serious consideration of pecuniary expence, and the more serious consideration of the probable loss of lives. The pecuniary expence of this expedition must be very great. It will be just so much added to the national debt,; it will occasson additional taxes to pay the interest, or it will add to the duration of taxes already imposed; and, of course, it will take from the fruit of the people's labour and the incomes of those whose properly enables them to live without labour. So to take for the service of the nation is just and necessary, but so to take without a fair prospect of rendering such service is not to be justified, and ought not to be excused upon the assertion, that the ministers have done what they thought best; for, in this, as in all similar cases, strict inquiry ought to be made as to the facts and reason upon which the enterprise was determined on. Therefore, if this expedition fail; if it come back without having achieved any thing worthy of the expence and risk, I hope the parliament of Inquiry" will not be wanting in its duty.

SIR FRANCIS BURDETT. Sir-I enclose the Copy of a Letter which seems to me proper for your Register. -Sir, your obedient Servant,-ANTHONY CARLISLE.-Soho-square, June 22d, 1807.

"Sir-I desire to transfer, as my gift,. one thousand pounds, Three per Cent. Consols, in trust for ever, that the yearly interest thereof may be paid to the treasurer or treasurers for the time being, of the Westminster Hospital, of which you are Surgeon; that the said yearly interest may be applied to the yearly purposes of the said Hospital; and desire that the Governors of the said Charity, will be pleased to nominate such persons as trustees for the said transferred sum, who may be willing to undertake such trust, and to whom I make the said transfer, for the purpose above-mentioned. your most obedient humble servant,

Sir;

FRANCIS BURDETT.” Wimbledon, June 19th, 1807. To Mr. Carlisle.

LORD ERSKINE'S SPEECH.

SIRI by accident received from my bookseller here last night, a small pamphlet (published by Phillips) containing Lord Erskine's speech (in the house of lords, April 13th) on the marquis of Stafford's motion relative to the late change of the ministry. Considerable attention is due to this brief and eloquent publication; and as the name of its speaker carries with it great and deserved authority (the greater from his having been but a looker on during the contention); as it may be supposed to concentrate the logical and constitutional force both of the question and the party; as the topic will assuredly be soon again revived; and, as I have no where seen a review by any other person of its ar gument, I hastily send you my own; which, in all other respects, indeed, must be, but in one shall not be, inferior to the subject of its consideration; I mean in IMPARTIALITY; In which, nevertheless, the speech in question has high merit The first and principal passage for consideration is the attempt, in p. 13, to extricate the late ministry from the dilemma of having proposed a measure to the king and to the parliament, which, ali things considered, nothing but a call of im perious duty should have moved them to propose, and of having afterwards abandoned a measure, suggested by such powerful considerations of duty. And here I must own, I felt a pain of disappointment at the subtle distinctions of the speech, propor tioned to the high gratification which I have so often received from the manly, bold, and conclusive reasonings, on other occasions, of the noble speaker. The following are the words, as published :-" It has been asked

in other places, upon what principle the "abandonment could be justified, when the measure was professedly introduced upon the principle of expediency and duty.

146

66

"

narch, a course of measures which were, in his conscience," most strongly expedient" for the country; or, which is the same thing, to pursue a course, which was most strongly inexpedient," a British king might do a great deal of wrong, and a weak king certainly would do so. A king would thus, under the names of other men, be come his own minister; which it is the clear doctrine of the English constitution that HE SHALL NOT BECOME. The PRAC TICE of the British government requires, that the man, whom the king appoints his minister, shall have a weight and a consideration in the country that will acquire him a majority in parliament; and the PRESUMPTION-grounded on all but recent experience is, that such a man, who stands so high in the country, will not act an ignoble part-nor aliow himself to be imposed upon the nation, as the director of a system, of which he is but the dupe, the instrument, or the slave!

My lords, the answer is easy. There is a plain difference between even the "strongest expediency and imperious neces" sity. The first was, all circumstances considered, not sufficient to make it such a point of duty, as to abandon the govern"ment rather than the measure: but the "second would have rendered that duty in"dispensable."-Now, for the life of me, and with every deference for the speaker, (and the greater my deference, the greater my disappointment,) I can see in this nothing but a HYPER-DISTINCTION; an attempt to discriminate entirely away the duty and the independance of a MINISTER OF THE COUNTRY; for I object to the SLAVISH style, 66 HIS MAJESTY'S SERVANTS." I do not know that a "servant can be supposed responsible for his acts (civilly speaking) to any one unless his master. But an Eng'lish minister, that is, the executive officer of an English king, is RESPONSIBLE TO THE COUNTRY, is responsible to the representatives of the people, in parliament, both for his acts and his advice! And ought to be so for it is our affairs he is administring and it is with our taxes he is paid. But to the argument-Now as either affects the duty of a. minister, and the clear course he has to pursue, I can distinguish no difference betwixt the " strongest expediency and imperious necessity." Man is not prescientand not being able to forsee the consequences of neglect (for "There is a tide in the "affairs of men, &c.,") no minister, no man, if responsibility is more than a sound! can in his sane reason be supposed to agree to make himself responsible for the conse quences of the continuance of a train of measures, which the "STRONGEST EXPE

