The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-22 00:00:00

NAVAL ARCHITECTURE.

Viscount INGE STRE rose to move for the returns of
which he had given notice. He had been prevented bringing
forward the subject a few days since in consequence of the
thinness of the attendance, and he was sorry to be obliged
to obtrude himself again on its attention. The question of Naval
Architecture, involved in these returns, had, he was sorry to
say, given rise to very great party feeling, not of a
political, but of a professional nature, and it was most
difficult to get at anything like the truth. —( Hear.) There
had been a series of trials between different ships of war,
and the country had been put to a very great expense. The
object of his motion now was to obtain something like the re-
sult of these trials. In 1806 it was stated that the subject of
naval architecture had been very much neglected in this country,
and a Commission had been appointed which recommended
the establishment of a school of naval architecture, which was
accordingly done in 1810 or 1811. Several Gentlemen had
been induced to enter those s,..thools under certain con-
ditions, which were, that they should receive a liberal
education, which must have cost a considerable sum, and
enter into a bond in 5001. not to leave the service
for ten years after they had been discharged from the
school, making it a period of seventeen years. He con-
tended that those gentlemen had nut been well used, from the
course which had subsequently been taken by Government.
The Noble. Lord then quoted a passage from the Report of
Sir Wm. Symonds, which stated that the academy would
tend much to revive that which had been too much neglected,
a taste for naval architecture. As to the other returns, he knew
that it would be suggested that the Reports of the officers
would be very conflicting, as each officer no doubt said his
own was best. The experiments made under the present
Surveyor of the Navy had cost the country between
1,000,0001. and 1,500,0001. If they were to have trials, let
them be far trials, and let the reports be made public.
The Noble Lord (who spoke in so indistinct a tone that it
was with great difficulty a sentence could be collected) was
understood to say that the country had a right to be in-
formed on this subject, and to know which of the vessels
was built on the best plan. For his own part he was of opinion,
that with the quantity of materials that had been employed
under the direction of the Surveyor- General, more efficient ves-
sels could be built. There were other points connected with the
management of the navy he was desirous to press on the attention
of the Admiralty—one was, as to the way in which ships are
sent to sea short of hands. As to impressment, he would be
sorry it should be continued if it were possible to do away with
it ; but he thought that the best way would be to keep up the full
complement of men in ships sent to sea in time of peace.
The building of the ships was of very great importance, and the
best interests of science required the appointment of a scien-
tific Board, to whom all experiments might be referred. This
would be a great assistance to the Lords of the Admiralty.
The Noble Lord concluded by moving for a return of the pro-
motions and appoinments Of the various shipwright and other
officers that have taken place since 1830, and the amount
of their salaries in her Majesty's dock-yards, distinguishing
those who who were educated at the School of Naval Archi-
tecture.

Mr. HUME supported the motion. He had, on more oc-
casions than one, called the attention of the House to the
important establishment which bad been referred to, having
been put an end to by the Right Hon. Baronet, when he
was First Lord of the Admiralty. He thought that if
any country ought to have an establishment teaching
naval architecture, that country was England.— (Cries of
" Hear, hear.") He was pleased to find that the Noble Lord
had moved for the papers, because when they were laid upon
the table, the House would see how encouragement had been
given to those who deserved it.
Sir E. CODRINGTON supported the motion, thinking
that the more information was brought before the public
on the subject the better. He could not, however, agree with
the Hon. Member, that the establishment of a school
similar to the one he had adverted to was necessary.
The Hon. and Gallant Member then proceeded to instance
two or three persons who had not been educated in the school
(one of them by his own father, an officer in the Docks), and
who had distinguished themselves in that department of naval
science. It would be impossible for the country to give employ-
ment in their dock-yards to all the persons educated at that
school, and the result would be, that, ther having given
them an expensive education, they would go to foreign
nations, and obtain employment there.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir C. ADAM considered this a matter which the House
should not meddle with, as by doing so they would take it out
of the hands of tho,,e wet,: at peseta 1,.t1
tlic.,rote crustedthe House would not think it necessary to
grant the returns moved for.
Captain PE CHELL would support the Noble Lord in
his motion, as far as regarded the trials of the ships; but he
did not think the returns of the expenses moved for by him at
all necessary.
Captain *GORDON said that it was due to all persons in
question, and also to Sir W. Symons himself, that the returns
should be granted.

