MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
Parliament reassembled on the 29th of January. It was again opened by commission; and the principal topic in the speech was an allusion to the late naval conflict. It remarked:—“Having been earnestly entreated by the Greeks to interpose his good offices, with a view to effect a reconciliation between them and the Porte, his majesty concerted measures 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 effect the object of the treaty a collision wholly unexpected by his majesty took place in the port of Navarino between the fleets of the contracting powers. Notwithstanding the valour displayed by the combined fleet, his majesty deeply laments that this conflict should have occurred with the naval force of our ancient ally; but he still entertains a confident hope that this untoward event will not be followed by further hostilities, and will not impede that amicable adjustment of the existing differences between the Porte and the Greeks to which it is so manifestly their common interests to accede.” This is the first time in the British annals that a victory is characterized as an “untoward event.” But the men now in power hated Greece and her cause, and were so blinded by admiration of despotic principles, as not to perceive thé advantages which might accrue to Russia in her future projects, from the destruction of the Ottoman navy, and from the lack of confidence which the sultan would now have in his western allies. In both houses the language of the king’s speech respecting the victory of Navarino was loudly denounced by opposition, it being supposed to indicate that the Duke of Wellington’s cabinet abandoned the line of Mr. Canning’s policy. In the lords the Duke of Richmond especially fixed a quarrel on the phrase “ancient ally:” contending that the sultan could not be termed in any correct sense of the word an ally of this country at all, and much less an “ancient ally.” He disapproved still more of the epithet “untoward,” as applied in the speech to the battle of Navarino. If the term was meant, he said, 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 manner; or if it was to be understood that it referred to that which happened by accident, and which stood across the object we had in view, he entered his 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 the pacification of the two countries, and effected the liberation of Greece, 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. To him it appeared a great step towards the pacification of Eunrae, and he considered it of more use than a contrary policy could have been in promoting that great and desirable object. In explaining, the Duke of Wellington maintained that the epithets excepted against were fairly and truly applicable. The Ottoman empire, he said, had long been an ally of this country, and the Ottoman power was an essential part of the balance of power in Europe. Its preservation had been for many years an object not only to this country, but to the whole of Europe, while the revolutions and changes of possessions which had taken place had increased the importance of its preservation as an independent state, capable of preserving itself. As to the term “untoward,” the sense in which it was used referred to 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. When, therefore, the operations under the treaty did lead to hostilities it was certainly an “untoward event.” “I must say,” continued his grace, “that the gallant admiral was placed in a very delicate situation; and that he has done his duty to his king and his country. 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 lead them to victory. Such being the case I should feel myself unworthy of the high situation 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 into execution, it would be blamable in me to insinuate a censure against a man who was charged with the execution of difficult orders under a treaty.” Similar exceptions were taken in the commons against the speech; but the usual addresses to the throne were carried in both houses without a division.