The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-22 00:00:00

his generati*Vieliskia els
comfortable compensation year.
This Learned Tory Sergedid-40,--.:* 11 his
duty, as is reported, althougla —aiidiftitinersted to
do so, and the COuncil haliantjapoiptsitsuceessor.
It was now that Mr. Ludlow turned round,.and taking
advantage of a clause in the Municipal Act,,which cer.
tainly did not apply to his case, who had hem
guilty of misconduct in neglecting to perform his
duty, besought the Lords of the Treasury to allow
him compensation. The Bristol Council very pro.
perly remonstrated against this impudent demand.
The Lords of the Treasury submitted the case to the,
Attorney and Solicitor-Generals, and as ‘i a fel-
low feeling" is said, to make persons " wondrous
kind," it is not surprising that they r;ronounced
clairm of a brother lawyer as reP:son' able and ju
Now this we do unhesitatingl7 assert to be rather
a shameful affair. It is a transaction of the very worst
complexion, and one, except in the present instancy,
that could only have happened in the most corrupt
days of Toryism. We have been the unflinching ad-
vocates of the Ministry, and even of sonic of the indi-
vidual Members composing it, when we thought they
were unjustly assailed ; but we shall never become
their supporters in any measure having an evil ten-
b dency, nor ever shall we so far forget the duty we owe
to the public as independent journalists, as to. wink at
whatever may savour of a leaning to tht?. interests of
Tory suppliants. We war against the Tories, because
they set public opinion at defiance, and have been,
when in power, the abettors of every species of job-
bing ; and we cannot, therefore, consistently approve
of the conduct of our friends when we find them play-
ing th 6 same game.--Morning Advertiser.
That Lord Palmerston would endeavour to shuffle out
of the responsibility which attaches to the case of the
Vixen we never doubted ; but that he can do so with-
Lilt involving the Government of which he is a member
in still deeper disgrace than they have already earned by
their blundering and contemptible system of foreign
policy, we do not believe. Were the capture of the
Vixen to be treated with he same apathy and indiffe-
rence, or rather mean and crouching submission, which
the Whigs evinced in regard to the insolent cancelling_
of the treaty of Vienna, and the barbarous extinction of the nationality of Poland, the feeling of the country will
not be quite so quiescent under the sense of foreign
outrage thereby going unpunished, and the national
honour wounded without reparation. Nor is it the national
honour alone that is concerned ; the interests of this great
commercial country are involved in the decision of the
question. The case of the owners of the Vi.ien to-
day may be case of any other British merchant to-
morrow. The precedent of redress denied in the one
instance will constitute law against the demand of re-
dress in case of similar outrages, or, as we call them,
acts of piracy by Russia, or any other great power -that
flay choose to take advantages of the pusillanimity of
an incapable government, and calculate upon insult-
ing the British flag and plundering British subjects
with impunity. A Morning Paper, opposed to Go-
vernment, has lately undertaken to defend the Autocrat
of Russia, on the ground that the sovereignty of Cir-
cassia, which, it is stated, was previously ceded to Tur-
key by Russia, had been re-invested in Russia by the
treaty of Adrianople. We deny, shortly and simply,
that the sovereignty of Circassia ever of right belooged
to either Turkey or Russia—that it could be disposed
of by one to the other as matter of contract, or bargain
and sale ; but to enter into that question now would,
as we have formerly stated, only draw us away from the
real merits of the case, as between the British public
and the British Government—or between the owners
of the Vixen, who, in this instance, represent the whole
body of British merchants, and Lord Pahnerston.
Must we once more state ),,ow the case, as between
those parties, really staneis ? It is contained within a
very narrow compass. A British merchant asks ofthe
Secretary for Foreign Affhirs information, for which, as
a British subject., he has a perfect right to ask, and
which, indeed, da Foreign Secretary were either unable
or unwilling '
,o
, him, he would be wholly unfit for his
office. the gentleman to whom we allude, asks
whethe; there is anywarlike blockade of the coast ofCircas-
sia vftlich the English Government acknowledges. We
'JO:love he intimates that no such blockade has been no-
4:ified in the Gazette. He is referred back to the Gazette
for an answer. We pass by the diplomatic pomposity
of this proceeding on the part of the great proto-
colist, who cannot bestow upon a respectable British
merchant that smiling and smirking affability which he
lavishes upon the satellites and slaves of the Russian
despot. Now, when Lord Palmerston referred Mr.
