The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-06 00:00:00

1 AlAgi 111

LONDON, SATtItDAY, MAY 6, 1848.

A. more elaborate or, altogether, a more satisfac-
tory explanation could not possibly have been given
respecting any diplomatic transaction of a debateable
character than the one with which the Lord Presi-
dent of the Council yesterday evening rebutted the
accusations of the Noble Leader of the Opposition.
Th' se accusations were merely the amplification of
the charges which have been incidentally levelled
within the last fortnight against the foreign policy of
her MAJESTY'S Government. Ostensibly, the object
of Lord STANLEY, in delivering his long speech in
the House of Lords last night, was to elicit a more
detailed vindication of the course recently pursued
by the Chief Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the
representative of her Britannic Majesty at the
Court of ISABELLA, than had been given on the pre-
ceding evening in the other Chamber of Parliament,
either by Lord J. ltrsslLLor Lord PALMERSTON. As
far as curiosity in regard to a transaction which has lately
assumed a certain degree of importance from the un-
state9m:mlike irritability of the Duc DE SOTOMAYOR,
is concerned, we are almost rejoiced at the inquisi-
tiveness of Lord STANLEY. Otherwise, from our
ANt;Vv perfect appreciation of the motives by which the
----7-71"17;: British Cabinet should be actuated in its relation with

