The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-16 00:00:00

anti most di gin& manner under the attention of the House, it
would he necessary shortly to recapitulate the circumstance
which had led to this correspondence. It must be fresh in the
remembrance of every body whom he then had the honour of
addressing,, that in the year 1841, her Majesty's late
Gossrmmenta thought it their duty to propose
to Perliamemet an alteration in the then existing scale of sugar
belierving that the change which they proposed to Par-
liament weaald tent to increase the revenue, and give addi-
tional development to their commerce, and increase the sup-
idly of sugar, and reduce the price to the consumer, and add,
cen-equentin, to the comfort of the poorer classes of the com-
munity. The earty then in opposition deemed that !Moroni
as a fitting occasisa to make trial of their strength. They
rare:; a cry in the country, and upon that cry they sought to
dreve the then Government from power. They stigmatised
the rneaseee of the Government as calculated to give additional
ermoursatenent to the slave-trade and slavery. They sum
ceteami at their epeesidoe, and the Government of the day re.
Maned their oil lees, aryl the present Government had not been
in poker an b fare they came to the same conclusion as that
to which the peeceriing Government hid arrived, that it would
be to the iotereet of the country to increase the supply of sugar
fm the caneempdon of the peop'e. He (Loot Palmerston)
as qm (.- mis 3, s tie.{ if the Gesernment had been free agents—if
tney had not been fettered by pledges, that they would have
nopeeed meenuree similar to those of the late Government.
They were' fettered by engagements. They, however, proposed
a rnemure which might- be regarded as a notable expedient.
It was not a measure like that of the late Government, calcu-
lated to largely increase the revenue, but it was a measure
which would add Slightly to the revenue, but not so much as to
give aillTfl to the Weet ladle monopeiets. The measure
nit at a low duty foreign sugar the produce of free
continue. at.a high duty any sugar that was the pro-
_ aleeer. They were told that this measure would
fad, ae.t salt it would be impracticable. The Government was
an, warned that there were treaties in existence with foreign
powers, that we bad treaties of commerce whereby the subjects
of those upwers were entitled to certain privileges in regard to
;scads and club( s which were afforded to the most favoured
nation. That warning, heeveve7, was treated mry lightly.
There was a treaty with the state of Venezuela, and that state
claimed to he put en a feeting with the most favoured
nation, that they s'non4.l be allowed to send sugars into this
country on the same terms as Cuba, Java, and Mobile, and
other free-labonr countries. Tiiis claim being admitted, next
came the United States, who, having a treaty with this country.
claimed the same advantage as Venezuela. Their claim was
considered, and their sugars were at length admitted on the
same terms as the sugar of Venezuela,, Java, and the other
countries that were entitled to the first privileges. Why, Sir,
here were two great holes made in the system of the Govern-
ment.--( Laughter.)
" Look ! in this place ran Cassius' dagger through:
See what a rent the envious Casca made."
(Laughter.) At that time the "well-beloved Brutus" had
not yet dealt his deadly stab—(Laughter); but he was not
slow in following the example.—( Hear, hear ) General
mvaez, the Spanish Minister, claimed the • same fer
the Spanish colonies, through the Duke of Sotosnayor, the
Spanish Ambassador bn this country, and a note was delivered
by the latter to the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs. In a reply, in which the application contained in the
nee, was smelled, that Noble Lord refused to acknowledge the
claim. He (Lord Palmerston) was sure the Noble Lord never
cttthi have invented the areuments, yet he (Lord Palmerston)
could hardly conceive that they were the result of due delibe-
ration. He only regretted the too easy disposition of the Noble
Lord, and considered that it might have prevented him giving
that consideration to the question which its importance so much
tteptired. The letter which contained the answer was full of
fallacies, not palpable fallacies, for those would be plain and
ease, emit seen at once, but fallacies that, nevertheless,
a very little examination could detect and expose.
He had 'carefully studied that letter, and would proceed to
argue upon its construction. The argument in that letter was
a curious illustration of what was called the legerdemain of
logic—( Hear)—which was, as he understood it, where a party,
in the course of an argument, skilfully slipped in some new
word, or phrase, or expression, without the knowledge of his
opponent, and then proceeded to erect a superstructure upon
the whole, leading to a conclusion wholly different from that
which would be otherwise arrived at, and from that which the
premi?es warranted. The Noble Lerd then proceeded to canvass
the treaties of 1667 and 1713, between this country and Spain,
in whic'n it was distinctly stated that the same privileges, rights,
and liberties should be mutually enjoyed by the inhabitants of
the "two countries as by those of the most favoured nations.