Sir T. TROUBRIDGE defended the course taken by the
Admiralty.
After a few words from Mr. A. CHAPMAN, Mr. HumE, and
the SPF.ANER,

Lord INGE STRE replied briefly. He would not press
his motion to a division, if even modified returns were
agreed to. _ _

-Sir C. ADAM explained. He had no objection to grant
the returns in a modified form. The objection he had to the
first on the list was that it was not necessary.
After a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL, the first—

, .
" Return of the promotions and appointments of the various
shipwrights and other officers that have taken place since 1830,
in her Majesty's dock-yards, distinguishing those who w ere
educated at the School of Naval Architecture."
On the second—
" Extracts from the logs of her Majesty's ships Pique and
Inconstant, of Vanguard, Pembroke, and Bellerophon, of
Rodney and Vanguard, during their respective trial-cruises,
and reports of senior officers during such trials, and also Vice-
Admiral Sir C. Paget's reports of trials between her Ma-
jesty's ships Pique and Inconstant, in November and Doccm-
ber, 1835," being put from the Chair,
Sir C. ADAM moved the adjournment of the debate to
Friday (this day) se'nnight.
Mr. P. THOMSON said that the course proposed by his
Hon. and Gallant Friend was the only oue which the Noble
Lord could adopt with advantage to his motion.
Captain GORDON wished to know what were the modifi-
cations which the Hon. and Gallant Admiral proposed to
make on the return?

Captain PECHELL hoped the Noble Lord would be sa-
tisfied with the reports of the Admirals commanding-in-chief
on those occasions—Sir C. Paget and Sir J. Rowley.
Sir C ADAM should have no particular objection to the
return if the report of Vice-Admiral Sir C. Paget were alone
desired by the Noble Lord.
Mr. HUME objected to the form of the return.
After a few words from Sir C. Adam, Lord Ingestre, and
Sir E. Codrington,

Sir P. PEE L suggested that the return should run thus—
" Any reports of the senior officers on the trial of the respec-
tive cruisers, her Majesty's ships Pique and Inconstant, Van-
guard, Pembroke, and Bellerophon, and also any report, if
such there be, of Vice-Admiral Sir C. Paget on the same
subject."

The motion in this amended form was then agreed to.
Returns 3,4, and 5.

" Report of Captain Lord John Hay, on trial of sail-
ing qualities between her Majesty's ships Pique and Castor
in 1t435."

" Report of Sir J. G. Bremer, on trial of sailing qualities
between her Majesty's ships Castor, Pique, and Inconstant,
July 1837."
"Expense of building the ,respective hulls of the above-
named ships."
On the sixth return being read from the Chair—
" Expence of repairs of the hulls, and of the masts, yards,
sails, and cordage of her Majesty's ships Vernon and Barham
respectively, after being fully equipped, from the date of the
Vernon's first putting to sea up to the end of 1837 ; distin-
gui,:hing the number of days each has been at sea."
Sir C. AD AM said that to furnish the return would be a
matter of impossibility. Reference should be had to foreign
dock-yards before it could be even begun.
Lord INGE STRE, under these circumstances, consented
to withdraw the motion for this return.
It was withdrawn accordingly.
To return No. 7%