the Cabinets of the Spanish and Portuguese penin-
sula, we cannot but regard the elucidative remark,
uttered consecutively by the Prime Min'ster, the
Foreign Secretary, and the President of the Council,
as evidences of extraordinary official condescension.
Throughout the whole of the proceedings there has
been no attempt whatever at prevarication. The
manner in which the misunderstanding has originated
lies as plainly before the public as the most
overt quarrel ever recorded by historian or
biographer. The progress of ill•feeling towards
the Ministerial counsels of England on the part of the
Duke DE SOTOMAYOR is as visible as the rise
of the quicksilver in a thermometer on its intro-
duction to a warm atmosphere. Three letters consti-
tute the whole of this famous correspondence—three
letters comprise the epitome of the circumstances
which have conduced to the temporary estrangement
of the Cabinets of Madrid and London. One from
Lord PALMERSTON to Mr. (now Sir HENRY)
BULWER, instructing him to offer certain recom-
mendations to the political advisers of Queen ISA-
BELLA—one from the British Ambassador to the
Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, conveying the
gist of these recommendations to himself and his
colleagues—and one from that Minister himself, re-
senting the interposition of England in the in-
ternal legislation of an independent sovereignty,
and enforcing his expressions of indignation by re-
turning the communications of our A rnbassador. From
those three documents alone, if correctly ieported,
and dispassionately read, it would have been easy to
arrive at a just conclusion as to whether our
diplomatists could or could not be regarded as cul-
pable. If correctly reported, we have said. Now it
isbl
operke—c i sietl yis
precisely
iws
ehliyc h
thhaa ts
wbeenhic h thehhas
s fi
er
xs tc
istteudmabl ing
this
animosity against Lord PALSLERSTON, and has afforded
some specious grounds for the animadversions of his
antagonists. Lord PALMERSTON'S letter to Sir H.
BULWER has hitherto appeared only in a garbled
form—printed first of all in the French news-
papers, and thence finding its way through
the filter of a double translation into our own
columns and those of our contemporaries. Instead
of being intended for perusal by the Spanish Go-
vernment, the letter dispatched from Downing-
street on the 16th of March was sent exclusively for
the personal guidance of the British Ambassador,
and, according to an announcement made last night
by the Marquis of CLANRICARDE,
marked "confidential." was actually
By the adroit omission of five
words, however, the letter has been so garbled as
to appear in the light of a communication inten-
tionally written for the inspection of the Spanish
Government, and written too in language of the most
absolute dictation. Restored to its original corn-
PleenEss the confidential dispatch of Lord
PALMERSTON to Sir HENRY BULWER Kirov s to
he the vehicle for certain instructions intended
solely for his individual guidance—recommending,
him in short, to advise the Ne6rvaez Government to
adopt a more legal and constitutional system " if a
fitting opportunity (ffered." The erasure of those few
syllables threw an apparent degree of culpability over
the conduct of Lord PALMERSTON, the minor culpa-
bility of addressing himself in terms of too much
havttur to the statesmen of an independent sove-
reignty. Immediately, however, that those
syllables are restored to the copy of the com-
munication, that very letter vindicates the
diplomatic character of Lord PanmEastoN.
Yet, while it entirely exculpates Lord PAL-
MERSTON from the merest shadow of blame, it in-
culpates the representative of her Britannic MA-
JESTY at the Court of Madrid, and that rather
seriously. Amended as the confidential dispatch is,
by the restoration of the erased sentence (" if a fitting
opportunity offers"), the tone of that dispatch sounds
reproachfully, if not reprehensively in its bearing
upon Sir H. BULWER. According to the Marquis of
CLANRICARDE, the letter was marked " confidential"
—according to its own simple and unmistakeable
language, it recommended its recipient to offer certain
suggestions to the Spanish Government "if a fitting
opportunity occurred"--and yet, notwithstanding all
this, Sir H. BULWER, so early as the 7th of April,
transmits a copy of the communication, in a letter ad-
dressed by himself to the Due DE SOTOMAYOR. At
the first blush it would really seem ,to the uninitiated
as if the facetious conjecture of Lord BRouGuabt were
correct, namely, that when Lord Pa.t.aaEß.Tos recom-
mended the British Ambassador, "if a fitting oppor-
tunity occurred," to do so-and-so, he meant, in the
estimation of the latter, "that it was when Sir
BuLwErt. should have the rare opportunity
of being pawned of a clean piece of white
writing- paper, a tolerably good pen, tend a voonful
of ink." Before, however, any positive censure can
be pronounced upon Sir HENRY LYTTON BULWER,
for what appears, at this moment, as an extravagant
blunder, but which may have been re sclered essential,
in his opinion, from circumstances as
,yet unexplained,
it is but just that a definitive condemnation should
be postponed, until Sir 11. BULWER has himself been
afforded au opportunity of vindicating his conduct. His
able and distinguished career in diplomacy renders
this temporary procrastination of judg:alent absolutely
due to him on the simple score of justice. If de-
serving of reprehension, the British Ambassador at
Madrid is only so far culpable inasmuch as he trans-
mitted a copy of Lord PALMERSTON'S confidential
letter to himself to the Duc DE SOMOMAYOR. Of
the other accusation, the charge of conveying an
official document to the Clamor Publico, he stands
altogether acquitted, not only by that publication
itself, but also by the Spanish Illinistv:t. for Foreign
Affairs. As he has emerged unscathed from this
iinputation, we are sanguine enough to believe that he
may effectually vindicate, or, at the least, very con-
siderably extenuate, his conduct in reference to the
more serious subject of animadversion.