The treaties spoke distinctly of privileges as to the imposition
of duties on merchandise, providing that each should
enjoy the same advantages in this respect as the in-
habitants of the most favoured nation. They, them-
Fein:, had assented to the principle that the mode
of manufacture was to be taken into consideration in the appli-
cation of imposts. English and Swedish iron was thus formerly
taxed dissimilarly, until the anomaly had been exposed, and
the taxation equalised on both. Was it not then monstrous to
keep up the distinction between sugar manufactured by dif-
ferent colonies, and in different modes ? The first point, how-
ever, upsets which the answer was founded, was an admission of
the treaties of 16,17 and 1713, and confirmed by the treaty of
1314, bat contending that the last precluded them from
abiding by the original, or that of 1670, and that even that of
1670 was a bar to the claim of Sotoinavor. Let them now
consiaer what the demand of Spain was; let them analyse it,
mita:sally, IT they would, bat, at all events, equitably.—(Hear,
hear. j The demand was, that Spanish subjects, resident
in Cuba, should be permitted! to bring their sugar
to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
at the same duty as was imposed on other colonial produce.
The preamble of the treaty of 1670 merely provided that Bri-
tieh subjects were not to sail to, or navigate in, or trade in the
ports of Spain, nor Spanish subjects to sail to, or navigate in,
or !rade in the ports of Great Britain. But it did not imply
that Beitish colonists were not to sail to, or navigate in, or
trade in Spanish ports, nor was there one word in the treaty to
imply that the colonists of Spanish islands were not to trade
in the poita of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and he
did not know but that if Spain procured a cargo of sugar from
her colony at Cuba, and unshipped it at Corunna, and thence
reshipping, !t, sent it to Great Britain, that produce would
not be admitted on the duty imposed on friendly nations.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assured the Noble Lord
that his assumption was untenable.
Lord PAL FERSTON would not argue that particular
question, but he contended that this principle of establishing a
dieeinebion between the treaties of 1670 and 1814, was vision-
ary and fallacious, and that the affected reciprocity between
friendly nations was no reciprocity at all, but the most palpable
Injustice to peculiar countries and the industrial
lsbour of their colonies.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Those observations, he conceived, applied to, and answered
the arguments, in reference to the treaty of 1670. Then
cattle the arguments in defence of the treaty of 1713, the pre-
cise nature cfr which he felt some difficulty in applying him-
self to ; and all who had heard them concurred with him in
saying that nothing could be more absurd than such arguments,
suited only to the position and advantage of a pettifogging
village attorney, aad therefore it was not only a mere quibble to
apply such arguments to such a case, but he would not hesitate to
any that such conduct was indefensible.—( Hear, hear.) Well,
then, let him ask any man of plain sense and candour, whether
the arguments he had mentioned were such as should be used
in defence of the treaty of 1713. And if those arguments
were not to be 'defended, then let him ask upon what grounds
the Goeernment defended the act of imposing a higher
duty upon artieles imported from their own colonies than upon
these imported from fereign nation,?—( Hear.) This mode of
dealing with those duties put him in mind of a friend of his
who aslced a man to vote for him at an election, which he pro-
mised to do ; yet he voted against him ; and on being asked the
reason why be broke his promise, said, very coolly, it was true
he had promised to vete for him, but he did not say when.—
(Laughter and cheers.) Such was the position of the treaties
he had been speaking of; they proposed to fix certain
duties upon certain articles, but they did not say what articles.
—( Hear, hear.) He had heard that it would be urged in de-
tenue of this proceeding that the opinion of the Crown lawyers
hel been taken on the qut stiou, and they had declared io favour
of it. But he ( Lord Palmerston) could not see what the law
had to de with it, for he did consider it was not a question of
lew, but of honesty.-a( Ileer, hear.) This was nt a qumtion
upon which they were to cavil upon mere word., or the legal
--piing of we de, hut the matter was to be looked
es e. e inverting the simple meaning accorded
o tine I:am:age iii which all documents eontai nine
g cements between two rations were usually drawn up. Well,
pose that those agreements and treaties
ootiang snore than a species of 'documents applying to
deals, end not to measures as between England and
5; and if so, let him ask, slid the House or the Govern-
t see e fall bearieg of cub • a coarse ?—( Heer, hear.)
,use rerstembes the treaties that had been proposed to
' into, grader another Government, between France
Se. e in respect to the right of search treaty ; and if that
nata ml. at not be carried out by the present Government,
'1 dealt tee world would look upon it as a breach of