" Of cxpences of her 'Majesty's ships Scout and Rover,
from the date of their first putting to sea in 1832 to the end of
1837 ; and similar returns of exponces of her Majesty's ships
Pique and Inconstant, from the Ist of October, 1 7, to the
Ist of April, 1838."
Sir C. ADAM also objected, on the ground of its inutility.
After a few words from Lord Ingestre, Sir E. Codrington,
and Captain Gordon, the motion was withdrawn, and another
substituted for it by consent, to the effect that the reports of
the boatswains and carpenters on the defects of the respective
ships should be returned instead.
SPANISH PRISONERS IN PORTUGAL.
Sir ROBERT PEEL-_I have a question to put to the
Noble Lord opposite (Palmerston) in respect to a matter
which may escape the attention of the House, if it he not es-
pecially directed to it. It concerns the detention of certain
persons in Portugal, natives of Spain, made prisoners under
the treaty of Erora Monte by the Portuguese Government.
That treaty was concluded in 1830, and was guaranteed in its
execution by Great Britain. The guarantee core itutes the
motive for my present interference on behalf of these indivi-
duals. In order, however, to nake my question intelligible I
shall read the first article of the treaty, which bears upon
it. It relates to those Spaniards who accompanied Don
Carlos and Don Miguel when the surrendered themselves to
the British.Goyernment in that year, and it states that all
Spanish subjects who gave themselves up to the British
Government should be conducted tc. a place of safety,

previous to their being sent home to their own country."
By the 4th article the Portuguese Government are bound
to furnish means for removing those persons to their own
country when it could be done with safety. I Perceive
by the last papers on this subject which have been laid before
the House, that Mr. Villiers, our Ambassador at Madrid, had
some hopes of being able to effect their liberation. He write°
to the Noble Lord opposite, that " though objections have
been made to the release of the Spanish prisoners under the
Convention of Evora Monte, the present Minister of NV ar
seemed to be disposed to acquiesce in their liberation." Nel
this being the case, the first question I have to put to the Nobe
Lord is, whether he has received any information calculated
to induce a belief that the hopes of Mr. Villiers will he realized;
and, secondly, whether those persons at present confined of
der the terms of that treaty can be considered as prisoners ot
war, and whether it is his opinion that the treaty is not a pro'
visional one ?
Lord PALMERSTON never thought that those persoes
were entitled to their release unless by exchange, in the same_
manner es other prisoners of war. The Right Hon. I3arena
would perceive, on reference to the papers laid before the
House, that the treaty in question had not been concluded °3
the guarantee of Great Britain. It was a treaty between the
Portuguese Marshal and Don Miguel, and the question of the
followers of Don Carlos became a subject of consideration while
it was under discussion. Don Miguel's Marshal said that he had
nothing at all to do with Don Carlos's people, and disowned then!
altogether. By this act they were in danger of being excluded
from the benefit of the convention. But Mr. Grant, who is con
netted with the Embassy at Lisbon, was dispatched by Lord
Howard de Walden to the scene of negociation, and on veer"
taining the fact he said he could not suffer such a thing td
take place. Very cunningly, and very properly too, he offeard
himself en the spot as the plenipotentiary of Don Carlos, ur.
in that anomalous character, less than as an official of the
tish embassy, he signed the articles of the treaty of I'"ra
Monte with the Duke de Terceira. The question, therefor
to be considered was, whether the articles entitle the Spans-?
prisoners in Portugal to be liberated and sent free into Spain
Negotiations, however, were going on for their exchange ;
the Portuguese and the Spanish Governments expressed there-
selves anxious for it ; and though difficulties had sprung up
to impede their negociations, he ( Lord Palmerston) had every
hope that they would be ultimately removed, that the exchange
'would be effected. The last accounts he bad heard of 001
stated that the negociations were still going on.
Sir R. PEEL—I do entreat the Noble Lord to COnsidera,
again the contents of these papers, and, if he sees the go°
faith of England involved in the question, to enforce the god"
rantee, and liberate the prisoners. When the Noble Lee
says that no guarantee has been given to this country, I can,
help thinking that he has not read all the papers al'
nected with this subject. at
Lord PALMERSTON said that the honour of Ore. -
Britain had been pledged that these persons should nothi;
given up to the Queen's Government in Spain ; and t
pledge had been redeemed. The question was were they„war,
to be liberated for the purpose of joining the ranks of Don
los ; or were they to be detained until an exchange for nth,.‘
prisoners of war could be effected ? His (Lord Palmerstols/0
opinion was that they should not be liberated unless I)sis
Carlos let free an equal number of persons taken by him, 2
set-off against them.

