said, the question of Naval Architecture was one that had given rise to considerable party feeling, making it most difficult to get at anything like the truth. 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 these schools under certain conditions, which were, that they should receive a liberal education, which must have cost a considerable sum, and enter into a bond of 500l. not to leave the service for ten years after they had been discharged from the school, making it a period of seventeen years. He contended, that those gentle men had not been well used, from the which had subsequently been taken by Government. The object of the first return for which he meant to move, was to ascertain the offices to which the scholars of the naval school of architecture had been appointed. As to the other returns of the trials between various ships, those trials had been going on for a series of years. He knew he should hear, that the reports had been very conflicting, but what he contended for was, that these trials ought to be conducted under the charge of some officer competent to give an opinion. The experiments made under the present surveyor of the navy had cost the country between 1,000,000l. and 1,500,000l. He had selected a return of those vessels which he thought likely to afford some result. He hoped the gallant admiral would accede to the returns, which he brought forward in no spirit of hostility. The country had a right, decidedly, to know which were the best ships. He had never been at sea in any one of them, but thought that, with the quantity of material, more efficient ships might be made. The noble Lord was then understood to say, that 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 was 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 scientific 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 variety of returns, part of which were granted.

said, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord with respect to a matter which he thought well deserving the at-tendon of the House, involving as it did the interests of humanity. It related to certain persons who were now in confinement under a treaty called the Treaty of Evora Monte. That treaty was made in the year 1832; it was a treaty to which an English Minister was a party, and the fulfilment of which was guaranteed by Great Britain. The guarantee having been given by the British Government, was the reason why he put the question he intended to address to the noble Lord, because the engagement entered into under the treaty was one to which the faith and honour of the English nation were distinctly pledged. The treaty related to certain Spaniards who accompanied Don Carlos to Portugal, and delivered themselves up in 1834 to the British Government. He contended, that the words of the treaty implied, that whenever the individuals in question could be removed without danger to themselves they should be entitled to their liberation. In the last papers that were received from Sir G. Villiers some hopes were held out, that means would be taken for the relief of those persons. It appeared, that the Spanish Government had objected to the release of those Carlist prisoners confined at Lisbon, but, that the result of an application to the present Minister of that country was an assurance, that immediate steps would be taken to effect an ex- change. He begged to ask the noble Lord, first, whether any later intelligence had been received from Sir G. Villiers calculated to strengthen the hopes which had been held out, that steps would be taken for the relief of those persons? The next question he wished to put to the noble Lord was, whether he was of opinion, that those persons, under the articles of that capitulation, as guaranteed by Great Britain, could be considered as prisoners of war; and also, whether the terms of the treaty must not be held to imply, that their custody should be provisional, and, that they were entitled to relief whenever it could be safely afforded to them?

never thought, that those persons were entitled to their release unless by exchange, in the same manner as other prisoners of war. The right hon. Baronet would perceive, on reference to the papers laid before the House, that the treaty in question had not been concluded under 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 representative said, that he had nothing at all to do with Don Carlos's people, and disowned them altogether. By this act they were in danger of being excluded from the benefit of the convention. But Mr. Grant, who is connected with the embassy at Lisbon, was despatched by Lord Howard de Walden to the scene of negotiation, and on ascertaining the fact, he said he could not suffer such a thing to take place. Very properly he offered himself on the spot as the plenipotentiary of Don Carlos, and in that anomalous character, less than as an official member of the British embassy, he signed the articles of the treaty of Evora Monte with the Duke de Terceira. The question, therefore, to be considered was, whether the articles entitled the Spanish prisoners in Portugal to be liberated and sent free into Spain? In a report made by Mr. Grant to Sir George Villiers on the subject it was said, that any application of these individuals to return to Spain could only be determined by the Spanish Government. Thus it would be seen, that he, though the plenipotentiary of Don Carlos, considered, that they could not be released without the consent of the Spanish Government. They were all prisoners of war in consequence. Negotiations, however, were going on for their exchange; the Portuguese and the Spanish Government expressed themselves anxious for it; and though difficulties had sprung up to impede their negotiations, he had every hope, that they would be ultimately removed, that the exchange would be effected. The last accounts he had heard of them stated, that the negotiations were still going on.

I do intreat the noble Lord to consider again the contents of these papers, and, if he sees the good faith of England involved in the question, to enforce the guarantee, and liberate the prisoners. I intreat the noble Lord to recollect, that Mr. Grant was not alone a diplomatic person connected with the British embassy in Lisbon, but that he was also sent by Lord Howard de Walden for the special purpose of watching over this treaty. Now, Mr. Grant reports to Lord Howard de Walden, as I perceive by these papers, that he has signed the engagement. And, whatever may be the noble Lord's view of the case, these people felt satisfied, that he had done so by the desire of the English Government. When the noble Lord says, that no guarantee has been given by this country, I cannot help thinking, that he has not read all the papers connected with this subject. Lord Howard de Walden says, that "h e Spanish Government has no claim to the prisoners, as the treaty of Evora Monte must be looked on as a treaty effected by the good offices, and sanctioned by the implied guarantee, of England." Now, without offering any opinion on it myself, I would entreat the noble Lord to give his best attention to the case; and if there be even an implied guarantee on the part of this country, I hope and trust he will see, that these persons get the benefit of it.

said, that there was undoubtedly an implied guarantee, that the lives of these persons should be protected. The object of the convention was to secure them from Rodil, who was on the point of taking them prisoners, and if he had done so they certainly would have suffered the fate of rebels taken in arms. It was undoubted, then, that the honour of Great Britain was pledged, that these persons should not be given up to the Queen's Government for purposes of punishment. There never was a notion of that. The only question which could be raised was, whether they were to be set unconditionally free to join the ranks of Don Carlos, or were they only to be the subjects of an exchange. Looking at this matter over and over again, he came to the conclusion, that they were not to be allowed to go unconditionally free; that they were not to be allowed to go and join the ranks of Don Carlos (which it was known they would do), unless Don Carlos set free at the same time an equal number of persons of the army of the Queen.

Subject dropped.