Bell to the Gazette for information, he meant that the
Gazette was a compettait authority on the subject, or
he did not. If he did not, he committed a contempti-
ble deception upon the inquirer, which we are sure his
meanest sycophants, in the utmost fervour of their zeal
for his exculpation, will be ashamed to plead in his
defence apaimst the charge of having, by that reference
to the Gazette, taken upon himself the responsibility
of the Vixen adventure, as far as the blockade was
concerned. Well, then, Lord Palmerston did refer
Mr. Bell to the Gazette as a competent authority ;
and that authority told Mr. Bell that there was no
legal blockade of the Circassian coast—for there was
none notified, and consequently none acknowledged.
Upon this information, furnished to him by Lord
Palmerston, it matters not whether by a " protocol,"
or through the medium of the Gazelle, the Vixen sails
for the coast of Circassia, and is captured by the Auto-
crat, on the ground of having violated that blockade
which Lord Palmerston had informed Mr. Bell had no
valid existence. The question then comes to this—lf
the blockade was legal, wile was it not acknowledged
by Lord Palmerston in the Gazette, to which he re-
ferred Mr. Bell ? If it were illegal, why does Lord
Palmerston hesitate to demand not only compensation
for Mr. Bell's loss of property, and the unjust impri-
sonment of several British subjects—all brought into
that state by his Lordship's own representation, but
also the fullest satisfaction for the dishonour inflicted
upon the British flag ? Again, if the question were
a doubtful one at the time of the inquiry., as to dis-
puted national rights, why did Lord Palmerston re-
fer Mr. Bell to the GaZette at all ? By doing so he
took upon himself the responsibility of stating, not ,
that the question was a doubtful one, but that it was
one upon which Government had decided, by not
acknowledging the blockade. The reference to the
Gazette would have been an absurd or an imperti-
nent reference on the part of Lord Palmerston, if
he meant that it was a doubtful authority. Such con-
duct would have been worse than refusing to give any
answer whatever, because, independently of the official
impertinence, it could only be intended to mislead.
The sycophants of Lord Palmerston have now the
cool assurance to say that Mr. Bell not only acted
upon his own responsibility, and at his own peril, but
that he had no right to expect that Lord -Palmerston
would give him any correct information. We do :lot
deny that he who expects the adequate discharge of his
duty by Lord Palmerston may be disappointed--nay,
he may find it very difficult to obtain correct informa-
tion from the " juvenile Whig" upon many other sub-
jects than that of a Circassian blockade. But we say,
that if Lord Palmerston be himself a party to setting
up such a defence, he makes a voluntary confession of
his utter incompetency to discharge the duties of the
office which he holds, and for which the public so
highly pays him. What does this salaried servant of
the public dare to hold such an insolent tone to British
merchants as this? Does he dare to tell them that they
must not intrude upon his "learned leisure" for in-
formation touching the existence or non-existence of
a blockade, as to the coast of a foreign country with
which they-trade, or are about to trade ? We are flip.
pantiv told ,by Lord Pahnerston's scribes, that British
merchants must consider for themselves -in such
cases, whether the advantage or the risk is likely to
preponderate—if the former, let them embark in the
speculation ; if the latter, let them seek some other em-
ployment for their capital. If this insulting language
conies from our Foreign Secretary, or has the stamp of
his approval, we can only describe it as an instance of
the " contumely of office" characteristic of whiggery.
The advice of' Lord Palmerston may be very well touch-
ing risk or advantage, as applied to a smuggler or a
ki buccaneer," whether following his contraband trade
on the Circassian, or the Cantabrian coast. But it is
too late for our Foreign Secretary to decline answering
the question which he has already answered, and by an-
swering- which he caused the voyage and capture of
time Vixen, from the responsibility of which, with Lrod