TH VIXEN.
Sir S. CANNING thenE rose to bring forward his rOutiol°11„
respecting the seizure of the Vixen. Although the be
stances of the case were known to every Hon. momber,
(Sir Stratford Canning) should take leave to r ecal the Prl
ors
cipal facts to the recollection of the House. The petrtiod ;
were two gentlemen, ship-builders, resident in fien,°,lsel
and a gentleman, the merchant who had chartered the Black
seized. The latter was concerned in the trade on the ',lc of
Sea, and he had an establishment on the Danube, i° °river.
the principalities that lie on the shores of that "
Being desirous of extending that trade from the char-
ropean to the Asiatic side of the Black Sea, he Tee'
tered the Vixen of her owners, the other petitioners•etained'
result was that the Vixen was sent to Sebastapol, and beendetained
cone
there, and the seizure ended in the vessel having ,i;„ the
demned for violating the fiscal regulations establishe" Ced
Russia,' Government. The British flag was taken devv-e'ptere
the Russian hoisted in its stead. It appeared that the
sence of
prise which led to this seizure arose out of the eireunts- and
Mr. Bell hating gone to the West side of the Black °e'coast
his attention being drawn to the great facilities which the
_hat
of Circassia afforded fur commercial trade ; and to shoi
t: ho
the views of Mr. Bell were not unsound in this respceeneat,
could refer to several able works that had been written utr
Odesubject, one of which was by the Dutch C°°'.?"litis
ssa. All these publications described the great fat'do io
which the line of the Circassian coast afforded for traerce•
wood, tallow, honey, and various other articles of cerern...the
When Mr. Bell entered upon this speculation,
rs
Vixen, he had only heard a vague rumour that there :of
a blockade of the coast by Russia ; and, being desicire:ol the
obtaining the best knowledge on the subject, he aPPlie and
Foreign Office—first verbally, and afterwards by letter ;
not content with this, he would not permit the vessel to ,;,`io
until he had communicated with the British Ambassador.
but
( Sir S. Canning) would not say with whom the fault I?Ys,ble
the House would admit that the transaction was a denlo°,'_ the
one for the character of the country. He did not thi :trent
and sent °"'
fault lay with the petitioners, but rather with the dee-e, fle
that had decided Mr. Bell in embarking in the enterPri!.,„tiiry
confessed that this saes a painful question to submit for l'`lll to
to a Committee of the House. It was not his interitto
bring before the Committee the g.-o,mcis upon whichthe rig
slag officers seized the Vixen, and the Russian GoN-ernto
passed a sentence of confiscat'on upon that vessel—the irrcgivf
larity of the law upon the subject, or the actual occupatiee
ho
the coast by Russia. All these points were involved es
right of Russia to the Circassian provinces, and he Was inds
willing at'the present moment to moot this question, ofoseto
vast importance. Ha confessed he never had been auL"he
satisfy his mind as to the right which Russia claimed overt f
Circassian provinces. In his opinion, by the treaty
Adrianople, Russia was restrained, in all honour and fairileid
from making any accession of territory, as she had d°°ebo,
the case of Circassia. There was a great discrepane2,, 0r
twcen several of the statements made as to the transactivu-no
the Vixen, according to the papers that had been laid tope
the table, and he hoped the Noble Lord would be able 0;4
plain the difference. He had another reason for not g that
very minutely into the whole of the question, which vat' and
a trial was now pending between the owners of the Vinekn teat
the underwriters, and ending that trial he did not think wt to
ere,
hor:
he was justified in going into all the particulars. Tbe
therefore, several points that he did not intend to suncera
the Committee. The petitioners complained that the?'.cstioo
exposed to hardships in consequence of no early aPP 'went,
having been made in their behalf to the Russian Govcrahc any
although the circumstances of the case were known tt the
bas-actor at an early period. There was also a complaint sssa"
petition that no remonstrance had been made by the a": lead°
dor when the decision of the Russian Government 00';
known. As, however, the distinguished persona uue-art
plained against was engaged iu another and a distntilliearni.:'
her Majesty's dominions, and as he (the Earl of 'he W3'