rose to move for the appointment of a 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 Soudjouk-kalé; 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 sanction; 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." He observed, that he rarely took part in the debates of that House, and that be still more rarely took upon himself to originate a question, but when he considered the important commercial interests which were involved in this question; he could not resist the strong sense of duty that impelled him to bring the subject under the consideration of the House. The petition to which he referred, related to the capture of a British vessel in the Black Sea in the year 1836. The official papers on the subject were not laid upon the table of the House till so late in the last Session, that the attention of Parliament could not be directed to it. The vessel sailed from London on the 29th of October, and arrived at Constantinople on the 19th of November. On entering the Black Sea, her first object was to make for the eastern coast, and no discourage- ment or misfortune occurred to her till she arrived at Soudjouk-kalé. A Russian armed brig arrived shortly afterwards, when the captain of the Vixen was informed he was engaged in a trade that interfered with a blockade established on the coast of Circassia. The Vixen was sent to the port of Sebastopol, where an Admiralty officer, it seemed, was a resident. The decision of the Russian Government proceeded on the representation of their officers in the Black Sea, and the ship and cargo were in the end condemned, on the ground of a violation of the fiscal regulations of the country. The decision of the Russian Government was received at Sebastopol on the 27th of January; the British flag was immediately taken down, and the Russian hoisted in its stead; the master and crew were put on board the Ajax, the captor, and despatched to Odessa, whence they were afterwards sent, at the expense of the Russian Government, to Constantinople. The first consideration connected with this transaction to which he would call the attention of the House was, the motive which appeared to have influenced the merchants engaged in the enterprise. Mr. Bell, the principal in the concern, had, it appeared, during his residence on the western side of the Black Sea, occasion to make certain inquiries and researches with respect to trade in the neighbourhood of those waters, and his attention had been drawn to works describing the great commercial facilities which the coast of Circassia presented to foreign trade. That his opinion was not erroneous as to the advantages to be expected from speculations in that quarter, might easily be shown by a reference to various publications. The right hon. Gentleman read several extracts from books of travels, and others to show that the resources of Circassia were incalculable. He thought the House would agree with him, that works representing the resources of Circassia as so very inviting and available, were sufficient to justify Mr. Bell in the hope of being able to derive great personal advantages, should circumstances admit of his forming a commercial connexion with the people of that country. While making up his mind upon the subject, some rumours reached him of a claim on the part of Russia of some indistinct kind to that part of the country; there was also some question of a blockade and other restrictions, described so vaguely that he could not comprehend their nature. Like a prudent man, anxious in following out his own interests not to leave the straight line of honest trade, he presented himself to that source where he might derive the most satisfactory information—he applied to the Foreign-office—and endeavoured to obtain, first by verbal communications, at a later period by written official applications, that information which it was so important for him to possess. Not content with obtaining such information as was within his reach at the Foreign-office, although he conceived he had obtained sufficient, on chartering the vessel and sending her to Constantinople his naturally prudent and cautious temper came again into action, and he would not allow her to proceed on her voyage without communicating with her Majesty's embassy at that place. It was painful to find that, embarked as he was in an enterprise of a legitimate character, and which held out such great advantages, in spite of all the precautions he had taken, a catastrophe so serious and painful as the loss of his vessel, under circumstances reflecting discredit on his character as a merchant, finally closed the transaction. To whatever cause that catastrophe was to be ascribed, he was sure the House would agree with him in thinking that not only in respect of the individual interest concerned, but in relation to the commerce and character of this country, it was one of the most deplorable character. The first question then which naturally presented itself was, to what an incident so fraught with grave considerations, and attended by such painful circumstances, was to be attributed? He believed he had already said enough to afford a fair presumption that the culpability did not rest with the petitioners. To whom, then, were they to ascribe it? He feared they must conclude, that a very grave responsibility attached to that department, and those in connexion with it, under whose sanction Mr. Bell's enterprise was undertaken. Such was the case which it was most painful for him to take up, and which he would refer to the committee of which he had given notice. The petition, he need not remind the House, contained a variety of allegations of the greatest interest and deepest importance. He did not propose to refer the whole of those allegations to the committee which he proposed should be appointed. The House would, no doubt, expect some explanation of the line he proposed to draw between the allegations he would refer to the committee and those he would not submit to that tribunal. The grounds on which the Russian officers proceeded to the seizure of the Vixen, and on which the Russian Government passed a sentence of confiscation on her—the irregularity of the proceedings in point of law, and the question which stood prominently on the printed paper with respect to the actual occupation of Soudjouk-kalé, all of which, in fact, were involved in the one legal consideration as to the right of Russia to the sovereignty of the Circassian provinces, he did not propose to refer to the committee. He was unwilling to moot the important question of the sovereignty claimed by Russia over these provinces. It was impossible for any hon. Gentleman to shut his eyes to the vast importance of that question. Any Member who took it up in that House, must be aware that he would set in motion a stone which, in its course, might crush many important interests, and be attended with painful consequences. In opening a question of so much difficulty, he should be taking on himself a task of too much magnitude; it was for Government—it was for those acquainted not only with the question of right, on which, no doubt, an adequate opinion might be formed in that House, but acquainted also with the important consideration of expediency, having regard to the position of the country and the degree to which they might count on its freedom, who could judge of its resources in respect of trade, revenue, and establishments—it was for those at the head of the Foreign Department, who were best able to judge how far the conduct they had pursued entitled them to count on faithful and effective allies in the hour of necessity—it was for them to decide whether so great and extensive a question could now be taken up consistently with the other interests of the country. He was, therefore, restrained from referring to a Committee of the House of Commons those parts of the petition which would have the effect of opening that great question. The same consideration made him the more anxious to avoid any expressions beyond those of a general character, called forth by the question immediately under consideration, especially as the questions involved were not only important, but might occasion consequences not dangerous to this country so much as to the peace of Europe itself. The question was by no means a new one in this country. The capture of the Vixen had during the last eighteen months drawn from time to time a considerable degree of public attention to all the considerations involved in it. Various publications, some of high authority, had discussed the question, and the general points connected with it were known even to those who, not attending to the debates in that House, derived their knowledge of passing events from mere ordinary sources of observation. There were two questions of main consideration connected with this subject—first, whether the Porte, which entered with Russia into the treaty of Adrianople, under which the sovereignty of the Circassian coast was claimed—whether the Porte was so circumstanced with regard to it as to be able to cede that right of sovereignty to another. As far as he had the means of information, he must say, that the grounds of her right appeared of a very vague and indistinct character. He was perfectly aware, that there was a treaty between Russia and the Porte in the latter part of the last century, in which Russia acknowledged the sovereignty of the Porte over certain parts of the coast, and especially of Soudjouk-kalé; but, he repeated, his mind was not satisfied in general with regard to that claim. Supposing, however, that the Turkish Government had the right to cede those provinces to Russia, there was still another and very important consideration—whether the Russian Government, at that time, was in a position, fairly and honourably, to avail itself of the cession. The war between Russia and the Porte, which terminated in the peace of Adrianople, sprung out of the transaction founded on the treaty for the pacification of Greece; one of the principal provisions of which, and of the protocol signed by a noble Duke in another place, pledged each party in the most positive and solemn manner to abstain from any acquisition of territory, or any exclusive advantage. When, in consequence of the deafness of the Porte to the representations of the Powers allied on that subject, the war broke out between her and Russia, there was on the one side an anxiety to satisfy Europe, and more particularly England and France, that the Emperor of Russia had no intention to avail himself of the rupture in order to evade the stipulations of the treaty. Mutual explanations took place, and he believed he was justified in saying, that any candid mind brought to the consideration of the case must come to the conclusion, that, in point of honour, Russia was restrained from availing herself of her successes over the Turkish empire to increase her territory to the smallest extent; but when the acquisition extended to not less than 250 miles of a line of coast with an average depth of 100 miles, including not only Circassia but the whole of the mountainous range of the Caucasus, it was impossible not to be astonished at the claims which were now advanced. Another point which he would not refer to the committee related, as he had said, to the actual occupation of Soudjouk-kalé at the time the Vixen was captured. It was impossible, on reference to the printed papers, not to be struck with the contradiction between the statements on which the decision of the Foreign-office was founded and those proceeding from other quarters. No one could be more disposed than he was to give all due consideration to the statements made by functionaries holding such important and responsible situations; and it was far from his intention to do more than, in justice to the interests he represented on this occasion, to call the attention of the House to the differences which existed. If the noble Lord could remove the apparent discrepancy, he should be ready, at once, to admit the force of his observations; but until that explanation was afforded, it was impossible for him not to feel considerable uncertainty of mind as to the grounds on which his statement was made. The parties interested in the vessel, the captain, crew, and supercargo, all gave evidence that, at the time of the capture, no Russian force was in possession of Soudjouk-kalé. The printed papers contained a letter of a very remarkable character from a gentleman signing himself "Edmund Spencer," who accompanied Count Woronzow, and Mr. Consul-general Yeames, of Odessa, on a visit to the Circassian coast, about three weeks before the capture of the Vixen, and whose testimony agreed with that of the captain and of the crew upon this important fact. There was another point to which he wished for a moment to advert,—the irregularity of the capture. The seizure was justified under the plea of a blockade. There was the letter of the Russian admiral himself; it was impossible to read that letter without entertaining the conviction that his (the Russian admiral's) impression must have been, that the ground of capture was the violation of a blockade. In this view of the case, great hardship was obviously entailed on the petitioners, the Russian Government having taken up the question without reference to blockade, but simply on the ground of fiscal regulations. He proposed to refer that part of the petition to the committee which related to the degree of sanction under which the petitioners were supposed to have entered on their enterprise in consequence of the communications they held with the Foreign Department and the Embassy at Constantinople. It was important that this matter should be cleared up, not only with reference to the petitioners, but to the character of the Administration of the country. The petitioners, as he had stated, had applied for information at the Foreign-office, and their conviction was, that the right of Russia to interfere authoritatively with respect to Circassia was not recognised by the Foreign Department; but that, in fact, there was a disposition to view with satisfaction an undertaking which was likely to open that province to British trade, and bring to issue the question between the two countries. Mr. Bell applied to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and addressed to him the letter which stood first in the printed papers. The answer Mr. Bell received from the noble Lord could not be read without feelings of great surprise. He should have thought, under the circumstances of the case, which were perfectly new, the noble Lord, in consideration of the commercial interests of the country, would have been anxious to supply what information his office afforded to merchants who applied for it. He was aware, that on some occasions it might be embarrassing to give information to an individual on any point connected with the trade of the country. But there were also modes well known to the noble Lord in his administrative practice, in which it was possible to convey his answer in such a manner as should not carry with it a character of evasion. It was not, of course, his intention to impute any improper object to the noble Lord, but such were the circumstances which characterized the transac- tion, that if such had been his design it could not have been more complete. With reference to blockade, it had been the practice to communicate the fact to the public through the Gazette; but there were other established modes of communication between the Foreign-office and the public, analogous to communication by the Gazette. This was a point of difference between Mr. Bell and the noble Lord. He wished to know how it was with respect to the practice of communicating matters of this kind through a public channel. If the noble Lord had any doubt on this point, he would refer the noble Lord to specific information. He had received a letter from the chairman of Lloyd's, who had been a member of the House not long ago—Mr. Robinson—of whom he had made inquiry, and who had informed him that it was the usual practice for communications to be made to Lloyd's from the Foreign-office, or Treasury, or Admimiralty, relative to the blockade of foreign ports; and that it did not appear from the books of Lloyd's that any notification whatever had been received of the blockade of Circassia from any of the public offices. Another part of this question was connected with the proceedings of the embassy at Constantinople. Mr. Bell, knowing nothing on the subject of the blockade from the Gazette, and from the silence of the public offices, naturally thought that he might, without danger to his property or his character, embark in this enterprise, and he ordered the ship to sail, and not without some mark of favour from the embassy at Constantinople. At Constantinople the principal actor in the transaction was the brother of Mr. Bell, and who shared his fate. Mr. James Bell was as anxious to ascertain that there was no objection on the part of the Government there as Mr. George Bell had been here. He applied to Lord Ponsonby, and he (Sir S. Canning) had a memorandum of what passed between Mr. Bell and his Majesty's Ambassador. Mr. Bell was so anxious that he should not mistake what had occurred in the conversation, that he sent the memorandum to the Ambassador, and begged to know whether it was correct. The reply of Lord Ponsonby was this,—he transmitted a copy of a despatch, containing what he had stated of the conversation, and he accompanied it by a note, which did not appear amongst the papers, but of which he (Sir S. Canning) had a copy, stating, that he recognized no essential difference between Mr. Bell's memorandum and the despatch he had sent to the noble Lord. But for this circumstance, he might have suspected that Mr. Bell had fallen into a mistake; but the memorandum of Mr. Bell must now be taken as part and parcel of the transactions between him and the Ambassador. The despatch containing the renewal of the Russian regulation had been received at the Foreign-office on the 13th of October, and had been communicated to Lord Ponsonby before the Vixen sailed. Lord Ponsonby did not desire Mr. Bell to wait, but suffered him to proceed on his enterprise, only with a caution that he should not evade the blockade. He (Sir S. Canning) did not impute to our ambassador at Constantinople any conduct inconsistent with his sense of public duty; but he inferred, that that noble Lord, somehow or other, fancied that his view of the subject would not be unpalatable to the Foreign Department. From these circumstances the House would agree with him that sufficient reasons had been shown to bear out the petitioners in a primâ facie charge against the Foreign Department, both in England and Constantinople, of negligence with respect to the interests of British subjects; that the expedition had been undertaken with the good wishes of the Government and of the ambassador, and that if, unfortunately, the parties should suffer from any act of the Russian government, they were justified in expecting to obtain an indemnity for their loss from their own Government. This was by no means the whole case. When this part had been brought forward on a former occasion, the noble Lord had said, that he (Sir S. Canning) had acted uncourteously in bringing forward the petition as he did. But he had acted from a sense of duty, and he thought the House would agree with him, that it was desirable for the community, as well as for the noble Lord himself, that the public should be undeceived, if they were deceived on the subject. The matter having attracted a great degree of public attention, it called for investigation, and if the noble Lord laboured under any unjust imputation, it was most desirable that he should be relieved from the effect of mistakes and misstatements, and that the blame of those unjust allegations should be brought home to those who had endea- voured to practise deception. In the meantime, without the least desire to do more than to render justice to those who had placed confidence in him, he must press the subject on the House. There was a gentleman who had been placed by the noble Lord in a situation of confidence at Constantinople—a gentleman who was known at the Foreign-office, who had been appointed by the noble Lord, and whose appointment had been considered, not only here but abroad, as an intimation on the part of the Foreign-office of a disposition by no means favourable to Russia; and what came from a gentleman so circumstanced it was impossible the House could treat lightly. He did not say, whether the letter of that gentleman, which had appeared before the public, was worthy of credence or not, but he must say, that corning from such a source, a person so distinguished by the noble Lord himself, till some explanation was given of the letter, it was impossible to resist the impression it was calculated to make. A letter was quoted by that gentleman (Mr. Urquhart) from one of the under secretaries, a gentleman whom he highly respected, and when he found that letter placed under the eye of the public, he could not refrain from referring to it. Mr. Urquhart quotes Mr. Strangways' letter in the following manner:—

"Mr. Strangways, in his second answer to my letter of the 7th of December, says, I cannot omit alluding to the capture of the Vixen without telling you that it has had all the effect on the public that you could have anticipated, and even more than I expected, knowing the temper of the people here. It is now under legal and Government discussion, so I need say no more. Bell's statements and his brother's documents tell very well for him. As the public here are very obtuse on foreign matters, et il faut faire flêche de tout bois, I wish, when the coast is cleared, which I hope it will be by this business, you could send some artist, or, better, a gentleman who can draw and write travels, &c., to make a tour in Circassia; it would do admirably for London, and be well got up here.' 'I should warn you, that in giving any accounts of the Vixen transaction, you may be liable to misrepresentation, as it would not be thought proper, if, being Secretary of Embassy, you had incited Mr. J. Bell to make the voyage as a diplomatic experiment; I can answer for its having been the intention of Mr. G. Bell long before in London. This hint comes from high authority.'"