PENSIER

Ostensibly, we have already remarked, the only
purpose of Lord STANLEY in addressing the House of
Peers at such great length yesterday evening was
the elucidation, if possible, of the facts connected
with the Bulwer-Sotomayor correspondence. In
reality his intention was more profound and
damaging. The Noble Leader of the 'Opposition was
principally solicitous to bring into disrespect the
foreign policy of the present Administration, and
with this object in view he assailed Lord PALMERS.
TON'S reputation, not only through the correspondence
just mentioned, but also through the incidents of
the Italian mission of the Lord Privy Seal, and the
sudden and the somewhat mysterious departure from
England of the Duke and Ductless DE
UponMONT-
swell both
as upon
of these insidious
question
points
PoFENSIER.
attack, a
the al-
readyo‘ discussed, did the Mat qttis of LANS-
D E triumphantly thefight bottle of h•
col-
league throwing
e
truth and
over him the indestructible
buckler o.
honesty. He not only disproved
the accuracy of the
the efforts of Lord
.;i
lasisertion of Lord STANLEY that
had terminated in his di T°
in the Roman peninsula
sthe obscurity which h•asmfiture, but he dissipated
with hitherto shrouded the
particulars connected
of the Duke and Duchess Da
abrupt departure
this is not the least striking of those
As
which will be remembered in gafter years those
occurrences
epi-
sodes in the revolutionary history in E
as the
the explanation as given in the very language pe ; and, as
Lord President of the Council must necessarilyf the
more conclusive than any commentary, we
etr be
transcribe
the following paragraph articu:attd by the lip o
Lord LANSDOWNE :
" In the same spirit has been origicated a rumour
which formed another of the points to which the Noble
Lord alluded, namely, that the Duke and Duchess de
Montpensier had been forced to leave this country, and
had been treated with disrespect by the Sovereien,
desire most emphatically to say that no such disrespect
wav injtndecl, that nu such disrespect was shown. Her
Me• ers had no intuition of giving any ad.
jes ty's
vice to their Sovereign on the subject. In the exercise
of that generosity of keiine. which belongs to her
at all times, and which has been peculiarly displayed
in the present awful situation of the world, in which so
many persons, illustrious by their position and by their
character, have been forced to resort to this country, her
Majesty felt only those feelings of hospitality ter which
she is cistinguished. It did su happen that the Duke
and Duchess of Montpensier, who had been previously
ree.ived by her Majesty, and who had experienced those
attentions which were shown by her Jlajesty to them, in
common with their family, and all those to whom I have
allu ed, had omitted the usual etiquette observed on such
Tiou_s occasions,,o, by going away without having given any pre-
co of their intention to do so."
After the admirable
speech of the President of the
Council,
who shall have the temerity to speak again
of Lord
ine:STON in regard to Spain, of the
Italians, ore
xpe expedition of Lord MINTO among the
1 the inhospitality of our Gracious

SOVEREIGN, and the discourtesy of her Government
tow„rds the fugitive Dtichesi iii.

The House of Commons, by refusing their assent
to the second reading of the County Courts Bill on
Wednesday, have practically decided that the griev-
ances and hardships to which the less wealthy classes
are exposed under the provisions, and mode of admi-
nistration of the code for the recovery of small debts,
shall be perpetuated. We had supposed that these
were not the times when the reasonable complaints
of the working classes could be despised and dis-
regarded, and when distinctions should be permitted
to exist by which a party indebted a few pounds
only should be treated as a felon, and exposed
to the degradation and contamination of being
associated with thieves and pickpockets, and
other habitual violators of the law—while
another, whose only merit was, that he had obtained
greater credit, and who owed, perhaps, a hundred
times the amount, was treated with comparative
leniency and forbearance, and allowed indulgences
absolutely forbidden to his brother debtor. We must,
however, acknowledge our error, and reluctantly
confess that the fatal error of making one code of
laws for the poor and another for the rich is still
continued.

The changes contemplated by the proposed mea-
sure were very trifling indeed, and by no means went
to the full extent of meeting all the defects of the
present law. Its principal object was "to prevent
a person from being imprisoned for debt in
any part of a gaol, except the debtors' side, or in any
gaol where there was not a debtors' side," The case
of Mr. CHARLES POLLETT is row sufficiently noto-
rious, and the treatment to which that unfortunate
gentleman was exposed for the nonpayment of a
debt of 21.—having had his hair cropped, his whiskers
shaved, being kept on prison diet, locked up in his
cell at sunset, compelled to labour, to preserve strict
silence, and in every respect treated as the felons or
misdemeanents with whom he was associated—has
excited the public indignation to no ordinary degree ;
but hundreds of similar cases might be mentioned,
although the sufferers had not the energy and deter-
mination to make known their sufferings and griev
ances, and who were unable to find a Member of the
Legislature to direct the attention of Parliament
thereto.

" Vixerunt fortes ante Agamemnona duces."
There are, unfortunately, but too many instances of
hardship and oppression, the particulars of which can
never be fully know❑ or understood, but a recurrence
of which should be rendered perfectly impossible.
The Attorney-General, in opposing the Bill,
argued as if commitments could only be made for
fraud—that they never were enforced where mis-
fortune alone could be imputed to the debtor ; and he
also said, " that if these committals took place to the
debtors' side, where the parties might live
in idleness, the county courts might as
well be shut up at once." Now it is en-
acted by the 99th section, that "if the parties sum-
moned shall not attend, as required by such sum-
mons, and shall not allege a sufficient excuse for non-
attendance, or shall, if attending, refuse to be sworn
or to disclose any of the things aforesaid (i.e. these
mentioned in the 98:h swtion), or if he shall not
make answer to the same, to the satisfaction of the
judge," &c. &c., or "if it shall appear to the satisfac-
tion of the judge of the said court that the party 35
summoned has then, or has had since, the judgment
obtained against him, sufficient means and ability
to pay the debt, or damages, or costs so recovered
against him, either altogether or by any instalment or
instalments which the court in which the judgment
was obtained shall have ordered, and if he shall refuse
or neglect to pay the same as shall have been so
ordered, or as shall be ordered pursuant to the power
hereinafter provided, it shall be lawful for such judge,
if he shall think fit, to order that any such party may
be committed to the common gaol or htuse of correc-
tion of the county, district, or place in which the party
summoned is resident, or to any prison which shall
be provided as the prison of the court, for any period
not exceeding forty days." There may, surely, exist
cases in which the parties may be responsible
under these very extensive provisions in which no
fraud whatsoever can be imputed. Our readers cannot
have forgotten the case of the Rev. Mr. MARCUS, who
was committed last autumn because he did not
attend the summons, although his wife attended and
explained that they had offered the creditor payment
at Christmas, when they would themselves obtain
payment of the half-yearly accounts of their school,
which was the only means of livelihood they pos-
sessed, and feelingly appealed to the shabbiness of
her attire as an evidence of their want of means,
asking, "if a clergyman's wife would appear in such
garments if not in a state of the most abject poverty."
Again, there are many persons who entertain a con-
scientious objection to swearing in any form, and
who would submit to any penalty rather than violate
what they conceived to be a sacred duty. Here we
find another instance where a person not guilty of any
fraud may be punished as a felon.
It is, however, under the latter part of the section

that almost every case is dealt with. If a person
earns anything, however trifling, it appears to be
considered that the whole of that money should be
applied in payment of the demand then under con-
sideration, without any reference either to other and
equally meritorious claims, or to the necessary main-
tenance of the unfortunate debtor or his family. We
believe that many cases could be shown where a party
has been ordered to pay, where there are two or three
claimants, more than the entire amount of his earnings.
This is manifestly impossible, and he is consequently,
from the mistake of the judge himself, branded with
fraud, and punished with the most stringent severity,
without any actual fault save that of having originally
gone into debt, although at the time he had every
fair and reasonable prospect of being enabled to sa-
tisfy the claim. Scarcely a single instance can be
adduced where the judge excuses any payment on
the grounds of poverty or inability on the part of the
debtor. He may make the instalments apparently
easy, but they may really be utterly out of the
power of the debtor to provide for. The imprison-

ment then follows on a single failure, and, as (con-

trary to the rule in other cases) the impri-
sonment does not operate as a satisfaction
or extinguishment of the debt, there is no reason to
induce the creditor to refrain from a vindictive pur-
suit of the debtor. There is no distinction either as
to the causes fur which the debtor i,i committed, or
his treatment while in the common gaol or house of
correction: in every case he is punished as if he had
been guilty of fraud—while in no case is a person
owing more than 201. dealt with in such a manner.
Here, then, is a most invidious distinction in favour
of the large debtor, which, so long as it remains the
law of the land, cannot fail to sink deep into the
minds and to influence the passions of those classes
who are thus unfairly and improperly dealt with.

SPAIN.
The Madrid mail had not arrived in Paris yester-
day at the hour the post left.