had therefore no opportunity of meeting the charge' o Coin";
not desirous of referring this part of the petition to to wain&
mittee.—( Hear.) The part of the petition which red sane'
for reference to the Committee related to the degree - ra‘
were suppose
lion under which the petitioners d to haa .
Fore '"e
tered upon the enterprise, both on the part of the f
Office and the Embassy at Constantinople. It wa;ups 110"
greatest importance that this matter should be ciente,' n Pc'
only with reference to the petitions, but to the F°retraetecof toetr
partment, as it was by no means desirable for the e•
of the Administration of this country that charges al dea..
nature should be allowed to remain Upon a princiPawool`'
partment of Government without that inquiry which( 001'
enable the public a form a just and clear judgmcot•--e`. 'll
hear.) When the petitioners were about to ern'ai
f the
their enterprise, being under some apprehension elo yo'
result, they addressed several communications to th 0 irly
reign Office, and the result of these was to produeee?oreig,6
pjesdon on the minds of the petitioners that the gpsolit
tlloeipnatertrmfeernet
wwitahs ntohteditsrpaodseedoftocrierccognize the right 01 -,,erit
disposed to view with pleasure and saastissifaa'catinodntahnat theYndc rdt'bl64
that was likely to open that couctry to British tradue,a°mirllg
niea
the question to an issue. Mr. Bell was, however, doteri-pten
to obtain a more direct and complete knowledge of theijoa to -
sions of the Foreign Department, and he, therefore aPi sche'
the Noble Lord at the head of that department to krie,:e. coal
ther any restrictions upon the trade with that part of t'isedr
of Circassia to the south of the River Kuban was reongilp- with
The answer of the Noble Lord was one which at best her „opt,
it the character of evasion. It was signed by Mr. Stria lee
and was as follows. The Hon. Gentleman then read tdoty of
ter which has already appeared in print. It was tb;, i°s!
the Noble Lord to have guarded by Mr. Be" against
any risk. Mr. Bell again wrote a letter to the under.
Secretary of State, to know whether he was t° that
stand, from the fact not beimt noticed in the 6,..anet c;dge4
no blockade on the coast of Circassia was aeasrl-.‘ceed rt.°
by the British Government ; and the answer he rceeirneap
confirmatory of his former impression. He did het, say that
impute any motive to the Noble Lord, but hemnis,
meowl
if the Noble Lord had wished to lay a trap for the cem a any
interests of this country he could not have ad°Pgt part
plan more likely to succeed. He would now refer to t`'-edings
of the question which was connected with the procoonby, )
of our Ambassador at Constantinople ( Lord P°, hs.offiect
Mr. Bell, after his communication with the Feroge d ae'
thought he had a right to embark in the enterprise, ed at
cordingly he left this country with his vessel, and arrl.v_ 0110
Constantinople ; and to show that he did not embark 1100,
enterprise without the knowledge, at least, of the blest/N 06'
he was the bearer of despatches to the embassy at /3,11,
nople. The brother of Mr. Bell, namely, Mr- Jarfiesus
who was the principal actor in these actions, was desirwo
fore proceeding further to ascertain whether any chanc,eiref
taken place in the intentions of Government. He ac on
on
applied to Lord Ponsonby, and had an interview with h"Pos
the subject, the result of which he embodied in a men";
dum, and sent to Lord Ponsonby, desiring to know if it Lora
correct account of what took place at the interview... 7, to
desPa'e,
Ponsonby transmitted to Mr. Bell a copy of a
which he also had made a report of the same converiscil pot
and accompanied this with a note stating that he cou`,,,tee
recognise any essential difference between Mr. Bell's -0 to
ment and his own. Lord Ponsonby did not ask Mr. 13,effice•
wait till he had transmitted his despatch to the Foreign u.to to
and obtained an answer; on the contrary, he allowed iti,riest
proceed, merely cautioning him to be careful not t 0 iessi
any appearance of evading the blockade. He must that
that these circumstances conveyed a stroe
impressieo
Lord Ponsonby was not only favourable to the tot
that he fancied sornchew or other that this view of the El
would not be unpalatable to the Foreign Department. 3fri.e.
those circuras.tances, he thought that the House would 40
with him in thinking that there were sufficient reasons touto
out the petitioners inn their prima facie charge against