There was another part of the letter to which it was not necessary for him to refer at length. If the noble Lord was anxious that he should read it, of course he would do so but his object in not doing so was to save the time of the House. In another part of the letter Mr. Urquhart described the expression as coming from high authority, and in fact as being sanctioned by the noble Lord himself. He had merely stated the circumstances of the case, as they were related in the papers which had been made public, in order to draw the attention of the House to them, and he considered that he had discharged no more than his duty. On reviewing the whole of the circumstances, he thought one might be fairly struck with this fact—that those gentlemen who had embarked in an enterprise of a fair and reasonable kind connected with their own just interests, and immediately connected also with a large mass of the interests of this country, appeared to have taken every precaution, and to have done everything that was incumbent on them to remove from the nature of that enterprise every stain of irregularity. That appeared to be an object of which they did not lose sight, but, as far as circumstances would allow them, they carried it into effect. He thought the House would find, on going further into the subject, that until an explanation was offered of the facts referred to in the papers, there was something about those statements which justified the impression that the circumstances under which they entered on the enterprise were such as to exempt them from the charge of having done anything unfair or irregular. He thought after what had appeared in the papers before the House and those which he had the honour of bringing under its notice, that hon. gentlemen would agree with him that the whole circumstances of the case would justify him in asking for something more decisive than that which he proposed in his motion. It might, indeed, be a question whether upon a fair consideration of the whole of the circumstances, a resolution might not be submitted which should have the effect of at once vindicating the character of those gentlemen, and of placing them in a situation to expect that redress which their petitions demanded. But the motion with which he would conclude did not go to any such length, it only asked for inquiry in that form which was consistent with the usages of that House—that form which afforded the best opportunity for enabling the House to ascertain whether there was any real and substantial ground for the claim of the petitioners, and whether they had been acting either under false impressions, or with unfair views, and whether those who had taken any part in bringing forward their affairs in that House were themselves under the influence of any misinformation. The true mode of bringing this matter to a point, so as to satisfy the House, and through the House, the country, with respect not only to the transaction itself, but to the larger questions which were connected with it, was by granting that inquiry for which he now moved. He felt confident that the House would go with him, and that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, setting aside any considerations but those arising out of the case, would not endeavour to throw a veil over the transaction, but that, whatever might be the nature of the case, and the character of the persons concerned, whether they were persons high in authority, or merely mercantile men, the House would admit the propriety of allowing all parties to have an opportunity of vindicating their character against every charge, and of removing every doubt as to the correctness of their conduct. Leaving the question of state policy, as affected by the ephemeral influence of political partisanship, he must say he had always thought that the favouring of our national commerce, the protection of our merchants, and above all the principle of resistance to anything like foreign dominance, had been the most prevailing principles in the councils of the country on all occasions. But what was the character of this transaction? Let the fault be where it would, what was the result? Loss and discredit to every person connected with the voyage of the Vixen—loss to the nation of honour and influence, and of character, the most valuable of our national possessions. What had become of the ship, the cargo, and the owners? The owners were ruined men; being not only injured by this particular loss, but having their attention and resources diverted from other speculations. Could any one doubt the character of the Russian act of condemnation? The ship had been condemned as being engaged in an act of smuggling, and the captain and owners branded as common smugglers. And how was it with regard to the individual whose name had been brought forward to-night. What had been the result to that Gentleman, who was so highly favoured by the noble Lord a short time ago? He appeared to have been recalled under circumstances which could not be agreeable. And what had happened to the Circassians? The whole weight of the Russian empire had been brought down upon them. They were a people situated at a long distance from us, and subject to all the misrepresentations of travellers who were rife in romantic and vaunting stories, but they were not a people to be lightly esteemed by this country in connexion with this subject. Had hon. Gentlemen forgotten the records of history? Who formed the barrier between the barbarians that threatened ancient Rome and the Roman empire itself? This was a question of the greatest importance. Suppose we were placed in an unhappy situation of collision with Russia, her means of action must be infinitely increased by the subjugation of that country. Who would deny, that we were interested in the independence of Circassia? In addition to the unfortunate effects of this transaction of the Vixen to the parties concerned, it had led Russia to fix her attention on Circassia, and instead of our being enabled to nurse the resources of that country for our own advantage, we were compelled to stand still, and see that it was the state policy of Russia to turn a large force upon it to subdue it to her own purposes, not, indeed, as it appeared, with very great success; but still the consequences must be injurious to us as a nation, and eventually the entire subjugation of the Circassian territory was likely to be the result. He did not say, that the Foreign Department had been the culpable cause of all this, but be said, that such was the allegation on the face of the papers; and, therefore, considering the importance of the case, and the consequences arising out of it to the commercial and political interests of the country, he thought it could not be denied, that the House ought to inquire into the whole matter. He hoped the House would permit him to draw its attention to another point. This was not the first time they had heard complaints of indifference to the commercial interests of the country. He understood that a petition had been presented that night by the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, on this very subject. Did the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Poulett Thomson) mean to intimate that the petition was got up for the occasion? He asked that question because he had not seen the petition, and knew nothing of its contents beyond what the noble Lord who presented it, had told him—namely, that the prayer of it was, that greater attention might be paid to the interests of commerce, and that it bore the signatures of the members of the most eminent firms in Liverpool. It was no easy thing to get up a dinner of 350 persons at Glasgow, but the feeling displayed there, and at Liverpool, showed the opinion the public formed on this subject. He thought he did no more than was right to answer the inarticulate objection of the right hon. Gentleman, which would, perhaps, take a more eloquent form before the debate closed. But the charge of indifference in the Foreign Department was not the only complaint; there was another, that a great degree of apathy prevailed in that House on the subject of commercial affairs, as well as on foreign affairs. Was that a novel idea? Had they not heard the noble Lord talking of thin benches when foreign questions were debated, and drawing there from an inference of confidence in the Government? He thought he could quote eloquent passages from speeches of the noble Lord made when he was not under his present circumstances, but when he was on the less brilliant benches of the House, and on the less favoured side of the House, than he now occupied. He was then one of the first to draw attention to this apathy. If the noble Lord was at one moment to draw a picture of this apathy for the purpose of condemning it, and at another time to draw a favourable inference from it, he thought he had a right to say, when the subject came before the House, that they ought to give a forcible contradiction to any false opinion which might prevail, and, at the same time, by showingan earnest desire to go into a thorough examination of the transaction of the Vixen, to support their character, and bring to the consideration of this question that degree of interest, and attention, and duty towards the country which it so eminently deserved. If, upon every occasion when an effort was made by any hon. Member to awaken the House from its apathy, and to fix attention on a subject of such vast importance, additional proofs were not afforded of the earnest desire of the House to attend to it, the result would be most dangerous to its character. He was anxious, on constitutional grounds, that the House should increase its hold on the affection of the country, and that on this occasion they should not turn a deaf ear to the demand which had been made in the petitions which had been presented. He was aware he was but an inefficient advocate. Setting aside all other considerations, but of the duties which they owed to the country, he hoped both sides of the House would evince a disposition to do justice in this case, which, he believed, a reference of the question to a Select Committee could only secure.

commenced by stating, that he considered there was not one averment in the motion which had just been made by the right hon. Member which was not completely contradicted by the papers already on the table of the House. He was prepared to show, that the petitioners had not been in any way aggrieved; that if they had suffered loss either of property or character, it was with a full knowledge of the circumstances under which they acted, and that none but themselves were to blame. With respect to any encouragement which the petitioners pretended to have received from the Government at home, or its emissaries at Constantinople, he undertook to prove, that they were expressly warned of the danger, of their undertaking, and fully informed of every fact necessary to guide them in their commercial proceedings. With respect to the charge of apathy brought by the hon. Member against the House on the subject of the commercial relations of the country, the charge was altogether groundless; for, representing, as he did, a large commercial constituency, he could undertake to say, that upon no occasion in which commercial relations were involved, whether the Danish claims or any other that had been brought under the notice of the House, had he neglected those subjects, or acted in respect to them in any other way than the dictates of his reason and his conscience pointed out. In saying this, he could speak in the same terms of the other hon. Gentlemen, who, like himself, represented commercial constituencies. Whatever view the right hon. Gentleman might wish to place this motion in, it amounted, in fact, to nothing else than a charge against her Majesty's Government. The question involved was simply this: whether Mr. Bell, being the owner of a vessel of 150 tons burden, and laden with some hundred tons of salt, had, or had not, received from the Government of this country that description of information on the subject of a projected expedition which Mr. Bell, and the right hon. Member also, conceived he was entitled to have received. He did not mean to say, that because the ship was a small one, the subject should be treated with less regard than if a larger vessel had been concerned. If a question of principle were involved in the case at all, that question would be just as well tried with a cock-boat having on board ten pounds of salt. Yet the right hon. Member said, he would not press this question of the principles of trade upon the House; which question he considered was the only question which they should discuss; and, therefore, he should now come to inquire whether the owners of this vessel were entitled to consider themselves aggrieved parties through any neglect on the part of her Majesty's Government. He contended, on the contrary, that when Mr. Bell commenced this correspondence, he was perfectly aware of the interruption of trade which existed on the coast of Circassia, and, with the knowledge of this fact, he wrote to the Foreign-office to ask whether it would be wise or expedient for him to undertake the farming of the salt mines of the Prince of Wallachia. He would now read Mr. Bell's first letter, dated the 25th of May, 1836.

"My Lord—We beg leave to inform your Lordship, that we have been urged by the Prince Hospodar of Wallachia to undertake the farming of the salt-mines of that country; and in the course of our inquiries as to the available outlets for their produce, we find the population of the countries along the whole circuit of the Black Sea, from the Bosphorus as far as the entrance to the sea of Azoff, to be importers of salt; but in consequence of the interruption of the relation between the Russian territories and the countries to the south of the river Kuban, a very large population, which formerly drew considerable quantities of salt from the Russian territory, is now deprived of that necessary of life.

"These considerations open up for the principalities a large outlet for the produce of their salt-mines, and which would immediately come into operation, but for the existence of a blockade by Russia of the eastern coast of the Black Sea.

"We, therefore, request the favour of your Lordship to inform us, whether there be any restrictions on the trade with that line of coast which are recognised by his Majesty's Government; for, although we have not for the present assented to the proposal of the Prince of Wallachia, yet we should gladly avail ourselves of it, should we have a favourable answer to this our inquiry; and, at all events, in consequence of our commercial connections with that country, we look with the greatest anxiety for a decision on this point, which so deeply affects the general interests of all the countries bordering on the Black Sea; and which more especially would open it up for much greater employment of British capital and shipping.

"We have, &c.

(Signed) GEORGE BELL & Co.

The communication from the Foreign-office, in reply, stated that Lord Palmerston

"Must decline giving any answer to the inquiries which Mr. Bell had submitted, and that the latter must himself make inquiries as to whether any restrictions of the kind to which he referred existed."

He now came to consider whether the Foreign-office was aware of the existence of this blockade, and whether if it were, it was bound to give that information to Mr. Bell, the absence of which he complained of. He would now beg to read Mr. Bell's letter of the 30th May.

"My Lord—We have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Strangways' letter of this date, conveying your Lordship's reply to our letter of the 25th of May, relative to trade with the eastern coasts of the Black Sea; and we now beg leave to state to your Lordship, that we had no intention, nor does our letter appear to us to require any opinion from his Majesty's Government, as to whether we should, or should not, enter into the speculation therein referred to; the details which we gave pointed out a great field for British commerce, and were intended merely to show our object in making the only inquiry which we did make, and which we now beg leave to repeat, viz.—whether or not his Majesty's Government recognize the Russian blockade on the coast of the Black Sea to the south of the river Kuban. We presume your Lordship will admit, that any commercial house is perfectly justified in asking for information from his Majesty's Government on such an important subject as a question of blockade, of which no notification, so far as we can learn, has ever appeared in this country.

"We have, &c.

(Signed) "GEORGE BELL & Co.

It appeared, then, that Mr. Bell was aware of the existence of this blockade, and only asked the noble Lord whether it were recognised by the Government of this country. And what was the reply of the Foreign-office on this point, as contained in the letter of Mr. Fox Strang-ways, of the 2d of June? He would read an extract from that letter:—

"Lord Palmerston directs me to state to you in reply, that if your inquiry is retrospective, and relates simply to the fact whether the British Government has notified in The Gazette any Russian blockade in the Black Sea, your letter itself appears to contain an answer to the question which it asks. But if your inquiry is prospective, and is made for the purpose of ascertaining what the British Government would do in a hypothetical case, I have to inform you that it is the duty of his Majesty's Government to listen to any statement of grievance alleged to have been sustained by his Majesty's subjects, and to endeavour to obtain redress where it shall be made to appear that any real injury has been suffered; but it is no part of the duty of the Government to answer speculative inquiries. British merchants must, in their undertakings, be guided by facts which are public and notorious to all, and must not expect that the Government shall, for their particular and individual benefit, anticipate events and prejudge questions of international rights."

In reply to this letter, Mr. Bell wrote another letter, on the 4th of June in which he states:—

"We beg leave to state to your Lordship, that we do not make inquiries of either a retrospective, speculative, or prospective nature, but as to a fact, viz., the blockade of the coast of the Black Sea to the south of the river Kuban, which has existed, and up to the date of our latest intelligence still continued to exist; and lest we may not have clearly understood the tenour of your Lordship's reply, we think it proper to state that the conviction we derive from the perusal of it, as well as from the fact of no notification of that blockade having been published by his Majesty's Government, is that such blockade is not recognised by his Majesty's Government?"

In answer to this letter, Mr. Fox Strangways wrote as follows:—

"In reply to your letter of the 4th of June, stating that the conviction which you derive from the perusal of my letter of the 2d of June, as well as from the fact of no notification of the blockade of the coast of the Black Sea to the south of the river Kuban having been published by his Majesty's Government, is, that such blockade is not recognised by his Majesty's Government; I am directed by Viscount Palmerston to state to you, that his Lordship can only refer you on this subject to The Gazette, in which all notifications, such as those alluded to by you, are made for the information of the parties interested."

