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

suit. After what had passed in 1831 it was certain that had
the Government of this country asserted the right of Bri-
tish subjects to trade with a port of Circassia in the mili-
tary occupation of Russia, Russia would not have given
way, and what would be the consequence of this? Why,
that all Europe would have been involved in a war. He de-
nied that in the determination to which he came, his Noble
Friend was at all to blame, and undoubtedly the last person
who had a right to complain was the person who, with a full
knowledge of the facts, and having ample information as to
the state of things, had attempted an undertaking which had
unfortunately failed. He found no fault with the Right Hon.
Gentleman except that he had brought forward in aid of his
case a communication which he had found in a newspaper of
that day.—( Hear, hear.) In his humble judgment he must
say that he for one would, considering the circumstances under
which it was written, have disdained to use such a communi-
cation.—( Cries of " Hear, hear," and " Order, order.")
Sir S. CANNING rose for the purpose, as we understood,
of asking what the Hon. and Learned Gentleman meant by
this observation ; but he was obliged to resume his seat in
consequence of the cries of " Order, order," which assailed
him from all parts of the House.
Dr. LUS HINGT ON continued—He was not aware that
he had used any improper expression. What he had said was
that he would, under the circumstances, have disdained using
such a communication—( Hear)—and be thought ho was jus-
tified in saying this when he considered who the writer of it
was, the confidential situation which he held, and that he had
availed himself of matters in that communication which it
would have been infinitely better for his own credit and honour
if he had kept entirely secret.

Lord STANLEY said, the question with respect to the
right of Russia to take possession of the territories in Cir-
cassia ceded to that Power by Turkey under the treaty of
Adrianople, and the occupation of Soudjonk Kale by Russia,
were independent of the case brought forward by his Right
Hon. Friend, and, therefore, he should pass them over, be-
cause he wished to follow the example of his Right Hon.
Friend, who had so prudently—who had with so much dis-
cretion and judgment, and, he would say, great good temper__
studiously avoided the evils alluded to by the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman by abstaining from bringing those questions under
the consideration of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) If an in-
quiry into these questions would be calculated to lead to war it
was quite proper that such an alternative should, by all
means, be avoided; and, finding the inconvenience of
such a course, what had his Right Honourable Friend
done? Why, he had only proposed to refer to a Com-
mittee of that House the general allegations contained in
the petition of Mr. Bell, only the simple points whether or
not Mr. Bell had been aggrieved by the capture of the Vixen,
and whether or not the Government had been parties to the
loss and wrong of which Mr. Bell complained.--( Hear. )
Although the don. and Learned Gentleman had dwelt on the
question of international law, he still seemed to consider that
his (Lord Stanley's) Right Hon. Friend had omitted topics
which reight have been brought forward for the purpose of
casting blame on the Government for the part which they had
taken in this transection, because he admitted that, with regard
to the seizure, the value of the ship or c irgo, whether larger
or smaller, ought to have no influence with the House of Com-
mons in considering the question whether a British subject,
prosecuting British commerce by the encouragement of the
Government, whohad suffered from a foreign power, was en-
titled to protection if he were right, and ought to be re-
strained
if he were wrong. It was not the question whether
Mr. Bell had a right to trade in the particular mode in
which he had traded.--( Hear, hear.) That was not the
question, for, if it had been, the discussion would have been
avoided by the question of military occupation ; but the
question was, would they support a Committee of the
House of Commons to inquire how it was that Mr. Bell's ves-
sel had been lost and confiscated, and his character and credit
injured, and whether all this resulted from the encouragement
which he had received from the Noble Lord the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs. The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man had drawn the distinction between blockade and sanatory
restrictions, but this had nothing to do with the question
asked by Mr. Bell. The fact was that Mr. Bell intended to
do nothing that could apply to either sanatory restrictions or
blockades. Ile was perfectly awake to his own interest, and
consequently all he asked of the Noble Secretary for Foreign
Affairs was whether the political relations of amity and friend-
ship existing between this country and Russia had been inter-
rupted, and if the blockade had been recognised by the British
Government. Now, what was the answer which the Noble
Lord gave to this question? Why, in point of substance he
said that the prohibition was informal and illegal—that Mr.
Bell might safely undertake his enterprise, for he referred
him to the Gazette, and told him that no recognition of the
blockade on the part of the British Government would be found
there. Had not Mr. Bell a right to suppose from this that he
would receive p: otection ? And yet the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had contended that as Mr. Bell knew of the inter-
ruption, the fact of the blockade or sanatory regulations being
unrecognized by the Government of this country did not sig.
nify.•—( Hear.) It was clear, however, that Mr. Bell set out in
consequence of the communication which he had received from
the Noble Secretary, as in the strong belief that he would be
protected. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said that
Mr. Bell's brother, who went to Constantinople, was perfectly
conversant with the risk he was about to run, because Lord
Ponsonby had informed him of the nature of the prohibition.
Now Mr. Bell's ship was seized, either under a blockade or in
consequence of a violation of a sanatory regulation. What
did Mr. Bell do before he embarked in the undertaking ?
Why, he applied to the Noble Lord, the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs, and was told by him that this blockade, or
sanatory restriction was not recognized by the British Govern-
ment. He did not, therefore, think that he was evading either
the blockade or the restriction, because he was not smuggling
and no matter what the pretence was under which his vessel
lord been seized, he thought he was entitled to protection from
his own Government, by whom the prohibition had not been
recognized. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had depre-
cated the evidence given by Mr. Urquhart, on the ground that
he had no right to use official correspondence; but the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman seemed to forget what was said by
the Noble Lord on Saturday when the letter of Mr. Urqu-
hart was moved for by his ( Lord Stanley's) Right Hon.
Friend. The Noble Lord disclaimed then that the pro-
duction of this letter would violate any official confidence, that
it contained any official secrets, and said that he regarded it as
the letter of a private individual, who was absolved from all
the obligations with respect to this letter which the situation
which the writer had held might seem to impose. The Noble
Lord likewise declared that, it was from first to last, one mass
of gross misrepresentation, and after this could any man of
honour do otherwise than Mr. Urquhart had done ?--(Cheers.)
The Noble Lord said that he gave no encouragement to Mr.
Bell to trade as a merchant with Circassia as an independent
state ; but what was the testimony of the Secretary of the
Embassy at Constantinople on this point ? Would the Noble
Lord say that the opinions of Mr. Urquhart, with respect to
Circassia, had no weight in his selection for the office to which
the Noble Lord had appointed him. He ( Lord Stanley)
contended that Mr. Bell had received direct encouragement
from the Noble Lord to trade with Circassia, and if the
Noble Lord would grant the Committee that was asked for
the fact would be established. The Noble Lord then read a
communication from Mr. Urquhart bearing on this part of the
subject. He (Lord Stanley) would say, that it was clear from
all the evidence that Mr. Bell went out with the sanction of
the Foreign Office, that his vessel had been seized and confis-
cated, and that they ought to grant a Committee to inquire
into the facts.

Lord PA LMERSTON said, the object which the Right
Hon. Gentleman wished to have investigated was, whether
Mr. Bell had lost his money or character by the expedition
of the Vixen, and whether he had received from him (Lord
Palmerston)—for he would cast off the intermediate designa-
tion of the Foreign Officer—whether he had received from
him as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs encouragement
to undertake that expedition. The Right Hon. Gentleman
had not shown the ground on which his motion rested, and
neither he nor the Noble Lerd who had come forward to
Isis aid with an ungenerous and pugnacious speech—
( Laughter)—had succeeded in establishing a shadow of ground
for that Committee for which the Right Hon. Gentleman had
moved. There were two foundations for the present motion.
He would, however, put aside the loss sustained by Mr.
Bell, for it was obvious that the Committee could not either
take into consideration that loss, or fix a value upon it ; and
he would also put aside the loss of character which it was said
Mr. Bell had sustained, because Mr. Bell had lost no charac-
ter at all. The question was, did Mr. Bell receive any en-
couragement from him ? Again he (Lord Palmerston) repeated
his denial of it. There had been nothing elicited in the course of
the debate to invalidate that denial. He (Lord Palmerston)
disclaimed, as he had stated the phrase " Foreign Office ;"
no one was responsible in that department but the Secretary
of State. And any man who talked of the opinion of the
Foreign Office talked without meaning if he had them from
any one but the head of that office himself.—( Cries of " Oh,
oh.") It was said, in the first place, that Mr. Bell—the in-
nocent Mr. Bell—was led into a trap by him (Lord Palmer-
ston.) He denied it. Inquiries were made by Mr. Bell at to
whether it would be safe and prudent for him to enter into a
speculation in salt with Circassia, at the suggestion of a Prince
of Wallechia, and he also wished to know whether there were
any restrictions on that trade. His (Lord Palmerston's) an-
swer was precisely what the Right Hon. Gentleman had stated
he had not given. It was precisely the same as the subject of
his letter of the 30th of May. The Goverment, he said,
would give no advice to merchants in the way of private specu-
lation. But there was one point which he did not answer,
because he conceived that if he did he would be guilty of a
breach of duty. Mr. Bell asked his opinion as to the right
of sovereignty possessed by Russia over Circassia, and her
consequent right to establish sanatory regulations and custom-
houses. Tot hat he (Lord Palmerston) gave him no answer.
No merchant had a right to ask such a question, and no Mi-
nister could answer it without a dereliction of duty. The
Right Hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Bell was not supposed
to be able to distinguish between a blockade and sanatory re-
gulations ; but the Right Hon. Gentleman had no grounds
for such a supposition. Mr. Bell was perfectly competent to
distinguish between them, for he had been a great deal in
the East, and had been a considerable time established in
Bucharest. Locally and practically, then, Mr. Bell perhaps
knew more of the matter than he ( Lord Palmerston) did.—
( Laughter,) Mr. Bell went to Constantinople, and what
was his ignorance there? He was shown the Russian re
gulations of 1836 at the Embassy—before they had time to
reach London—those regulations, by which the Russian Go-
vernment said that no trade could take place on the eastern
shores of the Black Sea, but in those places where a
local police, a quarantine, or a Custom-house existed ;
and Anapa, and Redout Kale were specially named as
ports with which such communication was illegal. But,
however, in order to make sure of a seizure, Mr. Bell
took a cargo of salt with hilt.—a cargo which was subject
. to seizure, under any circumstances, in any port of that sea.
He had two strings to his bow, for, first, he went to a