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

I port which he was specially forbid to visit ; and, secondly,
• he took a cargo which was liable to seizure even if
such interdict did not exist. It was stated in Lord
Ponsonby's despatch that Mr. Bell, having had the
danger he was about to incur represented to him, returned
for answer that he fully expected to have his ship seized. Did
that look like ignorance of what he was about ? If he (Lord
Palmerston), as Secretary of State, had said to Mr. Bell,
" Go on your expedition, and if your ship is seized I'll go to
war with Russia," then, indeed, he would admit that he had
encouraged him, and that he was bound to get him safely
through the difficulty. But no such thing had taken place ;
and the greatest ingenuity could not torture into anything like
it any part of the correspondence which had ensued on the
subject. But supposing that Mr. Bell was aggrieved,
what was he about all the time that had passed since he
sustained the alleged injury. Why postpone his case till the
May of 1838 ? Why, if he were encouraged by him (Lord
Palmerston) did he not come forward boldly, and charge him
with it ? If he even thought it was furthering the secret
wishes of the Government, though without their open sanc-
tion, why not at once demand redress? By his own showing,
however, he was engaged in an underhand political intrigue.
He had now disposed of the charge of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman on the main point. Though the Right Hon. Gentles
man had dilated on various other topics he (Lord Palmer-
ston) should not take up the time of the House by following
him, as lie did not bring any of them to bear on the case at
issue. But there were one or two to which he should briefly
touch on. With regard to the occupation of Soudjonk Kale,
if the testimony of Mr. Yeames, and the testimony of Mr.
Suter, the Consul at Trezibond, were of any value, the fort
at that place was completed in 1836. In his (Lord Palmers_
ton's) opinion, they outweighed the single assertion of Mr.
Spencer, who after all only said that he did not see it. Then,
with regard to the charge made against Lord Durham by the
Right Honourable Gentleman, that that Noble Lord did not
take immediate steps to procure redress for Mr. Bell on learn-
ing, the facts of the seizure of the Vixen, he (Lord Palmers-
ton) thought that the Noble Lord had acted perfectly right in
doing as he did. To have acted otherwise would be to be
guilty of a breach of duty. When so many nice questions of
international law was involved, he did right to take no steps
whatever in the case until he had received instructions from
the Government at home. The
,Right Honourable Gentle-
man complained of that course as a proof of the indifference
shown by her Majesty's Government to the commerce of
the country, but he ( Lord Palmerston) was wholly at a
loss to see any logical connection in the matter or any-
thing in fact which could justify such an inference. Nothing,
indeed, was further from the fact. But the Right Honourable
Gentleman said the Government should have communicated
those sanatory regulations to the Chairman of Lloyd's, and in
support of his dictum, he adduced the authority of the Chair-
man at Lloyd's, who was made to state that it had always been
the custom of the Government to do se. Now when the
Chairman of Lloyd's stated anything connected with the cus-
toms of that body, he was entitled to the weight of authority,
but when he stated anything respecting the custom of Go-
vernment, lie certainly overstepped his sphere, and became en.
titled to no further consideration as authority. It was not the
practice of the Government to make such communications—
and even if it were it would be necessary for foreign States
to communicate their internal regulations before any such
practice prevailed. The Right Hon. Gentleman had pressed
a great many small things into his service, and among others
lie urged as a proof of the privity and countenance of the
Government to Mr. Bell's project that they had entrusted
him with an extraordinary dispatch to Constantinople. But
he most completely failed to show it, and altogether broke
down in his deduction. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that
Lord Ponsonby did not discountenance Mr. Bell's expedi-
tion, and that he made another ground of proof of the
privity and consent of Government. But Lord Ponsonby had
no power over Mr. Bell. He did all he had aright to do—ha
showed him the Russian regulations, and pointed out the risk
he ran. He had done his duty—he was bound to do no more.
The next proof by which the charge of encouragement was
endeavoured to be fixed on him (Lord Palmerston) was the
letter of Mr. Urquhart, published in the Times newspaper of
this morning. He ( Lord Palmerston) had taken advantage
of the leisure allowed him by his recent illness to answer Mr.
Urqubart's letter; but lie was not aware of the publication of
it at the time. It would ill become him to enter into a criticism
of Mr. Urquhart's conduct ; but he felt called on to say that the
reasons he had given for his denial of this letter were quite the ,
contrary to what the Noble Lord opposite had stated he had
made use of. What he said was, that though the letter was
not official it contained so many allusions to private persons
and things that it would not be well to bring it before the
public. Ile would not then enter on the subject of the letter
at large ; but he would maintain that nothing in it went to
prove in the slighest degree that he had sanctioned Mr. Bell's
expedition In December Mr. Urquhart wrote a private let-
ter to Mr. Stangways which was sent to him ( Lord Palmers-
ton) by that gentleman. His ( Lord P.'s) first impression was
to desire Mr. Strangways to write Mr. Urquhart in answer, and
caution him as to what he said and did in relation to the ex-
pedition. The Noble Lord opposite charged him (Lord
Palmerston) with awaiting the result of the expedition to recal
Mr. Urquhart. No such thing was the fact. He read the
letter. and finding the share Mr. Urquhart had in furthering
the expedition he decided in detaining him at home, whi-
ther he was about to come, on leave of absence, and not
permitting him to go to Constantinople again. Lie felt
that consistently with the responsibility he incurred, he
could not suffer him to return thither. And yet that
fact was urged as a proof of the encouragement bestowed
by him ( Lord Palmerston) on the expedition. He (Lord
Palmerston) wrote to Mr. Urquhart privately, and told him
the cause of his removal. Mr. Urquhart made another ex-
traordinary statement in his letter. He said, referring to a
conversation which lie had with him (Lord Palmerston) in
August, that up to that time he was not aware that he
( Lord Palmerston) did not take a deep interest in the affair,
though he quoted in the same passage some disapprobatory ex_
pressions which were use of by him. Yet some months previ-
ously he had received his letter of recal, for the assigned rea-
son that he had taken any part in the transaction. He was
not able to reconcile such inconsistencies. He ( Lord Palmer-
ston) would willingly leave die case in the hands of the House,
but he hoped they would not agree to the motion.
Sir R. PEEL-1 really feel it to be superfluous to trouble
the House further with a prolongation of this debate. The
Noble Lord has called the speech of my Noble Friend " a pug-
nacious speech." The Noble Lord was most unhappy in his
epithet as in his argument. It was an able and a convincing
speech—it was a logical and an argumentative sin ech—but
the epithet " pugnacious" cannot be applied to it. Pugnaci-
ous, if I remember a-right, in reference to a speech or a de-
bate, meads a conflict of arguments ; but that the speech
of my Noble Friend cannot be so designated is evident
from the simple fact that all the a-gument is on his side.
Hear, hear," and laughter.) I recollect a high clas-
sical authority for the use of the term. f It is that of a
Gentleman placed in a situation nearly similar to that of the
Noble Lord opposite :
" Miseraa cognosce preemia rixm
Si rixa est, übi to pulsas, ego vapulo tantum."
The Noble Lord has acquitted Mr. Bell, and be has expressed
his surprise that the result of my Right Hon. Friend's motion
should be of so trifling a character. But may I not be per-
mitted to express my surprise at the observations of the Noble
Lord in this respect ? What ! is the vindication of the cha-
racter of a British merchant, and the protection of the com-
merce of this country, comb trifles in the eyes of the No-
ble Lord, that he can be surprised at my Right Hon. Friend's
interference on their behalf ? It may be an insignificant mat-
ter in the eyes of the Noble Lord, and a few tons of salt may
seem to him to be a very little matter ; but the subject is one
which involved as great a stake as if the cargo were of pre-
cious stones ; and, at all events, that is no language for a
Foreign Secretary of this kingdom to use when any of its in-
terests are at issue.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It is no matter
what may be the size of the vessel seized—it boots not what is
the nature of her cargo—it may be salt, or it may be precious
stones—the House of Commons is the place where such a ease
as this question involves should alone be decided. The
Noble Lord denies the Committee moved for by my Right
Hon. Friend, on the grounds that Mr. Bell's character is
intact ; but the Noble Lord cuts himself off from that ground
by casting imputations on that gentleman's character before he
concludes his speech.—(Cheers.) I know nothing of Mr.
Bell—l have no acquaintance with him. I have no know-
ledge of him, except in his capacity of a British merchant ;
but still I think the Noble Lord might have done his cause
more service if he had continued respecting that gentleman as
he begun, and not detrimented himself by endeavouring to
damage his reputation.—( Hear.) The Noble Lord bad cast
imputations on Mr. Bell's character. I have his words. They
are—" Mr. Bell was endeavouring to entrap me, under false
pretences."
Lord PALMERSTON denied having employed the word
false. He only said that Mr. Bell was endeavouring to trap
him under pretences.
Sir IL PEEL—WeII, be it so. The Noble Lord also
says that Mr. Bell was concerned in an attempt to involve two
l
great countries in a war. Why, what motive could a British
merchant have to promote a war between two countries such
as Russia and England, unless he acted under the direction
of his own Government? If, as the Noble Lord has stated,
Mr. Bell possesses large property in Russia, what motive could
he have—still more so as a British merchant—in promoting a
war between the two countries, unless lie understood that it
would please the Noble Lord, or some one in power and
authority ?—( Hear, hear.) I am given to understand that
Mr. Bell would be a great loser in the event of such a war,
and the Noble Lord has quite failed in assigning any reason
why he should desire is. After listening to the speech of
the Noble Lord and the Honourable and Learned Gentleman
behind him, I ask myself for what purpose are the different
departments of the State in this country constituted ? Are
they to assist British merchants—to counsel, to guide them, to
point out when they arc wrong, and to encourage when they
are right ?—(Cheers.) If the case before us be taken as a
specimen. I should rather say that they were established for
the purpose of bewildering him. The Noble Lord has said
that he is himself the " Foreign Office," and that no authority
but his was to be taken in all matters connected with that de-
partment. What does the Noble Lord mean ? Dees he ex-
clude altogether the Under Secretaries from all share in it ?
Does he mean to say that British merchants and Consul's com-
municating with the Foreign Office were not to take anything
on the authority of an Under Secretary of State unless he
proclaims it at each word to be der:ved from the Noble Lord
alone ? Is every communication not made in that manner to
be looked upon as invalid ?—(Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.")
I have been Under Secretary of State myself. I have been
Secretary of State also, and though I know not what Foreign
Ambassadors might do, I do know that no British mer-
chant would look at the difference between Secretary
and Under Socrqtary, cn the way of information rela'ivc
to Flit .tsinc3s. L r us now consider the position
lof Mr. Bell as a British merchant, after he had
sought information on the subject from the public authorities,