Such was the correspondence which had taken place between Mr. Bell and the Foreign-office, from which it clearly appeared that Bell was fully aware of the fact of a blockade existing on the coast of the Black Sea. The question to which he now came was, whether it was the duty of the Foreign-office, and under what circumstances, to notify the recognition of any acts interrupting of trade on the part of foreign nations. He did not think it necessary that any general rule should be laid clown on this point; which indeed would be on many accounts extremely inconvenient in practice. Of course, however, the Foreign-office would act with discretion and with a due regard to what it conceived the circumstances of each peculiar case required. Everybody, however, was aware of this general rule of international law, that any British subject who traded in foreign countries contrary to the laws of that place was guilty of a highly reprehensible act. With respect to any notifications from foreign powers on such questions, he believed that it was not incumbent upon them to notify except in cases of treaties with other powers, which they were then called upon to notify to the Foreign-office. As far as he had experience in his profession he could say, that it was not the practice, and had never been the practice with this office, to convey information to any individual merchant as to the rules and regulations of the financial or fiscal policy of a foreign country. But that which was the great question, and he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was one of the most important connected with the subject, was, whether the territory in question could be ceded by virtue of the treaty of Adrianople between Turkey and Russia. The question was, whether this were a good and valid cession of the country by Turkey, when doubts were entertained as to the extent of the control which it possessed over the territory, and when it was uncertain whether it could exercise any acts of sovereignty over, the natives, and that, therefore, although being sovereign of the country de jure, yet not being so de facto, the cession was not valid. And was this a question to be decided on the point that had been urged that night—was it to be determined on the raising of a question growing out of a speculating voyage from this country to the coast of Circassia? Suppose, how- ever, that Turkey had had the undoubted control over this country, and had ceded it to Russia, and the latter had formerly recognised the authority of the former over this coast, after the cession, of course, she could claim the territory by the treaty of Adrianople. How was it possible, however, for the noble Lord, who was ignorant of the precise state of things when the question was asked him in June, 1836, as to the blockade of the coast, and as to the course he would pursue with the information in his possession at that moment, to say whether there were not some parts of the coast from which British merchants could not be excluded from trading without just ground of complaint? How could her Majesty's Secretary of State take upon himself to decide at once, with the imperfect information then before him, as to the course the Russian Government would take in 1836; and even if he was aware of all the facts of this great and important question, he doubted much whether it would have been expedient or just to give an answer on a speculative question. Suppose he had said, "True it is that Russia claims control over this coast, but in spite of this, go, "the petitioner then might have said, "I acknowledge the validity of your order, and I will go." Nothing, however, of the kind occurred, and would it, indeed, have been wise or prudent to raise the question of peace or war, the consequences of which no man could foresee, affecting as it would the interests of this great empire, and the well-being not only of this country? but perhaps of all Europe. Therefore no blame attached to the noble Lord for giving no information as to the state of affairs in that country, or his opinion as a guide to the conduct of these persons in a commercial speculation; and on this point he would repeat the opinion that he had before given, that it had been the wise and constant practice of the Government of this country, to advise merchants going to make new speculations with distant parts of the world, that they were bound to make their own inquiries as to the trade, and as to the fiscal laws of the country with which they traded. Not only, however, did the noble Lord refuse to take any part in this matter or refuse to communicate his advice, but when the subject was introduced to the notice of her Majesty's representative at Constantinople he acted in a similar spirit. Cer- tainly nothing that was said by either of the noble Lords could dispose Mr. Bell to engage in his voyage from Constantinople to the coast of Circassia. Could any one read the first letter from Lord Ponsonby, unless they assumed that noble Lord to to have given utterance to the most wilful and false statements, without coming to the conclusion, which appeared to him to be inevitable, that Mr. James Bell, who was supercargo of the Vixen, was fully aware of all that the Russian government had done and were doing respecting this coast, and that notwithstanding this, Mr. Bell took upon himself—and he begged to state, that he blamed him not for having embarked in a mercantile enterprise of the kind—he took upon himself all the risk of the proceeding? He was surprised, after reading this letter, that the right hon. Gentleman could assert, that he believed, that this person engaged in this enterprise in consequence of his placing good faith in the Government, in which, however, he was deceived. Was the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the facts of the case; and what became, then, of the matter of grievance when they read the letters of Lord Ponsonby? Who could, after this, blame the Government for concealing the facts of the case from the persons who were about to send this vessel on this speculation? Lord Ponsonby, in his letter of the date of Oct. 18, 1836, said,

"Mr. James Bell called on me yesterday. He asked me if I had received any intelligence concerning the blockade established in the Black Sea by the Russian Government, of a later date than that of the letters which had passed between the Foreign-office and his firm, relative to the fact of publication or non-publication in The Gazette of the above-mentioned blockade. I replied that I had not received any communication on the subject. He further asked, what was the communication made to this embassy by the Russian envoy in September last, relating to the blockade? I informed him of its tenor, and stated that I had communicated it to his Majesty's consul-general for the information of the merchants."

Thus, then, it was clear that he must have been aware of the facts of the case before he proceeded on his voyage. The letter thus proceeded—

"Mr. Bell informed me that he was about to undertake, without delay, a voyage to the coast of Circassia on a trading speculation, and that he should act upon his knowledge that the blockade established there by the Russian government was informal and illegal."

How, then, could he say, that he had no intimation of it? and he challenged the noble Lord (Stanley) to find within the four corners of that paper that her Majesty's Government or her Majesty's representative at Constantinople had intimated to Mr. Bell that the blockade was illegal and informal. He was then prepared to show, that Mr. Bell was informed of the facts of the case, and was not misinformed by the Government, or other authorities, as to the law of the case. He said, that he expected to have his vessel seized, that he had no intention of acting under any disguise; that his end was to establish a trade in which he expected to find his interest; that his was a lawful commercial speculation and enterprise. Now, what was the result of this? Was it not clear, that he speculated on the chances of escape? Was he not aware of the risk that he ran? He might be asked whether the seizure was in conformity with the international law or not; but that question it was not then necessary to determine, for Mr. Bell chose to decide the question himself on his own knowledge, and if he was mistaken in his construction of the law, knowing as he did the facts of the case, he was alone to blame. If there had been an infraction of the international law on the part of the Russian government, they were to blame; and every British subject absent in foreign parts had a right, in case of the infraction of that law, to call upon his own Government to demand redress. But in a case of doubt and difficulty he had no right to demand that an answer should be given to him, and, above all, on a hypothetical case; and if he chose to run a risk, the judgment must fall on his own head if he was in the wrong, however we may regret the result. Mr. Bell stated, that his was a lawful speculation. What, however, was the observation of Lord Ponsonby to his assertion that he was engaged in a lawful speculation and enterprise.

"I replied that I had no right (if I should have the desire) to offer any objections to his proceedings, of which he was the undoubted master; but I would observe, that it must be necessary to his own interest carefully to avoid every thing that could wear even the appearance of an attempt to evade the blockade. He said his intention was carefully to avoid even such an appearance."

It was clear, then, from this part of the letter that Lord Ponsonby did not intimate that the blockade was entirely at an end, for he cautioned Mr. Bell against even appearing to evade it. Was this to be construed into a denial that the blockade was illegal; on the contrary; he said nothing with respect to its legality, but he cautioned this person not to do any thing that was illegal. It appeared, however, that there were two ports on this coast that were open, namely, Redout Kalé and Anapa, and all the rest were closed, from an alleged wish on the part of the Russian government to enforce two objects: the first was, to prevent the introduction of the plague, and the second was to control the trade by levying duties and commercial regulations; both these objects were perfectly legal. This was the simple case that the right hon. Gentleman had argued for three long hours, and he almost expected the right hon. Gentleman at last to have avowed that they had under certain circumstances a right to close the coast; and if this was done in conformity with the law of nations there was no ground of complaint. No British merchant was justified in disregarding these restrictions if they were formally issued. With respect to Russia, he admitted, that it was not a government that he had a particular partiality to, and if they had put up a claim to a country they had no right to, and seized a British vessel attempting to trade on that coast, the retribution which should be claimed by the British Government was not a question of mere value, but was one of principle, and could only be decided as a question of that nature required. The matter, however, had not been put forward in that view, and it was impossible that they could have the benefit of the claim they now put forth. He believed, that it would not be doubted on any hand that any Power which possessed the right of sovereignty had the power of making municipal regulations such as those he had described. Now, in this case, the restrictions were imposed by the Russian government in 1831. He confessed, that he had felt some little astonishment when he found that, notwithstanding the Russian government in 1831 had notified to all the great Powers of Europe these acts both of sovereignty and of municipal regulation, any person could say, in spite of all this, that Russia had acted on belligerent prin- ciples. Admiral Lazareff, in a letter, dated 10th December, 1836, said,

"I have received your letter of the 20th of December, and those it enclosed for Messrs. Polden and Morton and the British consul at Odessa, which, as they were all unsealed, and containing such documents as will prove, that the schooner Vixen was employed upon a blockaded coast in an unlawful trade with the enemies of this country, were sent by post to St. Petersburgh."

Now, how could this be construed against Russia? This officer said, that the vessel was seized for violating the municipal laws of the country. He said, that Russia claimed and exercised control over this coast, and that this was a question that had nothing to do with war or peace, but arose from an infraction of their domestic laws. Indeed, Russia said, that a merchant might as well go to St. Petersburg, and carry on an illicit and contraband trade as in this part of her territory. The Russian government adhered most strongly to this point, and put the question on no other footing throughout these negociations. The adjudication of the vessel then took place, and at that period a question of much importance was urged, namely, whether the port was in the possession of Russia at the time. This was a most important fact, and to arrive at it they in the first place had a letter from Mr. Spencer, who was there about this period, who stated, that he saw nothing there at the time to justify him in supposing that this was the case. This had been strongly urged on the other side, but then he apprehended that the right hon. Gentleman would concur with him in this principle, that a government must rely upon the information they received from their own representatives, appointed as they were by the Crown of this country, and whose duty it was to collect with accuracy and zeal, and transmit without delay, the information so collected. In the letter, then, of Lord Durham, in page 30, there was this statement as to the occupation of the port when the seizure took place.

"With respect to the military de facto occucccupation of Soudjouk Kalé, I have to state to your Lordship that there is a fortress in the bay, which bears the name of the Empress (Alexandrinsky), and that it has been always occupied by a Russian garrison."

This was the strongest and best evidence that could be given on this important point. If the occupation of this place was only by ten men, still it would be a military occupation, as if all the country was under the power and control of the proper authorities. It was, however, clear from other documents that the Russians had possession of several other places on the coast. In a letter from the Consul-general Yeames, dated Jan. 30, 1837, he says,—

"The force directed to the bay of Soudjouk Kalé reached the fort, which in 1836 I had seen commenced upon the Doba, as stated in my dispatch of the 11th of August of that year, and the existence of which has been so strongly and pertinaciously denied by some persons in England."

In the letter of the 11th of August it is stated,—

"The next Russian station is in the bay of Soudjouk Kalé, which, during several years, and till lately, remained unoccupied. On a low ground to the left, when entering the bay of Soudjouk, are the ruins of the Turkish fort, which is completely demolished. Nearly on the same site is to be erected a small Russian fortification, not yet commenced. The present position was occupied not three weeks previous to our visit. I beg leave to refer to the line of forts already mentioned by me, which was projected from Oglinsky on the Kuban. The fist of these, erected at the distance of thirty-three versts, is named Abyn; the second, sixteen versts from it, Mislayefsky; and the third, eighteen versts further, we saw traced out within the entrenchments of the camp on the Doba, a small stream falling into the bay of Soudjouk at its southern extremity."

This, he contended, was quite sufficient for the military occupation of this fort and its neighbourhood, and there was also the list of forts. It was clear that the question of right and possession must be determined before you could demand satisfaction from Russia. If we had a clear right to carry on commercial relations with this coast, it would have been beneath the dignity of this great nation to yield to anything less than that to which it was entitled by the law of nations. It had, however, been asserted, that Turkey was not in possession of a great part of the coast of Circassia. But there could be no doubt, as regarded Russia, that that power, by the treaty of 1783, acknowledged that coast to belone, to Turkey. She, therefore, had a right by the treaty of Adrianople to take this territory as belonging to Turkey, she having acknowledged fifty years before that it belonged to Turkey. He had already stated sufficient to show, that there was enough to justify Russia in claiming an occupation of the coast by the law of nations; but if it was merely a question of doubtful occupation, and it became a matter between A and B. on one side and C and D on the other, he asked, whether a mere question of doubt was a matter in which England should come to a rupture with a great empire like Russia? He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was for the benefit of this nation that the question should be taken up in this manner after what had passed on the part of Russia in 1831 and 1836 on this very subject? At both these periods Russia was pledged beyond retractation that it would pursue its claim to the sovereignty of Circassia. Suppose, indeed, it was determined, that Russia was not in actual possession, did the right hon. Gentleman think, that the period alluded to was the best to assert the commercial rights of the people of Great Britain, after the distinct avowals made by Russia in 1831 and repeated in 1836, and when the latter stated, that she would never give way on this point, supposing it to be a doubtful matter, which he, however, denied that it was, and which was likely to excite the grounds of quarrel between these two nations, which would probably have involved all Europe in a war? The persons who had undertaken this adventure had no right to complain; and he did not blame them for doing that which they, no doubt, regarded as a matter of fair commercial enterprise, but they had no claim to redress for that which had proved unfortunate to them as merchants. He thanked the House for the attention with which they had listened to him. He found no fault with the right hon. Gentleman opposite for having brought forward his motion, except for bringing into the discussion of the evening some communications which appeared in a newspaper of this day, and which came before the public in such a shape that, whatever might have been his anxiety for his argument, or for the cause that he was advocating, he should have disdained to have used it. He should have disdained, under the circumstances, to have used those documents, and he did not recollect an instance of a person holding the confidential situation which the writer held, who had availed himself of the use of documents in the way in which these had been brought for- ward, and it would have been better for his own honour and credit if he had kept them secret, and much more for the advantage of the House of Commons not to have wasted their time by discussing a question on which they could come to no satisfactory decision.

