The Sun.
London, England, 1838-08-21 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Times threatens to "take an early opportunity" of
returning to the speech of Lord Lyndhurst upon our com-
mercial relations. " It-is impossible," says our impartial
Contemporary, " to estimate too highly the service rendered
to the country at large by this powerful and effective expo-
sition." This is true enough, though not precisely in the
sense in which it is intended, Lord Lyndhurst has cer-
tainly " rendered a public service" by putting upon record
another proof of his readiness to become the unprincipled
cat's-paw of anylittleknot of factious intriguerswhose industry
" in getting up a case" will enable the Noble and indolent
Lord to make a plausible Parliamentary exhibition without
the trouble either of collecting facts or inquiring into their
authenticity. But a little time ago we heard him declaim
a voluminous pamphlet upon the right of appointing sheriffs
in Ireland, while it was obvious he had not looked into
a single authority upon which the briefless pamphleteer
rested his case. So on Tuesday night he takes
for his brief a petition concocted by a discarded public ser-
vant, and, without inquiry or investigation of any kind,
assumes the facts and the inferences to be well founded,
and employs them as the instruments of a violent attack
upon the Government ! Now, if Lord Lyndhurst had
taken the most ordinary trouble to inform himself upon the
subject on which he spoke, he must have found that the
statements to which he pledged himself were, when not un-
coloured falsehoods, very gross perversions of the truth ;
and if he were actuated by any other than party, and very
little party, motives, he should have hesitated before be
permitted himself to be used by a set of men whose posi-
tion must have eonvinced him that their object was at least
questionable. It is very well for Lord Lyndhurst to tell
to that " the petition" is the petition of the respectable
merchants of Glasgow. Lord Lyndhurst knows very
well by what species of machinery that petition was
got up. He knows that personal feelings and per-
sonal interests were at the bottom of it ; and, had he
condescended to examine its details, he must have
been convinced that no "respectable merchant" would have
put his hand to such a document, except in confiding igno-
rance of its contents. In the first place, Lord Lyndhurst
relies upon a fact proved, he alleges, by a Parliamentary re-
turn, conveniently ordered for the purpose. "It appears,"
says he, " that the total amount of exports for 1836 was
91,000,000/., whilst in the last year the total was only
85,270,0001., making a difference of nearly 6,003,0001."
Now, why does Lord Lyndhurst: take the years 1836 and
1837 as the periods of his comparison ? Why not take
any of the preceding years, 1833, 1834, or 1835 ? For the
simple and sufficient reason that it would have been fair and
honest to have done so, and that of course it must have told
in fae our of the Government, and not against them. Lord
Lyndhurst knows that the year 1337 was unhappily marked
by a commercial crisis, not confined to England, and
welch even their opnere-nts do not venture to ascribe to
any misennduct of Ministers. And yet it is this year,
necessarily a year of defalcation, that Lord Lyndhurst
selects to prove the decay of our trade under the present
Government. If the Noble Lord's test is to be applied at
all, let it be applied fairly. Take the earliest period you
please subsequent to the accession of the present Ministers,
allowing a reasonable time for their measures to have come
into operation, and see the effect upon the export trade of
the country. Let us take from the year 1832 to 1830,
both inclusive, and, iestead of the " official," let us take
what every merchent knows to be a fairer criterion, the
" declared" value of the goods exported. A comparison of
these ye; r this result
18.32 Total amount of Exports £36,450,594
16.33 Out° •••
1834 ditto
1835 ditto
1836 ditto
Here is a steady pngressive increase of our export trade
`or five years of the present Administration, shewing an
improveroent frmn thirty-six to fifty-three milliens ! Does
Lcr.l Lyndhurst imaginr? that any " respectaVe marchant"
Na-.till hims2lf t,) the trick witichllo (IA not
scimplt to play when ha s:)ogiit to mislead fte pulac oind
by a comparison of the export trades of 183,-; and 1337 ?
Now let us try Lord Lyndhurst himself by his oam test.
Let us take the three years immediately preceding, Lis ex-
pnision from office, aall observe the state of our export
trale
Ia 1827 it was
In 1823 it was
Li 1829 it wr
So that is the live years subsequent to the accession
of the present Ministers to office there has been a
gradual increase in our export trade of nineteen millions,
-and during the three years preced:ne the dismissal of the
Tories there was a progressive decrease of two millions !
Anil this fact must have been known to Lord Lyndhurst
as well as to thwe who " crammed" him for his Tuesday's
sp,tech. From this general mis-statement his Lordship
docended to some details, through which it may he ne-
cessarily briefly to.follow him. Lord Lyndhurst makes it
a ground of accusation against the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs that he did not prevent Prussia
from establishing the commercial league. " A very
little diplomatic skill, and a little activity," he thinks,
would have effected this object. Lord Lyndhurst is un-
doubtedly a master of the art of pacification in politica
and it is difficult to say but his "little activity" might
have been attended with as " happy a result in Ger-
many as elsewhere." But what would he have
bad Lord Palmerston do ? Lord Lyndhurst admits
that the commercial league is highly beneficial to Ger.
many ; and his Lordship is not the man, we are sure, to
question the effect of their own interests upon nations as
upon individuals. We greatly doubt if even Lord Lynd-
hurst himself, with all his conciliatory ways, would be able
to move the Germans from the adoption of a measure
which he admits is serviceable to them, and which every
body who knows the German States knows is extremely
popular with them. As to the effect upon our trade,
it has had none, nor do we think it ever will. This is not
the place to enter into the subject ; but such is our convic-
tion. Tried by Lord Lyndhurst's test, we find no reason
whatever to be dissatisfied with the effect of the league.
In 1833, the declared value of our exports to Prussia
and Germany was 4,499,727/. ; in 1834, 4,683,589/. ;
and in 1835, 4,791,2391., which was rather more than
its average during the three years proceding 1830.
From Prussia, the Noble and Learned Advocate
of the Glasgow gourmands passes to Cracow and
Poland. With Cracow—a very small and, in a commer-
cial point of view, a very insignificant town—Lord Lynd-
hurst must well know we never had a trade of any value,
while he seemed to be unconscious of the effect of advert-
ing as he did to Poland. In the first place, how can he
expect to have a trade with Poland when he refuses to
take her corn, the only thing she produces, in exchange?
Then who, let us ask him, is to blame for the subver-
sion of Polish nationality? Clearly those who submitted
to the partition of Poland by Austria, Prussia, and Russia,
and those who afterwards at Vienna, in 1815, allowed
a nominal kingdom of Poland to be for ever annexed to
the crown of Russia. It is a mere mockery to talk of
Polish nationality when that nationality was deliberately
placed in the safe keeping. of Austria, Prussia, and
Russia—the three powers whoe had leagued together to
blot the name of Poland out of the map of Europe.
If the rulers of England in 1793 and 1815 could not or
did not think it worth while to go to war to save Poland
from dismemberment, how could it be expected that the
Ministers of 1832 could accomplish her resurrection ? As
to our trade with the coast of Barbary, upon which Lord
Lyndhurst also touched, it has somewhat increased from its
former insignificence since the French occupation of Al-
giers. But even if the reverse had been the case—if, ha-
ving been great before that time, it had dwindled to
nothing since—the fault would have been with Lord Lynd-
hurst and his colleagues, who in 1830 allowed the French
to go and conquer Algiers, without having taken
any measures to regulate her subsequent conduct.
Every man gifted with the most ordinary fore-
sight and sagacity must have seen that if that ex-
pedition succeeded, as it was most probable it
would do, France would keep possession of her con-
quest, if not bound by previous treaty to dispose of it
otherwise. The Tory Government permitted the expedi-
tion to sail without having got any treaty from France, and
it is they who are responsible for all the consequences. We
have before admitted that the French blockades of Mexico
and Buenos Ayres are of momentary inconvenience to our
trade ; but if any country is interested in upholding the
rights of blockade, that country is England ; and we can-
not surely deny to France aright which we have ourselves
exercised, and may he called upon to exercise again. As to
aeho may be the aggressor in these disputes it is no business
of ours to determine. We have ourselves many serious com-
plaints against Mexico and the South American States, and
we should not allow France to interfere with us if, driven
by the injustice of these States, we were forced to seek
t With Circassia everybod
redress by our own means.
!wows that we had very littletrade to lose ; but even has:l
th North America, for
it been as considerable as that
its loss we should be indebted to the Topr Gfovernment. ()cif
of Adriancp.e, y which,
1829. It was during the Admirnstrat!on thatb perlo
that Russia obtained the treaty
of the
,aid by which alone, she claims a right
Black Sea ; and we have yet to learn
•If cession of
:hoe ttilLi so
recloaestherdeen
Or his colleagues made an
'ent it from
any protest against
the treaty, or took any steps whatever to pre,:
b carried into effect. Before eltsmissiag this subject
i
we Ilia's it right to exhibit by the same test the state et
o(r trade with Greece and with Turk.,y, iocluding our
Vade by the Black Sea with Persia. Teesa returns
fi al exhibit the following result :
Amount of our export trade with Turkey in
1832 . £915,319
)633
334
16;5
lE3j