Foreign Department, and to convince the House that not only
in England but at Constantinople there was, with respect to
the interests concerned, not only negligence, but something
that approached indifference. lie would refer to a letter ad-
dressed to the Noble Lord by a gentleman who had recently
occupied a situation in the embassy at Constantinople. In
addition to what he had stated, he found, upon the authority of
this gentleman, who filled a high and somewhat confidential
situation in the public service—( Loud cheers from the Minis-
terial benches)—a gentleman who had been appointed to that
situation by the Noble Lord in a manner that attracted
some attention--( Hear, hear, and cheers from the Op-
Position)—and who was known to the Foreign Office par.
ticularly in connection with the subject which formed that
night's discussion, and whose appointment was considered
here and abroad, as indicating an intention on the part of the
Foreign Office by no means favourable to the views of Russia
in the East : and when, therefore, he considered that this
letter came from a gentleman so circumstanced, it was impos-
sible for it to be set aside without some explanation from the
Noble Lord. He would not take upon himself to say whether
this letter was worthy of full confidence or not ; but he must
Say, coming from such a source, that till some explanation was
offered it would be impossible to resist the impression which
the papers before the House tended to raise in his mind.—
(Cries of " Read, read.") The letter was from Mr. Urquhart,
and was addressed to the Under-Secretary of the Foreign
Office, and was as follows. [The Honourable Gentleman then
read an extract.] On the whole view of this case he put it to
the House whether or not it appeared to it that these gentle-
Men had embarked in a speculation of a reasonable kind, and
had taken every reasonable precaution to avoid any appearance
of irregularity in their proceedings. He certainly thought
that the case was one which called for a more decisive
Motion than that which he intended this evening to make.
He had always considered that the freedom of the mer-
cantile pursuits was one of the most important and valu-
able features in our national character, and that an extreme
and justifiable feeling of jealousy existed againt the inter-
ference of foreign Powers to control our proceedings. Yet,
What was the mutual result of this expedition of the Vixen.
Loss of property and character to all engaged in it ; the ship-
owners had lost their ship, the merchant was a ruined man ;
whilst the nation itself had suffered a loss of that high
character, which was its proudest and most valuable posses-
sion. He did not mean to pronounce that the Foreign De-
partment was the party amenable for all these unfortunate oc-
currences. All that he said was that it was so alleged in these
papers, and, therefore, lie thought that it became the House to
inquire into such an allegation, and see and pronounce an
opinion how far it was well founded.---( Hear.) Great com-
plaints were coming from various parts of the country of the
neglect with which the commercial relations of the country
Were now treated by her Majesty's Government.—(" Hear,
hear," from Mr. P. Thomson and others.) An important
petition had recently been sent up from Liverpool, through
the hands of the Noble Lord who represented that borough._
( Bear, hear.) Did the Right Honourable Member mean
to imply by that cheer that the petition was got up for
the occasion ? He ( Sir Stratford Canning) had not seen
the petition—he knew nothing of its contents—( Hear)—but
he understood from the Noble Lord that it bore directly on
the general commercial state of the country, and that it was
signed by many of the most respectable merchants in that en-
lightened city.---( Ironical cheers.) The Right lion. Gentle-
man then concluded with the following motion :—" Select
Committee to inquire into the following allegations contained
in the petition of Mr. George Bell and others, namely, that
the petitioners have suffered seriously in their interests and
characters through the seizure of their vessel, the Vixen, and
her cargo, by a Russian man-of-war, in the bay of Soujonk
Kale ; that the intention of the petitioner, George Bell, to