said, it was impossible not to entertain some suspicion that the principal part of the speech of his hon. and learned Friend, who had just sat down, was intended to be directed against the motion which he supposed would have been made, and not against the motion which had actually been made by the right hon. Gentleman near him, because in the first observations which had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend opposite, he had dwelt on the great inconvenience of referring to a Committee of the House of Commons matters involving questions of the greatest international importance—questions of the highest political consideration—questions which might possibly become the means of raising a war in Europe, or at all events, of giving rise to a war between this country and Russia, with all its possible consequences. He would pass over, as altogether beside the question, the two topics on which his hon. and learned Friend had laid so much stress, namely, the question of international law, the question of the actual occupation of Soudjouk Kalé, and of the right of Turkey to cede that territory, as well as of Russia to take possession of it. He would pass over these topics, because his right hon. Friend specifically to avoid the very evil which had been anticipated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, had, with great prudence and discretion, and considering how strongly he felt upon this subject, with great temper also, abstained from bringing those topics under the consideration of Parliament at present. His right hon. Friend was well aware of the importance and difficulty of those questions, and he felt, with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, the inconvenience which would result from the responsibility with reference to those questions, resting as it now properly did on the Executive Government of the country, being shifted to the House of Commons, which certainly ought not to bear it. His right hon. Friend had not at all proposed to refer those questions of international law and of the existing relations between Russia and England to a Committee of the House of Commons. He had not proposed to refer to a committee the general allegations contained in Mr. Bell's petition. He had proposed to refer to the consideration of a committee the single point whether Mr. Bell had been aggrieved by the capture of the Vixen, right or wrong, and whether her Majesty's Government, by a tacit or avowed encouragement of his adventure, had made themselves parties to that loss and wrong. Notwithstanding the declamation about this question of international law in which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had indulged at the commencement of his speech, his right hon. Friend had abstained from entering into that question, and confined it to the simple point whether any blame was to be attached to her Majesty's Government for the part which they had taken in this transaction. He had said, that with regard to the seizure of the vessel and the capture of a valuable cargo, that was not a consideration which ought to influence the House of Commons one way or the other. The question was, whether, as a British subject, Mr. Bell was entitled or disentitled, to protection upon the seizure of his property by a foreign power—whether he had received encouragement or not from Government to proceed with this speculation. It was not a question whether Mr. Bell had or had not the right to land in the particular mode in which be had attempted to land his cargo. That was certainly not the question; for he admitted with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, that the question whether he had or had not that right would involve some of those considerations of legal occupation by Russia of the territory in question, which it was desirable to avoid in this discussion. The question was, whether they would appoint a Committee of the House of Commons to examine into the allegation of a British subject, who stated that he had lost a valuable cargo, which was confiscated by a foreign power, that his position and character in trade were thereby injured, and that he had incurred this loss in consequence of encouragement which he had received from her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It was not that they should assume that he had received such encouragement, but they were asked to inquire into the truth or falsehood of the allegations which he made, and judge upon the evidence which he might be capable of producing, whether he had received such encouragement. If he had, in point of fact, received that encouragement, surely he ought to have also received protection. But he had not received that protection. The answer of the noble Lord opposite upon this point was, that he had not received that protection because he had acted in this matter on his own responsibility without receiving any encouragement from Government. Upon this part of the issue, they called on hon. Gentlemen opposite to say, whether they had not made out such a primâ facie case as called for the appointment of a committee before which this gentleman might be enabled, if it were in his power, to vindicate his character, which was now at stake. With regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's observation upon the first paper to which he had alluded, he would take the liberty of asserting, that Mr. Bell appeared to have been perfectly aware, that there were no international commercial relations between Russia and the Circassian territory, which he presumed to be independent, and that in consequence of that there was a more than ordinary means of advancing British commerce in that independent state. Under this impression, Mr. Bell stated, that he had applied to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to inform him of any restrictions to which British commerce might be subject in that quarter. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed, in his observations upon this part of the subject, to partake in no inconsiderable degree of the extreme ingenuity which had been displayed by his noble Friend opposite, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Like that noble Lord, he had indulged in a most artful use of the terms "blockade," and "sanatory regulations. "The noble and learned Lord, in his answer to Mr. Bell, had said, that it was for individuals to judge for themselves in matters of this description, and derive their grounds of opinion from those sources of intelligence which were open to all who proposed to embark their capital in any commercial venture. Mr. Bell stated, in his reply to Lord Palmerston, that he did not desire to be informed whether or not it would be for his advantage to embark in this speculation. Undoubtedly, British merchants were sufficiently awake to their own interests not to require information from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Mr. Bell's inquiry of the noble Lord was, whether there were any subsisting political relations, whether there was a recognized interference by blockade, which would render it unsafe for him as a British subject to embark his capital in the proposed speculation. What was Lord Palmerston's answer? The hon. and learned Gentleman had defied them to prove, that Lord Palmerston had declared the blockade to be informal and illegal. It certainly was not so stated in terms; but in his reply to this gentleman, the noble Lord had stated distinctly, "I refer you to the Gazette. There is no notification of any blockade in the Gazette." And having been repeatedly pressed for an answer, the noble Lord assured him, that there was no blockade recognised by the British Government. Had Mr. Bell, then, or had he not, the right, under those circumstances, to suppose, that if his ship was seized by Russia, he would be protected by the British Government? But then, said the hon. and learned Gentleman with great ingenuity, he did not inquire whether there were any sanatory regulation. Was it not manifest, however, that Mr. Bell, being aware that there would be a difficulty, had taken care to ask of the proper authority with a view of informing himself of the risk he was encountering? And the hon. and learned Gentleman now expressed his astonishment that Mr. Bell should not have known, that there was a blockade existing, when Lord Palmerston, just previously to his setting out, had said that there was no blockade recognised by this country. Suppose that Mr. Bell had received no further encouragement, the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that it was not necessary for foreign governments to notify any restrictions imposed by them on the commerce of our country. It certainly was not necessary. But, in this case, the foreign Government had already done so; for it had been communicated in the most formal manner to Mr. Mandeville, at Constantinople, expressly for the information of the British merchants, and transmitted to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who had for six years in his possession the notification of these restrictions. The noble Lord, again, in one of his answers stated, that it is not usual or necessary to publish these restrictions of a foreign government in the Gazette. Now, he asserted, that the merchants of this country had a right to complain when restrictions are imposed by a foreign government, materially affecting the trade of this country—even branches of that trade not specifically encouraged by the Government—the merchants of this country, he repeated, had a right to complain, if under such circumstances the committee at Lloyd's were not made acquainted with those restrictions. On that count, they were ready to go to issue. They were ready to proceed to issue, not only upon the propriety of such a course being adopted, but upon the question of this very course having been the practice of former governments. They were ready to establish before a committee that it had been the practice of former Governments to communicate to the committee at Lloyd's the fact of such notifications having been received. The hon. and learned Gentleman had proceeded to observe, that Mr. Bell did not go to Constantinople himself, but that his brother undertook a communication with the British Minister there, and laid all the details of the transaction before him; and he was then made perfectly conversant with the risk he was running. He had held a communication with Lord Ponsonby there, and had asked of that noble Lord whether he had received any notification of the blockade of a later date than the intelligence received at the Foreign-office, where no communication had been found on the subject. Lord Ponsonby, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, could not be expected to draw nice distinctions between foreign blockades and sanatory regulations; but the fact was, that the noble Lord had actually drawn that distinction. The noble Lord had stated, "That having been asked on that occasion what communication had been made to him by the Russian Envoy, he informed Mr. Bell of its being a sanatory regulation, and further stated that he had the fact communicated to his Majesty's Government for the information of the English merchants, but had not ordered that any public communication should be made of it." Under what circumstances was Mr. Bell placed? He applied to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who told him, that the blockade was not recognised at all. He went then to Constantinople, where the Minister told him, that there might be a blockade, that there were some sanatory regulations. "I tell you," continued Lord Ponsonby, "that you must be very careful not to endeavour to evade the blockade." Mr. Bell, therefore, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, was fully acquainted with the risk which he ran. He was acquainted with the fact that he might be incurring the suspicion of attempting to evade the blockade. But Mr. Bell's answer was plain and precise. He said, "I have no occasion to evade a blockade. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs tells me there is none recognised. You tell me not to evade a blockade. I mean to do nothing but what is straightforward. I mean to run the risk, but not to evade any blockade. If any ship should happen to be seized, I have the authority of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for stating, that England does not recognize that blockade, and I will claim a right to protection." He cared not whether the Russian Admiral seized the ship in one port, or the Russian Government confiscated it in the other. He assumed, that the entire transaction was perfectly legitimate, that the sanatory regulations of Russia were right, and the blockade legally conducted; and, assuming that such was the case, he said, that this was the very ground on which Mr. Bell came to the noble Lord for indemnity. But the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the noble and learned Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs was not bound to give any information or advice, or encouragement or discouragement, to Mr. Bell. Perhaps not; perhaps the noble Lord would have been justified if he said to Mr. Bell, "You ask me a simple question. Blockade there is none. With regard to any other matters, I decline to give you any information whatever. There may be restrictions or there may not, I don't choose to give you any answer. Proceed on your own responsibility." But it was also a question whether the communication which Mr. Bell had had with the noble Lord did not in his mind amount to a secret encouragement of the expedition. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had deprecated, and he was not surprised at this, because it was an inconvenient witness,—he had deprecated the evidence published by Mr. Urquhart in his letter of that morning. He did not know that gentleman. He was not aware that he had ever seen him. To the best of his belief he never had had any communication with him. He knew nothing whatever of the publication of this letter. But this he did know, that his right hon. Friend near him, in the pursuance of this case, having obtained a knowledge of the existence of this letter, actuated by that gentlemanlike feeling for the possession of which all gave hint credit, felt, that he had no right to make any use of an official correspondence, which might be supposed to come to his knowledge through any violation of official secrecy, and moved for a copy of this letter on Saturday last in his place in the House of Commons. What was the answer of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs? Did he say, that this was a communication of a nature partaking of official confidence, addressed by an official subordinate to an official superior—that he was unwilling to give publicity to state secrets of importance, and on public grounds objected to the production of the document? Could any man say, that, if such had been the answer, his right hon. Friend would have either pressed for the production of the paper, or used it that evening? But the course taken by the noble Lord was precisely the opposite of this. He said, "I hardly know what this letter is. It is a volume almost as thick as this (taking up a book from the table.) It is addressed to me by a person not in office; and there is no official secret in it. The document is not an official one." He was not in the House when the noble Lord gave this answer; but he had never heard it denied, that the noble Lord had rested his non-production of the letter upon the ground of its not being an official document, but a letter addressed by a private individual, who had been discharged from all responsibility. But the noble Lord had gone a step further than stating that this letter, being an unimportant one, he had not given himself the trouble of answering it; for, from first to last, he alleged, that it was full of the grossest misrepresentations. He knew nothing "he repeated" of Mr. Urquhart personally; but he would say, that he conceived the publication of the letter to be quite a natural course for a man of honour and a gentleman to pursue, when he heard a Secretary of State say, that he would not produce a letter written by that individual, on the ground of its not being official, but at the same time charge it with being, from the first to the last, full of the grossest misrepresentations. He could see no proper course to pursue but that which Mr. Urquhart had taken, which was to publish the whole letter, that its contents might be made known to the world, and, in order to judge this matter at issue between him and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, demands a committee of the House of Commons. He felt not the slightest reluctance to use the evidence contained in this letter. It bore on the face of it the knowledge of a man perfectly conversant with the facts of the case; and he only asked for inquiry, whether his statement be correct or not. He therefore, had not the slightest reluctance to use the evidence in his hands, as applicable to the question whether any encouragement had been given to Mr. Bell. If the noble Lord meant to deny the statements contained in this letter, if he meant to deny, that any encouragement had been given to Mr. Bell, why object to the committee? For his part, he would say, that if the noble Lord proved Mr. Urquhart to be wrong—since the great proof rested on Mr. Urquhart's allegations—the case, if it did not break down, would be materially weakened. But who was Mr. Urquhart? Where was he employed? The noble Lord said, that no encouragement was given to Mr. Bell, or to any one else, to trade with Circassia as an independent state. Were Mr. Urquhart's opinions on that question not known to the noble Lord when he appointed him on the embassy at Constantinople? Was the subject of trade with Circassia of no weight in procuring his appointment there? Mr. Urquhart was known to have been at all times, zealous for the independence of Circassia—at all times anxious to have an independent trade opened with Circassia as an independent state; he had, at all times, felt, that to open such a trade would be beneficial to this country, and, at all times, had denied the right of Russia to interfere with the independence of Circassia. Mr. Urquhart had much communication with British merchants upon the subject of trade with Circassia; and having had that communication with Circassian and with British merchants, was not his appointment, under these peculiar circumstances, and at that particular juncture, as secretary of embassy at Constantinople, a direct furtherance to the trade with Circassia, of which he was the advocate? Mr. Urquhart, then, being in constant communication with the Foreign-office, and having received a lucrative and confidential situation uncle; the Foreign-office, had the best means of making himself acquainted with all the facts of the case; and the letter from which he would presently read extracts, contained statements which Mr. Urquhart was only desirous to have investigated before a committee of that House. Those statements would remain unrefuted, if the noble Lord successfully opposed the committee. Mr. Urquhart, in his letter to Lord Palmerston, thus expressed himself:—

