The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-01 00:00:00

SP.2IN.

Mr. URQUHART then rose, pursuant to notice, to
put a question to the Foreign Secretary, with reference
to a return of the 30th of May, respecting the arms and
ammunition furnished to Spain by this country. On a
forme: occasion the Noble Lord had stated that money
wal due by Spain to this country ; subsequently a
return, moved for by the Hon. Member tor Pontefract,
while giving other particulars, made no mention of any
money due from Spain to this country. lie wished to
kaow which of the two—the Noble Viscount's statement
or the return—was to be taken as representing the real
fact of the case, the more especially as, from another
paper presented that morning, the House was informed
that the Spaiii,Li Government owed us 564,0001., advanced
in money or goods, under the quadruple treaty?
Lord PALMERSTON said that the Hon. Member
would have seen by the returns that had been laid on the
table some time ago what toe amount of the claim unsa-
tisfied by the Spanish Government was. The claim had
been admitted, although it was not yet paid.
Mr. URQUHART asked a hen the correspondence
moved for and ordered respecting the attack on the
Most-pito territory would he laid on the table?
Lord PALMERSTON said on Monday next.
Mr. URQUHART had another questio❑ to put to
the Noble Lord.— (Oh, oh.) O❑ the 6th of March the
Noble Lord had agreed to produce certain documents
and correspondence which he had required in order to
rebut some imputations which had been made upon him
in a formal manner. A few days ago some papers were
laid on the table purporting to be the documents ordered
to be produced in conformity to the order of the House.
The papers so ordered to be laid on the table were let-
ters dated in the years 1837 and 1838; whereas the date
Gr the earl:eit letter contained i❑ the returns on the
table was the year 1838 He wished to have an expla-
nation of this circumstance from the Noble Lord
opposite.
Lord PALMERSTON said that during a former
debate he had road a letter from Mr. Backhouse, and
some printed papers relative to the Portfolio which he
had promised to lay on the table of the House, as ho
considered it to be the duty of a Minister to do after he
had read or quoted such papers in the House.--(Hear,
hear.) The Honourable Member subsequently moved
an unopposed return for the correspondence relating to
his recal from the post of Secretary of Embassy at Con-
stantinople; but as soon as he (Lord Palmerston) found
that he had done so, he signified that bad he known
what the papers moved for were he never would have
consented to their being granted, for it was contrary to
constitutional practice for the Government to be
called upon to state any reasons for the recal of
a diplomatic agent from abroad.—(Hear, hear)
He therefore stated to the Honourable Member that
if be had given notice of the correspondence he was
going to move for he (Lord Palmerston) should
have opposed it, upon which the Hon. Member stated he
was willing to take what documents he was ready to
give. He then told the Hon. Member that he objected
to let such a motion remain on the journals of the House
and that if he would not move that it be rescinded, he
himself would. The lion. Member did so, and then
gave notice of his intention to move for other papers.
He (Lord Palmerston) confessed he was to blame, for he
saw the notice at the time, which was for correspondence
of the years 1337 and 1838, whereas the correspondence
laid on the table was dated 1839. But what correspon-
dence he had engaged to produce was of the latter date,
and not of 1837-8, and unless the House were to compel
him to do so, he should continue to object to produce
the correspondence in question, as that would establish a
very inconvenient precedent.
Mr. URQUHART rose to revive the Noble Lord's
memory, but was interrupted by cries of "Spoke."
Mr. C. ANSTEY moved that the House do now ad-

journ.
Mr. URQUHART said that the Noble Lord's state-
ment was the reverse of the fact. His Hon. Friend (Kr,
C. Anstey) would Ix:or witness that the papers referred
to by the Noble Lord as having been those promised by
him, related to the debate of the Ist of March. The oc-
casion when the Noble Lord promised him to produce
the correspondence was on the Gth of March, and in what
he had said the Nob!e Lord had made as great a devia-
tion from the statement of facts as that which had been
the subject of conversation some nights ago. He now