:

DIENCY", in his opinion, requires should be altered. For what is responsibility? It is not, that the punishment of an individual can atone to a nation for a gross injury to its interests; or that the individual minister has entered into a recognizance in so many thousand pounds to preserve the welfare of the country since no individual, either by his funds, or his punishment, can make national reparation. But it consists in the presumption, that no man, of honor or character, or even of prudence, will allow himself to stand RESPONSIBLE for the course of public affairs, when he is not permitted to direct them. In this consists the true and the only responsibility to the country. And on this strong presumption is grounded the doctrine of the English constitution, that the king. can do no wrong. For if the minister could be supposed capable of abandoning, in deference to the prejudices or vices of the mo

A more factious, or ambitious man, than the late Lord Chatham, never governed England; but in his character as in his eloquence was something of the great and the sublime. Power was his idol-but not mere office; and when opposed in the cabinet, on a question, in which the vital, or internal safety of England was not involved, viz. on the propriety of immediate hostilities against Spain, he constitutionally retired from it; declaring that he would not be. responsible, where he ceased to direct..

In the following position then I must contend, (in opposition to Lord Erskine,) consists the true ministerial responsibility to the country—that no measure of the STRONGEST EXPEDIENCY" for the public safety, in the opinion and conscience of the minister, shall be withstood by the king, or omitted, at the royal instance, by the ministers. But if the king refuse his sanction to such measure, or such influence be attempted, that the minister of course resigns. Without this as surance, the known principles of the man would not form the slightest ground of confidence for the country, and an English King, like a Roman Emperor, might, with equal satisfaction to his subjects, make his "horse his minister!" In this distinction probably consists the difference between His MAJESTY'S SERVANTS, and His MAJESTY'S MINISTERS! I have hitherto considered only the first case the " STRONGEST EXPEDIENCY;" as endeavoured by Lord Erskine to be discriminated from IMPERIOUS NE"CESSITY;" and whilst, for argument sake, I will admit them to be as different as his lordship can desire, I will presume, I have

་

already shewn, that the difference in the de- | gree of the emergence (for it is no more) makes none in the constitutional duty of the minister. And on this second, or extreme case," the IMPERIOUS NECESSITY," it can scarcely with decency be put even hypothetically, BY A LORD CHANCELLOR, in allusion to his Majesty's difference with his council, that the king in his senses would attempt to over-rule any public measure, which AN IMPERIOUS NECESSITY" -REQUIRED!! And if the king could, under other men's names, continue his own minister until such an IMPERIOUS emergence arrived, or until an indefinite emergence, (which eludes my sight, but which his lordship no doubt sees,) lying somewhere in the region between the " STRONGEST EXPEDIENCY" and "IMPERIOUS NECESSITY," arrived; (but which must nearly equally preclude all disputes.) I repeat, if on every occasion but this, the king or his conscience is to be his own adviser, and any obsequious persons can by the sufferance of an obsequious parliament be obtruded upon the mation as his ministers, there is at once an end of the practice, and of the maxim (which would then be indeed a fiction) of our constitution, "THAT THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG;" for, he would then in fact do all the wrong that was done; except the example of MEANNESS set by his ministers; and that would be their own. With such a (supposed only) parliament, whose majority would follow ANY MINISTERS, as THEY followed the crown, the situation of the country would becomplete:or, if a further improvement could be hoped, it would be that of saving the ex pense both of ministers and parliaments; which, in such a predicament, could be very well dispensed with! Were these my own doctrines, I should esteem them sedi. tious, but they cannot be so when received as the doctrine and direct inferences from the doctrine of a LORD CHANCELLOR; as he is reported in this publication to have altered it in the House of Lords on the 13th of April, 1807.

I however heartily concur with Lord E. in his strictures upon the preposterous nature of the pledge, which the king. required from the late, ministers. But I do not agree with him in thinking, that such a pledge, if we had had a free and reformed House of Commons, (and that we have not we must impute to the tergiversa tion of the late ministry) though, given, could be so far illegal, asever to be dangerous to the country; since the conduct of the -minister, and, in fact, his appointment, must be agreeable to the sense of the House of groter