"The question of the independence of Circassia, in which solely is involved the legality or the illegality of the voyage of the Vixen, had been strenuously and uncompromisingly advocated for several months under your Lordships' sanction. My reports, detailing my entrance into the country two years before, in violation of any supposed municipal right of Russia, had been received, and not disapproved of. The Circassian declaration of independence had been published after mature deliberation, and several weeks' correspondence with different branches of the Government, in a periodical connected with the Foreign Department; Circassia was marked as an independent country on a map revised by your Lordship. In consequence of these views of your Lordship's becoming known, Mr. Bell conceived the project of a commercial voyage to Circassia. He consulted me thereon. I entered into discussion on the subject with Mr. Strangways; and, in consequence of these communications, and others of most unequivocal character which I need not quote, but which resulted from communications with your Lordship on the subject, the idea of such an expedition became a settled object, and Mr. Bell then formally addressed your Lordship, stating it to be his intention to open commercial connexion with the independent tribes in the Caucasus, and asked if there were any legal impediments to such a voyage recognised by the British Government. Your Lordship referred him to the Gazette, as on a question between belligerent states—the publication or non-publication in the Gazette being, in the eye of all mercantile men, the test of their right to carry on commerce with any given coast in cases of war; and the reference of your Lordship to the Gazette proves that this was a question which involved the belligerent rights—not the municipal regulations—of Russia, and, consequently, setting wholly aside the communication made by the Russian Envoy at Constantinople to the British Minister in 1831 on the custom-house and quarantine regulations to be observed by the vessels of foreign powers trading to the coast of Circassia. When, therefore, your Lordship says, that you were averse from the voyage, and that your correspondence with Mr. Bell shows that you were so; I can only confess, that I laboured under the most perfect delusion up to my first interview with your Lordship after my return to England."

Under these circumstances, was it that Mr. Bell commenced his correspondence with Lord Palmerston, who, dealing with the question as between two hostile countries, told him the blockade was not recognised by this country. Would any roan tell him, that Mr. Bell had not received any encouragement from the Foreign-office? But did it cease after the result of the Vixen had been made known? Had the noble Lord even then made up his mind to withhold his sanction and approbation? On the 7th of December, Mr. Urquhart wrote to Mr. Strangways. He communicated the result, and Mr. Strangways immediately replied in a private letter, which was not quoted, and which he was not going to read. In a letter already quoted, and after the departure of the Vixen was known, Mr. Strangways spoke of the exultation with which the proceedings had been received in this country, never doubting that the right of commerce with Circassia would be maintained. One would have supposed that the announcement received by the Foreign Secretary of the result of an undertaking of which he could not foresee the disastrous consequences, would have met with an immediate reprimand from the noble Lord of the inconvenience and mischief that had resulted from that unrecognised and improper conduct of Mr. Bell. No such thing; it met with a letter of exultation from the Under Secretary. Let them then see the date of the letter recalling Mr. Urquhart, received from the noble Lord himself. Mr. Urquhart's letter left Constantinople on the 8th of December, and even supposing Mr. Strangways to have been unauthorised to write as he did in a case of imminent danger of war between England and Russia, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was liable to the imputation of not having expressed any opinion on the subject from the 8th of January to the 10th of March, the date of his letter. He had no means of official reference, and could only speak from the dates furnished by this correspondence, from which it appeared, that after the sailing of the Vixen was known by letter dated the 7th of December, the Under-Secretary rejoiced in the proceedings, and the Head Secretary for Foreign Affairs took two months after the receipt of that letter, to decide whether Mr. Urquhart's conduct was meritorious and judicious or not. Mr. Urquhart considered himself very ill-used, and desired to have his conduct, and that of the Government investigated before a Committee of the House of Commons. He had no means of ascertaining the nature of any diplomatic differences between Mr. Urquhart and the noble Lord; but if that gentleman's letter was good for any thing, it was proof absolute of the previous and subsequent encouragement of the expedition, undertaken by Mr. Bell. He contended, that the question was simply this—would they, upon the statement of facts made by the right hon. Gentleman behind him, and not disputed in point of fact, that Mr. Bell went out with the knowledge of the Foreign-office, that the object of the expedition was known to the Minister at Constantinople, that the vessel had been seized, that a preliminary sanction had been given—would they refuse to grant a committee to inquire whether those facts were so or not, and whether Mr. Bell had not sustained serious injury in property and character, and that that injury had been the consequence of his reliance on the encouragement given him by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this country?

said, after the magnificent exordium of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, telling us that he was about to treat of a subject comprehending international considerations of the highest order, and after the peroration with which he concluded, it would hardly have been expected that the object and end of his speech was to have been limited within so narrow a compass as that which he had contented himself with. The greater part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was not a statement of the objects which he proposed to accomplish, it was not an exposition of the purposes for which he requires us to grant him a committee, but was a long enumeration, in considerable detail, of points on which he does not require us to go into committee; for, after entering elaborately into some of the great questions to which he had adverted, he has regularly concluded each part of his speech with—"But on that point I do not wish to pronounce an opinion." The subject which it appears the right hon. Gentleman wishes the committee to inquire into, is whether Mr. Bell has lost money and character by the expedition of the Vixen, and whether he received from me, as Secretary for Foreign Affairs, any encouragement to undertake that expedition, I think the right hon. Gentleman has not shown the slightest ground for the assertion which is the basis of his motion. Nor has his noble Friend, who has come to his aid with that pugnacious speech of his, been able, with all his ingenuity and greater practice, to offer the shadow of a ground for this motion. There are two points which may be altogether laid aside in this discussion—the losses of Mr. Bell, (for I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman considers a committee of this House necessary to make valuations of the ship and its cargo), and the loss of character sustained by Mr. Bell, which I also put aside, as I do not conceive that Mr. Bell has lost any character at all. He entered into a speculation for views and purposes of his own, which he was perfectly at liberty to do, and it would be utterly unjust to him to say, that on that account he stands less well in public estimation than he did before. If I were to find fault with Mr. Bell, it should be because his speculation was entered upon not with commercial, but with political views, and with the intention of placing two great countries in a position of which war might be the consequence, and herein he showed himself not actuated by proper views. But did he receive encouragement from me to enter upon the expedition? I repeat my denial of that assertion, and I have not heard anything in the course of the debate to invalidate that denial. I disclaim the interposition of the phrase "Foreign-office." That office comprises a number of officers who act on the authority of the Secretary of State; therefore any man who talks of communications which he has received through the Foreign-office, asserts that which has no meaning, unless he can state that such communications has taken place under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department. Now it is said, that Mr. Bell—this innocent Mr. Bell—was led into a trap by me by the answers I gave him. I deny, that there is the slightest foundation for any such assertion. The inquiry he made of me was, whether it would be wise and prudent for him to enter into a speculation for the sale of salt on the coast of Circassia, whither he had been invited by the authorities; and he wanted to know whether there were any restrictions, recognised by this country, applied to that commerce by the government of Russia, My answer to those inquiries was precisely what the right hon. Gentleman said it ought to have been. He ought to have been told, said the right hon. Gentleman, that he must judge for himself, that the Government of England could not give advice to a merchant as to any enterprise in which he proposed to engage; that is precisely what I said in my communication of the 30th of May, in which I replied to the inquiries he addressed to me. There was one point I did not answer, and it must be admitted, that if I had done so, I should have been guilty of a great breach of propriety. He wished to know what was the opinion of her Majesty's Government with regard to those great questions to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded;—viz., the right of Russia to the sovereignty of Circassia, and whether I thought she was or was not entitled to establish those customs and sanatory regulations she was enforcing by the power of her arms. Now, I must say, that no individual merchant is entitled to ask her Majesty's Government to give an opinion on questions of that sort, and if such questions be put, it would be most dangerous and imprudent in the minister to answer them. Let me say, also, that I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman, who knows what official duty is, who himself has filled responsible situations—I am surprised, that he should think I could, consistently with my public duty, on a mere accidental question put by an individual merchant inquiring with respect to a cargo of salt, solve a question of great magnitude, not only as regards the relations of a foreign state, but affecting also those between Russia and this country. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech said, that the question was too great a one for him to approach the discussion of in this House. He talked about opening doors, and the stones that would crush all the interests of the nation; but if he will not give an opinion on that question even now, I think he will admit, that it was only common prudence on my part not to be led into the trap; for the trap, if there was one, was laid not for Mr. Bell, but by Mr. Bell. I think he will admit, that it was my bounden duty to avoid the trap which "innocent Mr. Bell" laid for me. It is said, that Mr. Bell did not altogether understand the distinction between a blockade and Custom-house regulations. Why, surely, he did understand it. Had he never been in that part of the world before? If I am not mistaken, he had been in the eastern part of Europe, and knew practically more of these things than I could know. He had a local and personal knowledge of the facts, with respect to which he was asking me with the utmost simplicity. On receiving my answer, Mr. Bell said, "You have mistaken my communication. You state in the reply you have given to me, that you are not bound to give an opinion as to what it is expedient for me to do. I never asked you that question; my letter asked but one, and that was, whether the Government recognised the Russian blockade on the coast of the Black Sea? Now, does the right hon. Gentleman say, that the Russian blockade is synonymous with customs regulations? Every Government has a right to establish its own custom house regulations, and Mr. Bell knew what these regulations were. The complaint that he was not informed of them cannot be sustained. That which he said he wished to learn was, whether there was a recognised blockade or not. I replied, that for information on that point, I must refer him to The Gazette, and there the correspondence ended. If, after this, Mr. Bell went forward, can it be said he did so in consequence of any encouragement which I afforded him? I was never for an instant, otherwise than exceedingly cautious in the replies I gave to this gentleman. In writing the letters I addressed to him, my impression from the first to the last was, that he was endeavouring to get me to give an opinion with respect to a matter which did not appear on the face of his correspondence. He goes to Constantinople, and what is the ignorance in which he is there kept? He is shown the regulations of 1831; they were repeated in the subsequent one of 1836, which had not been received when the correspondence took place between us; in fact, it was not received till October. In the regulations which he saw, the Russian Government state, that no commerce can take place except in certain ports, because they are the only ports in which the custom-duties can be received. But there is another feature in this case. Not content with violating the regulations, as it were to make sure of a seizure, he takes a cargo of salt, which is prohibited in any port. So determined is he to have two strings to his bow, that first he takes into port, a cargo where none is allowed to be taken, and next he takes a cargo which is not allowed to be taken into any port at all. Lord Ponsonby explained to him the danger to which he exposed himself of having his ship seized. What pretence is there, then, for saying that deception has been practised on Mr. Bell? I can conceive a case in which he might have had cause for complaint. If he could state that he had been told by me, the only person competent to make such a communication to him, even if he had received it from Lord Ponsonby, it would have gone for nothing, inasmuch as his Lordship was not authorised to afford him such information—if he had been told by me, "Proceed, and if your ship is seized, this country will go to war, if necessary, in order to get you indemnity," then, indeed, might it have been said he had received encouragement; but no such intimation was given to him, nor anything approaching to it. No communication was made to him that any ingenuity can torture into such a statement. I had some personal interviews with Mr. Bell previous to the correspondence; he then explained the objects he had in view, but I gave him no encouragement. I told him it was a matter of which he alone must be the judge, but if he had any question to put he must put it in writing, and in writing he should have his answer. Why, it would have been an insanity such as could hardly be imputed by political opponents to any Government, when a weighty international question was involved in the course this ship was about to take, to have urged an individual to undertake a voyage the object of which was to bring about a collision between two nations. The thing is so palpably absurd, that I would not impute it—I do not mean the remark offensively—even to the right hon. Gentleman. But, if Mr. Bell was acting under this encouragement, why has he reserved he statement of that fact till the month of May or June, 1838? We have heard a great deal of the correspondence, he had complained much of the decision of the Government, but how is it that it never occurred to him to say, what a man naturally would say under such circumstances, "Why, you tell me you cannot get redress for me from Russia; is that the answer to make to me after having sent me out under a guarantee?" That would have been the natural course. I cannot forbear from saying that, even by Mr. Bell's own showing, he was engaged in what I must call an underhanded political intrigue. He, who is induced by hints in this quarter, and surmises in that, by unauthorised publications, and by the retorts to which they give rise—he, who is thus induced to think he is acting in accordance with the wishes of the Government, and who gives himself no further trouble to ascertain whether he is correct or not in his impressions—such a person, I say, by his own admission, shows that he has embarked in an underhanded political transaction. I shall at once dispose of the charge of the right hon. Gentleman so far as it rests on these printed papers. Though he dwelt at great length as to whether Soudjouk Kalé and various other points had been occupied, he did not bring that question to bear on his motion. With regard to the collateral matters, there is only one more to which I consider it necessary to allude, and that is the imputation cast on Lord Durham for not having taken at once, and without any instructions from the Government, steps to procure redress for Mr. Bell. I cannot help thinking, that Lord Durham would have departed from the line of his duty if, when a great international question was involved, he had taken any decided course without being authorised to do so by instructions received from his Government. He might have assumed a tone too high or too low. Till he knew what the deliberate opinions of his Government were it would have been highly culpable in him to have committed himself to any course whatever. As it was, he transmitted home the statements he received, and said, "I shall take no steps till I receive instructions." The right hon. Gentleman complains that this is one of the many instances of the indifference of the Government to the interests of the commerce of this country. I am wholly at a loss to perceive the logical connection between the arguments he used, the statements he made, and the inferences he was pleased to draw from them; but I beg to say, it is impossible to make an assertion which is really more at variance with the fact. But the right hon. Gentleman says, "You ought to have communicated these custom-house regulations to the committee at Lloyd's," and the reason why he tells you, on the authority of the chairman at Lloyd's is, because it is always the practice of Government to communicate all such matters. Now, when the chairman of Lloyd's speaks as to what is the invariable practice of that association over which he presides, his testimony should be conclusive; but when he undertakes to tell you what is the invariable practice of different departments of the government, he rather oversteps the bounds of his own knowledge. It is not the practice of the Government to make communications with respect to cases in which there is any difficulty whatever; but if it were our duty to make such communications, for them to be of value, it must also be the duty of foreign countries to make communications to us; and as we do not happen to communicate our internal regulations to them, it would be too much to expect them to make a communication of theirs to us. The right hon. Gentleman pressed some smaller matters. The cost of sending despatches only once a month to Constantinople is 500l. Mr. Bell offered to carry the despatches, and he was allowed to do so; and if this is the only way in which the right hon. Gentleman can establish a connection between Mr. Bell and the Government, he must indeed feel, that his case is broken down. "But," says the right hon. Gentleman, "Lord Ponsonby made no positive objection to Mr. Bell proceeding." Lord Ponsonby said, "Here are the regulations—do as you please. "If the noble Lord had commanded Mr. Bell not to go on, it would have been complained that he, as a British minister, was assuming a power which did not belong to him. Allusion had been made to the letter which has been published by Mr. Urquhart. It would ill befit me to criticise the course that gentleman has thought proper to pursue; but my objection was not what it has been stated to be by the noble Lord (Stanley), that his letter was a betrayal of official confidence. My objection, on the contrary, was, that it contained a great number of private and personal communications between Mr. Urquhart and other people which I did not think fit to be published. Having read Mr. Urquhart's letter over attentively, I contend there is nothing in it that goes to prove, in the slightest degree, any sanction on my part to the expedition of Mr. Bell. He does not even pretend to say, that he received from me any sanction or approval of that expedition. He says, he heard this from one, and he understood my opinion from another. He refers to the circumstance of the independence of Circassia having been discussed in a periodical, which he is pleased to say is connected with the Foreign-office, but which I beg to say is not, and over which I have had no control whatever. Putting these notes and circumstances together, he has been pleased to entertain certain opinions as to the expediency of this expedition. It is said, that I wanted to see the result of this expedition. That is not the case. Having ascertained the share which Mr. Urquhart had in persuading Mr. Bell to renew his expedition after he had abandoned it. I told Mr. Urquhart in a letter I wrote to him, that I considered the course he had taken to be incompatible with his public duty, and that in giving him leave of absence to come to England I thought it fair to inform him that I could not allow him to return to his post. This, then, is the approbation I have expressed. Mr. Bell and Mr. Urquhart appear both to have imagined that they were promoting an object which the government desired, but which they did not like to avow. I admit that. But suppose Mr. Urquhart had been told by me, let Mr. Bell send the Vixen, what would have been the course he would have pursued? In informing Mr. Urquhart that he would not be allowed to return I told him that I should not communicate even to Lord Ponsonby the cause of his removal; and, that, with a view to spare his feelings, leave of absence was given to him which would lead to the supposition that his withdrawal would only be temporary. If, however, I had sanctioned Mr. Bell's expedition, would not Mr. Urquhart, on receiving my letter, have exclaimed, "Your communication astonishes me! You tell me I am not to go back; why do not you yourself urge me to do that which you assign as the cause of my dismissal?" I really must say that a person who under such circumstances could not make that reply, and immediately, must be supposed much less able to defend himself than Mr. Urquhart, or than the right hon. Gentleman who takes up the cudgels for him. I now leave this question to be decided by the House, being content to persuade myself that they will not be prevailed upon to appoint the committee.

I really feel it to be superfluous to trouble the House further with a prolongation of this debate, After the eloquent and argumentative speeches of my right hon. Friend and the noble Lord near me, and the lame attempt at a reply by the noble Lord opposite, it is perfectly clear, that in point of argument, the case is satisfactorily settled, The noble Lord has called the speech of my noble Friend "a pugnacious speech." The noble Lord was most unhappy in his epithet as in his argument. It was an able and a convincing speeth—it was a logical and an argumentative speech—but the epithet "pugnacious" cannot be applied to it. Pugnacious, if I remember aright, in reference to a speech or a debate, means 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 argument is on his side. I recollect a high classical authority for the use of the term. It is that of a gentleman placed in a situation nearly similar to that of the noble Lord opposite:—

——"Miseræ cognosce proæmia rixæ Si rixæ est, ubi tu pulses, ego vapulo tantum."

The noble Lord 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 permitted to express my surprise at the observations of the noble Lord in this respect? What! is the vindication of the character of a British merchant, and the protection of the commerce of this country, such trifles in the eyes of the noble Lord, that he can be surprised at my right hon. Friend's interference on their behalf? It may be an insignificant matter in the eyes of the noble Lord, and a few tons of salt may seem to him to be a mere trifle; but the subject is one which involved as great a stake as if the cargo were of precious stones; and, at all events, that is no language for a Foreign Secretary of this kingdom to use when any of its interests are at issue. 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 diamonds—the House of Commons is the place where such a case as this question involves should alone be decided. The noble Lord, in the beginning of his speech, certainly exonerates Mr. Bell from blame—he acquits him of wrong, and he casts no stigma on him: but, long before he concludes, he casts them on him in abundance. Why is it so? The noble Lord, at the outset of his observations, 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. I know nothing of Mr. Bell—I have no acquaintance with him—I have no knowledge of him, except in his capacity of a British merchant; but still, I think, the noble Lord might have done his own cause more service, if he had not endeavoured to damage Mr. Bell. The noble Lord has cast imputations on Mr. Bell's character. I have his words. They are—"Mr. Bell was endeavouring to entrap me, under false pretences."

denied having employed the word false. He only said, that Mr. Bell was endeavouring to trap him under pretences.

Well, be it so. The noble Lord also says, that Mr. Bell was concerned in an attempt to involve two 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 promotina a war between the two countries, unless he understood that it would please the noble Lord, or some one in power and authority? 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 it. If the noble Lord had succeeded in showing that Mr. Bell was acting on intelligence with the British Government, I should have been able to understand it, however unwise I might deem his conduct. The motive in that case would be obvious. Now it is not; and, therefore, the noble Lord is at fault in his observations respecting him. After listening to the speech of the noble Lord and the hon. 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 are wrong, and to encourage when they are right? 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 department. What does the noble Lord mean? Does he exclude altogether the Under Secretaries from all share in it? Does he mean to say, that British merchants and consuls communicating 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 derived from the noble Lord alone. Is every communication not made in that manner to be looked upon as invalid? 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 merchant would look at the difference between Secretary and Under Secretary, in the way of information relative to his business. In cases of such a confidential nature as that under discussion, an Under Secretary would venture to make a communication without authority. The objection, therefore, is an invalid one, and the line of difference drawn by the noble Lord cannot be sustained. Let us now consider the position of Mr. Bell as a British merchant, after he had sought information on the subject from the public authorities. In 1831 the noble Lord received a distinct intimation from Russia, that she meant to establish fiscal rights on the coast of Circassia. The noble Lord says, that it would not be convenient to communicate that intelligence to the public. Granted. But when did Mr. Bell make inquiries respecting it? Years after. According to the laws of Russia, the Black Sea was to be open to all vessels; but that they could only touch at certain ports on the eastern shore, where quarantine and custom-houses were established. What communication did the noble Lord make to Russia on receipt of this intimation of her intention? I will agree with him, that it may not have been convenient to make it public at Lloyd's at the time, but what communication did he make to Russia, when he learned that Circassia was to be no longer an independent power? What did he say when he was informed, that Mr. Bell's vessel had been seized? In a letter of Lord Durham to the noble Lord, it is said, that the forcible interference of any foreign power with the peaceful occupation of a country was to be condemned. Perhaps, he had heard of the noble Lord's opinion. Was not Mr. Bell justified in undertaking this voyage under such circumstances? What satisfied Lord Ponsonby after the seizure of Mr. Bell's vessel? Was it the decision of a Russian judge—some Scythian Lord Stowell? No; all the authority ever exhibited for the act was an imperial order, dated St. Peters-burgh, and directed to the Russian Admiralty in the Black Sea, directing it to confiscate the Vixen, and declaring it and the cargo a good prize. The noble Lord, he was sure, would never think of relying on such an authority in a question where the law of nations was solely concerned. What other authority had the noble Lord? That of Count Nesselrode, who said, that the reason assigned for the confiscation of the Vixen was, that she entered a port ceded to Russia by the treaty of Adrianople; and the justification was twofold—first, having on board a cargo not allowed by the fiscal regulations of Russia; and, second, having entered a port declared to be then in a state of blockade. If such an official declaration could be had so easily from Russia, and was deemed satisfactory by the noble Lord, why had he not essayed to procure a similar satisfactory explanation from that country relative to the declaration made by Russia six years before? Between the 19th of April and the 23rd of May, a remarkable change from official declaration to satisfaction occurred in his manner—all apparently induced by the assurance received from Count Nesselrode, that Turkey had ceded the coast in question to Russia by the treaty of Adrianople? Again, I ask, why did he not apply to Russia at the proper time for some similar assurance or explanation respecting her claim to a right of blockade on that coast? Why did he not protest against that Ukase, and so have retained to himself the power to have contested the assumption at any time he thought proper? He might have said "I have received such a declaration, 'tis true, but I will not admit its force." That might have been consistent and politic; but there was nothing of the kind done or thought of, and almost as soon as the question was raised, it was set at rest on the satisfactory assurance of Count Nes- selrode that the coast had been ceded by Turkey. Certainly, Mr. Bell did not receive the most satisfactory assurance or information on the subject. He applies to the Foreign-office, and he is told "Look to the Gazette, and see if the blockade be recorded there." There certainly was no direct communication from the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs to warrant Mr. Bell's enterprise, but looking to the communications of Mr. Urquhart and Lord Ponsonby with him respecting the rights of Russia and the protection of England I don't see how any man could come to any other conclusion than what Mr. Bell did respecting his right to trade and his claim to the protection of his country. The noble Lord may say, that Lord Ponsonby might, in his explanation, have confounded the ideas of blockade and "fiscal regulations," but he does not allow Mr. Bell that excuse. Extending to the noble Lord himself that excuse—allowing him to have interpreted the edict of Russia in 1831 to have duly extended to "fiscal regulations"—it may be easily inferred, that he need not have taken the trouble of protesting against or contesting such a harmless edict. It certainly looks as if he had thought the whole affair a trifle, till the affair of the Vixen enlightened him, for he had six years to think of the matter, and yet said nothing about it. The noble Lord said, that Mr. Bell might have had a political object in his commercial speculations. It appeared, however, that Lord Ponsonby himself was a willing party to this political object, according to the statement of Mr. James Bell. He says, in his account of his interview with Lord Ponsonby:—

"I then informed his Lordship, that it was my intention to proceed in a vessel I expected daily to a certain point on the coast of Circassia, which I had fixed upon as most eligible for the trade I had in view; and that, as I had ascertained before leaving London, that our Government did not acknowledge any right on the part of Russia to impede trade with the country in question, and as nothing seemed to have since occurred to change the position of affairs, I should endeavour to attain the object I had in view, and should not be diverted from it, unless force were employed on the part of the Russian Government, in which case I should seek redress from the British Government, and hoped to obtain his Lordship's aid in so doing. In reply to this, his Lordship stated, that he perfectly coincided in the propriety of the plan I had adopted, to which he had no objection whatever to offer, as he considered it an indisputable point that Russia had no right to interfere with, or prescribe rules for, British trade with Circassia; and that, if I adhered to the straightforward course detailed to him, he had no doubt of my being able to establish a claim for support from the British Government, in which he would be glad to render me all the assistance in his power, requesting me at the same time to transmit him information as to what success attended my enterprise."

What, then, did Lord Ponsonby mean when he told Mr. Bell that it must be necessary, for his own interest, carefully to avoid everything that would wear even the appearance of an attempt to evade a blockade? He could not mean "fiscal regulations" here? I must say, that if Mr. Bell became a politician, you made him so by your advice, countenance, and support. You told him that Russia had no right to demand dues, though she might have to blockade the coast. Where is the British merchant who would not attempt to trade when so assured and supported? From Lord Ponsonby, he goes to Mr. Urquhart, and, if by his official advice, Mr. Bell went wrong; the noble Lord who appointed Mr. Urquhart, and sent him to Constantinople, is responsible, and not the British merchant who acts on his information. I am aware, that this case is one of a very peculiar nature, and I may say peculiar hardship. A court of law, I fear, will not grant redress. I do not say, that a House of Commons would give redress, but I say that there is a strong case for inquiry. There are three distinct points in favour of Mr. Bell: first, the six years' concealment of the blockade by the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs; second, the dry answer returned to Mr. Bell when he demanded such information as might have served for his guidance from the only competent authority; and third, the further encouragement given him abroad by Lord Ponsonby and Mr. Urquhart, all form solid grounds for this inquiry. The noble Lord says he will resist it. It would be dangerous, perhaps, to give the political portion of the subject into the hands of a Select Committee, but the demand for inquiry stands upon grounds to which that objection cannot fairly be made. A British merchant comes before the House of Commons, and states, that he has been encouraged by the Government to embark in an enterprize, by which he has lost his property, through foreign interference and aggression, and that he can obtain no redress. He declares, that the Courts of Law are not available to afford him compensation—that the insurance offices will afford him no redress—and that, as a last resource, he applies to you. You may refuse him this redress; but if you do, I forewarn you that your decision will not be satisfactory to the public, who look attentively at these proceedings—and still less will such a decision be satisfactory to the great and intelligent body of British merchants, so deeply interested in the case, and who so naturally look to you for protection, sympathy, and justice.

could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking, that any case had been made out for inquiry; and as he did not think that any such case had been established, he must object to the motion. The right hon. Gentleman's case was this,—that they ought to appoint a select committee for the purpose of inquiring how a British merchant had been treated by the Foreign office. In the first place, then, as to the inquiry, and with regard to the facts which they might have to investigate, he asked what facts were there to be ascertained, which they did not know from the papers before them. And, then, what redress was asked from them by Mr. Bell? The redress was this, that they were to enforce against the Government of Russia the claims of a merchant who insisted, that he had been injured by that Government; and then, if they did not obtain that redress, they were to go to war with Russia. This was what they were called upon to do, and yet they were told, that the Select Committee were not to go into any such points as the occupation of the coasts of Circassia, or to examine the question regarding the propriety of the seizure; that they were, in fact, to avoid those very questions upon which Mr. Bell asked them for redress. They were to avoid all this, and they were to have merely a Select Committee of the House of Commons for no purpose whatever; for it was not to inquire into the facts, and it was not to give any competent relief. It might, indeed, be said, that there was one point which the committee could establish, and that was, to establish the right and the duty of the Foreign Secretary of State to give notice to every British merchant of the regulations by which they might be affected in trading to all parts of the world. Whether such regulation would be beneficial to the Government of this country, or to the trade of this country, it was for the House to declare. Even putting the case which had been quoted by Mr. Bell himself, and in accordance with which he had proceeded in his voyage with the Vixen, it would be found that great inconveniences would follow from it. What at the time the southern states of America had declared their independence of Spain, would have been thought of a British merchant going to Mr. Canning to ask him with regard to the blockade of those coasts, or what answer could have been expected from him? Would he have been bound to enter into explanations on the part of the Government of this country with respect to the regulations of the Spanish Government in the trade with Peru? And yet if a ship had gone thither, and attempted to enter into a port of which the Spaniards still retained possession, it would undoubtedly have been found that the Spanish Government would have applied to that vessel the enforcement of those laws which Spain had resolved to act upon with respect to all such ships. Could Mr. Canning be expected to lay down the precise regulations which should prevail between this country and the states, the independence of which had been scarcely established This was, in fact, a question of foreign policy which might be in a doubtful and difficult state for years, and which went to affect the relations between this country and Russia. With this, too, there were other points to be determined. Government might feel a difficulty in determining them; but here it was proposed that all were to be regulated by the resolutions of a Select Committee sitting up stairs, and of which five were to be a quorum; and they were to determine, that for all future time every Secretary of State was, by himself or by the Under Secretary of State, to declare what were the regulations of Russia, France, and of every other country; and this at the simple and single demand of any merchant who might be half a politician, or of some politician who might, perhaps, be but half a merchant. He then came to the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken as to one part of his noble Friend's speech with regard to the authority required to give effect to any communication coming from the Foreign-office. His noble Friend had not asserted, and did not mean to assert, that any official communication coming from an under-secretary of state, was not of equal authority with that which had been written by the Secretary himself. What his noble Friend had done, and he meant to do nothing more, was to refer to that which had been done in the course of the present debate, where, in explanation of the foreign policy of this country, the House had found, that a private letter had been quoted. A letter they perceived, had been quoted, which had not been written by the direction of the Secretary of State, but which had been written by a person in a confidential situation in Constantinople, and which was brought before the public only by means of a gross breach of confidence. This letter had been quoted most improperly. He was astonished that it had been done by the right hon. Gentleman, who ought to be a very grave authority on such points. He was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman, who was himself conversant with the usages of Government, and who had even filled a diplomatic situation, should have seen this done, and not have visited the transaction with his most severe censure and reprobation. It was in consequence of such proceedings that his noble Friend had stated, that he would not be responsible for anything which did not emanate from the Secretary of State. It was a declaration which his noble Friend would never have felt it necessary to make if the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not in the course of the debate astonished the House by giving occasion for it. The right hon. Gentleman, with respect to the state of relations between this country and Russia had omitted to notice that which he thought the right hon. Gentleman could not be unaware of—the dispositions made by Russia herself with respect to different parts of Circassia. This was a matter which could only be expected to be treated of in a debate upon their foreign relations, and yet it was brought, as it might be said, edgeways into a motion on the claim of Mr. Bell for the loss of his vessel, and which certainly did affect the amicable relations between this country and Russia. What was the state of the port where Mr. Bell's vessel was reported to have been received? It was acknowledged by Russia that the port had belonged to Turkey; it was so acknowledged in the treaty of 1783. In the map referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, a great part of Circassia was laid down as belonging to independent tribes. But three of the places were laid down as belonging to Turkey at that period. These were Soudjouk-Kalé, Pate, and Anapa, and these three had been transferred by name to Russia. It was a very important question, much too important to refer to a committee, whether the claim of Russia were well founded, whether it were established by treaty, whether it was acknowledged by Lord Aberdeen when he was foreign secretary, whether according to the assertion of Russia, the coast belonged de facto as well as de jure to her; all these were important questions, but with regard to the particular point at which this vessel was seized, that point was acknowledged to have belonged to Turkey, and to have been transferred to Russia, and at which point, therefore, Russia had a right to establish internal regulations, both sanatory and fiscal. In what manner, then, ought they to have treated the question of Mr. Bell, when he came with a general question about trading with Circassia? Was the Foreign Secretary to write a dispatch, stating the whole of the treaties between Turkey and Russia, referring to the treaty of 1783, and the treaty of Adrianople, and explaining to Mr. Bell the whole of the foreign policy of this country, and stating the proper manner of construing those treaties? Would not this be a most absurd course? It was one, of which no former Government, and no former secretary had afforded a precedent, and which could hardly have been expected from his noble Friend. Then Mr. Bell said, that the only answer he received was, that no blockade was recognised. Why, that was the question put, and he was referred to the Gazette in which blockades are notified. Was it, then, to be inferred that he got no further information? The right hon. Gentleman himself (Sir S. Canning) was obliged to confess, that when Mr. Bell got to Constantinople, he was informed by Lord Ponsonby of the Russian regulations respecting the ports of Circassia. Mr. Bell himself stated, that he was informed by Lord Ponsonby that he had transmitted the note of the Russian Chargé d'Affaires to the King's Government. If, then, Mr. Bell had obtained that information—if he had been told by Lord Ponsonby, that those regulations had been issued by the Russian authorities, but that he had no right to recognise them or enforce them, but that he had sent them to the Government at home, to know whether they would recognize them—how could Mr. Bell infringe and break those regulations in the perfect confidence that he would be supported in so doing? The inference to be drawn was, that if Mr. Bell violated those regulations he was at least incurring considerable peril. He might risk the loss of his cargo, and he might produce an unfriendly state of relations between Great Britain and Russia. Mr. Bell, however, did not take this advice, and Mr. George Bell, in his letter stated as his reason for so doing, that he had not the least idea of the possibility of other restrictions being in existence, and that he always understood that Circassia was subject only to the rule of its native kings. If that was his opinion, should he not have taken more precaution to ascertain what was the state of the coast? At all events the ports on the coast of Circassia had been occupied by Turkey and the Turkish arms. They had been given up in the former treaty of Adrianople, and those ports had been occupied by the Russian arms since; and how could Mr. Bell, in the face of these facts, say, that he believed the whole coast was independent, and that Russia had no right to establish anything but a belligerent blockade. He could only consider this question in one of two points of view. Either the British Government ought to have prosecuted the case as one in which they had a right to demand reparation from Russia, and to obtain which we ought to have gone to war.—[Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman (Sir S. Canning) cheered. If that were his opinion why make this motion? If the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion, that the British Government had betrayed the interests of Great Britain by not seeking reparation for the seizure of the Vixen, by hostilities, why drop the whole of that case, and merely bring forward a case without any possible or intelligible object, except to know what losses Mr. Bell had suffered, and whether he might have received notice to enable him to have saved his cargo? The other point of view in which he saw this question was, the right they had to go to war. If Russia had a right to seize the vessel at the port she did seize it at, in that case there was no case for inquiry. Mr. George Bell took upon himself all the risk. Mr. Bell might or he might not have had some object beyond commercial enterprise. He did not say, whether Mr. Bell had or not, but at all events he took upon himself any risk that might arise; and if he violated the regulations of Russia—if he entered a port in which he was not allowed to land any goods whatever, he must suffer the risk of his own imprudent speculation, and there was no need of Parliamentary inquiry. Let the House consider supposing the committee were appointed, what redress could they give Mr. Bell? They must be prepared to say, that Russia was justified, or was not justified. If they considered this, they were really considering a question of peace or war; and if they refused to consider it, he could not see upon what grounds or pretence any question whatever arose. He must again express his regret, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir S. Canning) had used the quotation he had made from one of the newspapers of the day. He did hope, that at least the right hon. Gentleman would say, for he did not hear him say in his opening, that he did think, that the confidential servants of Government, persons employed in a position where they were naturally intrusted with the secrets of Government, should not be at liberty, either upon dismissal or on any other pretence whatever, to make public those secrets. He was sure, that if the public press were used for such purposes, that freedom of publication, of which they were so proud, would render them unequal to cope in diplomacy with other powers who visited with the severest punishment any such breach of confidence.

replied: With respect to the appeal made to him by the noble Lord on the subject of the correspondence he had quoted, he had only to state, that he considered, that it was sufficient justification to have found that correspondence published in the public press. He certainly conceived, that he might rest his justification on having found the letter of Mr. Urquhart published in the daily papers; but when he considered the circumstances under which that letter was published, when he remembered the circumstances under which he moved for the papers in question, and the reason given by the noble Lord (Lord Palmer- ston), he was satisfied, that he would be more than justified in the opinion of the House at large in having made use of this letter in reference to this question. If he had been in the place of Mr. Urquhart, he should not only have felt himself at liberty but that it was incumbent on him to pursue the course which that Gentleman had taken; and whatever responsibility was incurred, rested on the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston). What was his opinion as to whether this letter was a fit object of publication, was not now called into account; but taking the publication in connection with the circumstances which occurred on Saturday, and likewise with the fact, that he was called on by the petitioner to apply for the letter as bearing materially on the question, the act, if it were one of indiscretion, was the noble Lord's. All he could say for himself was, that if he thought it necessary to take lessons of discretion, he should not go to the noble Lord's school for instruction.

The House divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 200: Majority 16.