send a vessel to the coast of Circassia, for the purpose of
trading independently with the population of that coast, was
previously made known to her Majesty's Principal Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, and had his approval and sanc-
tion; and that the final arrangements for the vessel's voyage
Were, before she sailed from Constantinople, communicated to
and expressly sanctioned by her Majesty's representative at
the Sublime Porte."
Dr. LUSHINGTON rose, and said, there was one ques-
tion of great importance connected with the subject before the
riouse, namely, the question of international law with respect
to the assertion on the part of Russia of the right of sovereignty
over that part of the coast of Circassia to which this motion
referred; but the Right Hon. Gentleman had not pressed that
point, and the question at last was reduced to this—whether
Air. Bell, as the owner of a sloop of some 140 or 150 tons
burthen, laden with 100 tons of salt, had or had not received
from her Majesty's Government at home, and its representative
at Constantinople, that information which he conceived he
ought to have been furnished with.—( Hear.) Did the Right
Pon. Gentleman think that because the cargo, in this instance,
happened to be small, that he ( Dr. Lushington) was going to
argue that leer Majesty's Government cared less for, or would
take less precaution respecting- a case where the cargo was small
than where it happened to be larger?—( Hear.) The question of
whether there was any right to trade was the very point which
he would not press upon the House—( Hear, hear)—and
which, no doubt, ought to be left to the decision of the Go-
vernment for the time being. Let the House, however, con-
sider whether the gentlemen to whom the petitioners referred
(the Messrs. Bell) had so conducted themselves as to be called
a party aggrieved—( Hear, hear)—and if the Government had
not done all that could be fairly expected of it. Mr. John Bell
must have been in 1836 perfectly conversant of the difficulty
existing with reference to trading with this part of the coast
of Circassia, no matter whether it was called a blockade, or
1",-' designated by any other term—such, for instance, as a
Prohibition of commerce between two Sovereign Powers. But
what did these gentlemen do ?—( Hear, hear.) They under-
took the farming of certain salt mines in Wallachia, and
Air. John Bell's first letter—(the Learned Gentleman here
referred to the letter)—to Lord Palmerston was for
the purpose of inquiring of the Noble Lord whether any re-
strictions were in existence with reference to the part of the
coast of Circassia in question which were recognised by her
Majesty's Government?—(Hear.) Lord Palmerston, in his
reply to this letter, declined to enter into any inquiry upon
the subject, and informed Mr. Bell that he must make his
own inquiry upon the point, and act accordingly.—( Hear. )
Now, it was evident from this that Mr. Bell's first letter was
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Government re-
cognised the Russian blockade on the coast of Circassia as far
as the river Kouban.—( Hear, hear.) It did not merely in-
quire whether there was a blockade in existence, but whether
that blockade was recognised by the Government of this
country.--( Hear, hear.) Lord Palmerston also replied that
there had been no blockade announced in the Gazette.—
( Hear.) In a subsequent letter Mr. Bell inquired whether,
there being a blockade de facto, he was to presume that it was
not recognized, as it was not advertised in the Gazette ?
Lord Palmerston, in his answer to this letter, referred Mr.
Bell again to the Gazette. Now he (Dr. Lushington) did not
think it necessary to lay down any general rule on matters of
this sort ; and although it might be proper for the Govern-
rnent to make communications respecting such subjects to
Lloyd's, or other large commercial bodies when applied to,
yet it by no means followed that any individual merchant
should necessarily, and, as a matter of course, expect to ob-
tain information of this description from the Foreign Office.
But what was the great question in the present case ? It was
this—whether, by virtue of the treaty of Adrianople, the ces-
sion of Soudjonk Kale was a good and valid cession, doubts
existing as to the occasion of it by Turkey not being dc jure,
though it was de facto. Now, it might be, that by the treaty
of Adrianople, a part of this coast might have been well ceded
to Russia, and that she might be entitled to Sovereignty over
it, and yet the same reason might not apply to other parts of
the coast ceded by that treaty. When the question was
asked with reference to the whole of that coast in 1836, how
could an answer be given—how could any one undertake to
say—that there was not some part of the coast which might
afford a ground for complaint in the case of merchants trading
to it ?—( Hear, hear.) But was the present a case in which he
could decide as to the lawfulness of the measures adopted by
the Russians in 1835 ? He would ask the Right Honourable
Gentleman, who had himself been in Russia, to put himself in
the situation of the Noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, and to
consider whether he would, if applied to in a similar manner,
by an individual merchant, in a speculative question of this
sort, say to him, You are restricted with respect to a part of
this coast"—( llear, hear)—or if he would at once give up the
Whole, and say, " You arc restricted from the entire coast ?"
--(Hear.) In his ( Dr. Lushington's) humble judgment, no
blame whatever attached to the Noble Lord for not having
given more complete, or even any, information upon this sub'.
Ject, and he would ask and advise any other merchant who
Might contemplate embarking in new trading speculations to
acquire as much information as they could on their own ac-
count, and not to seek it from the Foreign Office. The Rus-
sian authorities on the spot bad stated that they had acquainted
foreign countries with the blockade of the coast, and Lord
Ponsonby informed Mr. James Bell of this—( Hear, hear)_
and in the despatches he had subsequently forwarded to
this country that Noble Lord further stated that he told the
same Gentleman that he ought to act upon his own knowledge
that the blockade was illegal and inforinal.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord Ponsonhy also added that Mr. Bell said, he expected
to have his vessel detained—( Hear, hear)—but if Mr. Bell
Was wrong in his knowledge of the law yet, as he knew the
facts, with whom but with himself could the blame rest ?
There was a letter from the Russian Admiral commanding on
the station, which gave a very different account of this affair
of the Vixen ; and he must be allowed to say that he was
astonished that any one should persist in maintaining that
Russia, after the great publicity she had given upon the sub-
ject of the blockade, had acted on a belligerent principle.—
(Hear, hear.) Admiral Esmante, the officer by whom this
vessel was captured, had distinctly stated that she was " seized
expressly and solely on the ground of the breach of a blockade
of a coast, the inhabitants of which were the enemies of '
and at war with' Russia. "—([-fear, hear.) Who were at
War with the Russians ? Why, undoubtedly the Circassians—
( Hear, hear)—and to land and carry on trade with these very
Persons whom the Russians were at war with, what was that
but a belligerent act?—( Hear, hear.) But the only defence
the case admitted of was that which could be founded on the
ground of the right of sovereignty; and the important ques-
tion was, whether Soudjonk Kale was at the time in pos-
session of Russia or not.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The
letter of Lord Durham showed clearly that Russia had
military occupation of Soudjonk Kale. That was a fact to
which they had ample evidence, and it mattered little as to
the number of men who held possession of the fort, for no mat-
ter whether that number was great or small, still there was the
fact of there being there established a military occupation on
the part of Russia, even though other parts of these wild and
extensive regions might remain unoccupied. He contended
that, in the line of conduct which his Noble Friend had adop-
tFf:i, he had acted rightly ; and that if placed in the same pc-
sitton the Right Honourable Gentleman would have pure led
exactly the Lame course. The fact was, that :this qu‘sOoll
..W.as brought forwd to eudice the Government, but in his
• "ew the evidence iar pr
n the casje would lead to a very different re.