Commons, if that House was the organ of the nation, and rigidly held the strings of the public purse. In page 15, Lord E asks "what more could they (the ministry) pos"sibly do, than unanimously to abandon "the whole measure, when the misconcep"tion was discovered?" I will answer him. When the ministry found, that the king had misconceived them, they also found, that they had misunderstood the king; and they should then in every constitutional view of a fitness of conduct bare withdrawn-not their measure-but themselves; as I have elsewhere observed.—With regard to the king's having been secretly ADVISED to change his ministers (p. 17 and 18), I esteem the argument a sophistry, if any responsibi hty is intended to be aimexed to the term, advice. The king's ministers are his sole responsible advisers. There is no evidence in this pamphlet, that the late ministers had the smallest intention of advising the king to dismiss themselves. On the contrary, they had no objection for the good of the country, in its very critical situation, to have kept their places.-The king's act, in their disna ssal, was consequently his own, and ever must be so, and is so constitutionally, and necessarily. If such change is disagreeable to the country, let the House of Commons shew it in its votes; all I say is, that the king's change of his ministers can never be an advised, nor an unconstitutional measure. I agree, however, wholly with Lord E. that it is a farce to suppose that the provisions of the bill grazed any part of the royal conscience; indeed, nothing could be so innocent, as the bill; unless that it certainly tended (and was so far good) to give a stimulus to honourable ambition, and to devote the whole man to an adventurous and perilous profession, which now only has a part of the man': for it cannot have HIS MIND. If there could have been a doubt upon the subject of the king's conscience in regard to the bill, your dissertation 3 weeks ago on the Bill of Rights, Act of Settlement, &c. &c. has set it at rest completely, and for ever. Lord E's. remarks to this point, are also very valuable and conclusive.-In p. 25, there is someting sophistical, but arising out of the doctrine of the constitution, for whose entire conguity Lord E. cannot be held responsible, His words are "when he (the king) delivers the seals of office to his officers of state, his conscience, as it regards the state, accompa"nies them." He then proceeds” That

་་

Black Sea is allowed to the ships of other nations, there exists no method of averting the dangers thus threatened, and of preserv ing good order, because the enemy can conceal their artifices and frauds under the flags of Neutral Nations. For all these reasons, the Canal of the Black Sea shall be henceforth and continue to be shut until the termination of the present war, or until (notwithstanding the continuance of the war) circumstances no longer require such a precaution. It is hoped that the vessels of friendly powers, which had formerly permission to pass freely through the Black Sea, will not act contrary to this general prohibition. It is merely a precaution dictated from the circumstances of the moment. The Sublime Porte is convinced that this conduct will be approved of by every Power allied to it; and when it pleases God to restore peace, or even during the continuance of the war, if circumstances permit, the communication of the Black Sea will be immediately opened as formerly. As the commander of the Turkish fleet, as also the commanders of the Castles at the mouths of the Black Sea, have received orders to prevent all ships from passing, the Minister of the Porte thinks it his duty, by the Official Note, to acquaint the resident Ministers of Foreign Powers with the circumstance, in order that they may in their turn communicate it to all whom it may concern. Given on the 8th of the month Zilkade in the year of the Hegira 1221 (January 17, 1807.)

Manifesto of the Porte against Russia. From the remotest periods, human society has been indebted for the security and tranquillity it has enjoyed to the conscientious observance displayed by nations of their treaties and conventions, and those Powers who have acted contrary to this conscientious adherence, constantly bring disorder and confusion into the harmony of the whole. Every lawful Sovereign is at liberty, when he pleases, to break with another power, but not before he has considered with the utmost attention the steps which ought to be taken in similar circumstances. The Russian court has long usurped a superiority in order to oppress the neighbouring powers, and all her endeavours have been directed to break through her treaties. Her avarice, the perfidy with which she constantly interrupts the peace of nations, and her hostile designs against the Ottoman empire, are universally known.-The Court of St. Petersburgh has always confessed the value of that friendly disposition which the Porte has

on all occasions evinced; and yet she has returned this kindness with the basest ingratitude. Among other instances it may be mentioned, that by the Treaty of 1188 of the Hegira, Russia had no jurisdiction over the Crimea, yet as she resorted to every possible artifice to usurp possession of that province, and at length in time of peace, she marched a numerous army, and invested herself with the full sovereignty of the province. Into the political and civil occurrences in Georgia, which was under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Sceptre, the Rus sian Court has for a long time obtruded her self by a thousand intrigues, and has at last invested herself with the sovereign authority of that province also, without the smallest pretensions. The Consuls who were station. ed in the Turkish cities, have been in the prac tice of seducing the subjects of the Porte from their allegiance. By this conduct they have abused the freedom of navigation, which was permitted them for the purpose of trading only, and they have embarked a great number of Turkish subjects in Russian vessels, and sent them off for Russia.— These Consuls also gave patents to the Turkish subjects, and flags to the ships of the Islands in the Archipelago, being cities of the Ottoman Empire; and thus attempted in a most unlawful manner to possess themselves of immense numbers of Turkish vessels and subjects. It was to be hoped, that as friendship was again restored, by a Treaty of Alliance between Russia and the Sublime Porte, the former would abstain from her perfidious conduct: on the contrary, she contrived, out of this new league, a still more daring method of displaying her malignant designs. With the vain-glorious idea of exciting a general insurrection, in order to spread domestic disturbances, even in the cities of her allies, she seduced the subjects of Servia from their allegiance; and as she furnished them with money and ammunition, she was, in fact, their support and leader.-Upon a single occasion only, the Russians had been permitted to transmit provisions to their troops at Tifles; the Sublime Porte, out of respect to their Allies, delayed not a moment in issuing the requisite firman. Scarcely had the Russians received this permission, when they em barked upon the Phasis numerous bodies of troops, with cannon, and other implements of war, by means of which they seized upon the Castle of Anacava, and as they have now fortified it, they have shewn plainly their base designs.

To be continued: