The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-24 00:00:00

CORN LAWS.

The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented a petition
from a place in Kent against any alteration of the Corn
Laws.
Lord SYDNEY presented petitions from places in
Kent, against the alteration.
Lord AYLESBURY presented similar petiCons, from
places in Wiltshire.

- The Earl of DURHAM presented similar petitiots
from places in Shropshire.
Lord PRUDHOE presented a petition from Staveett n
in the county of Gloucester, and one from the county o
York, praying for the retied of the Corn-laws.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH AUSTRIA.
The Earl of ABDRDEEN said he wished to ask the
Noble Viscount respecting the operation of a treaty
concluded with Austria the year before last. The House
would not forget the congratulations wtth which it was
favoured on the conclusion of the treaty, which
was, however, in fact, no new treaty at all, but
only a renewal of the treaty he bad himself
signed, in conjunction with his Noble Friend the then
President of the Board of Trade, ten years previously.
He admitted that in the new treaty the principles of reci-
procity was in some respects beneficially extended. By
the 4th article of the treaty, it was stipulated that all
Austrian ships coming into English ports, from Turk-
ish ports of the Danube, should be received as it
coming from Austrian ports; and, in return, it was
stipulated that British ships going to those ports of the
Danube should be received as if Austrian ships. Now, it
appears to him a most strange mode of proceeding that two
powers should stipulate as to how their respective vessels
should be received in the ports of a third power,
without communicating with or the consent of
that State. He stated that last year, and all
that the Noble President of the Council answered
was, that the negotiation was in progress between
the Turkish Government and this country, by which any
inconvenience of that kind would be ooviated, but tie
feared that none such had taken place, tor if he were
rightly informed,, matters remained in such a state
as had led to our manifest violation of the Treaty
and the infraction of our -own law, for in the month of
September last an Austrian vessel arrived in the port of
Gloucester, from a Turkish port of the Danube, which
was seized by the Custom House, in violation of the
navigation law, and after long correspondence on the part
of those concerned, the Treasury released the vessel, but
imposed a mitigated fine. Tnis was the position in which
the treaty stood at the present moment, and he was in.
formed that several vessels laden with corn were now in the
ports of the Danube, unable to sell, not knowing how
they were to be dealt with under the navigation law.
Now, he would ask, for what purpose did we enter into
engagements we were unable or unwilling to fulfil ? It ap
peered to him quite unaccountable how the Noble Lord
could have entered into such an engagement, but, having
done so, he was bound, at least, to fulfil his own part of it.
and obtain the means of executing those engagements the
Queen had ratified. Having stated these facts, he wished
to ask the Noble Viscount whether they were correct, and
whether it was the intention to take measures to rescue the
honour and good fa;th of the country from the imputation
of ibeing unfaithful to the engagements into which it had
entered?
Lord MELBOURNE said the Noble Earl appeared
extremely srnsitive on the subject of this Treaty, but hr
could rssure him the Gove.nment had no desire what-
ever to deck themselves out in plumes that belonged
to Whets. He willingly conceded to the Noble Earl
all the merit which belonged to him, and it was now his
intention to assume any part of it. It was agreed between
Austria and England, that ships received into Turk-
i h ports should have certain privileges. It was
an article extremely pressed upon them by the
Austrian Plenipotentiary, though unquestionably it was
one they had not the power of granting to another. It
was an article which Austria had to fulfil, and
did not impose upon us any obligation what-
ever.—( Hear, bear.) By the 6th article of the treaty
it ws stipulated that all important privileges given to other
nations should be extended to Great Britain ; and, as far
as navigation had been concerned, it was fulfilled
though he was told this was not the case with
respect to duty. With respect to the fourth
article of the treaty, it was, no doubt, in
contravention of the navigation law.
Lord A SHB VRTON said it was clear that if they per..
mitted Austrian ships to trade as if they were British ves-
sels, they should extend the same favor to the vessels oh
other countries. He thought, therefore, that the treaty
in question would totally upset the laws of navigation and
that appeared to him to be the great difficulty of the
question.

- The Earl of GALLOWAY presented petitions from
places in Rutland against any further grant to the College
of Maynooth, and against the Irish Corporation Bill.
Their Lordships adjourned at Six o'Clock.