7.1 tlo
1 ;ntkr, au:'
d (,f -1a

Up'lll

71, he was to su

ir. GLADSTONE.' said that, although he did not now
el Cite position of a member of the present Government, vet
felt betted to say a few words in reply to the Noble Lord
i'-In hail jest sat down, knowing, as he (Mr. Gladstone) did,
ciat loirl i'fight to participate to a certain extent in the
erienoesibility that attached to the present Government in
eie to this question. He (Mr. Gladstone) would
.eitiow the I.c.roble Lord in much of that which he
a:1 addressed to the House, because he was surprised at the
-itv of the facts he bad to present to the House connected
wide 11.11 which he had to travel. He had favoured
uniese with a long disquisition on the Ashburton treaty and
,ti other matters totally unconnected with the subject, and
agaiest the see-4,e of the House, and went out of his way for the
puipow of making an attack on the Government. If the Noble
e.tnet h i been eentent to have Antained from that party olis-
euesi ,u, and to have coal:led his che,rvations to the subject
le,fure the Houle, he would have done more wisely. He had
atierred that the Sleini.,th Gevernrnetit had broken faith in their
treaty against the interests of this ceuntry. That measure had,
however, never b, en defined. It had been drawn up at a time
when sheee were no less than twelve commercial treaties in
cot tend' whose provisions had extended over a period of 200
He was ready to contend that the treaties on which the
I`i.blr3 ford bal four:sled the case of the charge against Spain
were in full operation. He (Mr. Gladstone) would not
undertake to define i.e what degree than hd a hir.,l",,
eSee ; tint he wr,ulll undertake to show that whatever
the circumstances cf these treaties might have been, they were
tlieinetii-heel in many
eimportant pertieulars, as regarded the
unirersality of their operation, from the general treaties
which were included in the code of nations. He believed that
up to the year 1763 eeriee treaties all stood as a complete act.
In the scar 1763 ,hey were confirmed in the most absolute
form by thtt treaty in extenso of 1667. The treaty of the
year 1753 obtained a new confirmation, in which it was stated
that the former treaties were to be taken es its b se, and to be
religiteely obzerved. He found in that treaty of 1783 the de-
claration attached to it. The declaration provided for both
parties. With respect to the British intereats it drew a clear
distieetiele between all the different clauses of prevention in the
former treaties. Thew were divided into the classes of cem-
inerciel privileges and comaeereial regulations, and it was only
utile respect to the commercial privileg-ts that the then
S3v,..,reign of Great Blitain would consent to the alteration of
duties. The Spanish declaration was evidently meant to
fortify the state of things iu which thole old treaties were
habitually used. He would point out that Spain, in the year
1;83, wanted to be placed on the footing of reciprocity—Spain
had acted on the eetablishe.l peactiee—a practice of twenty-
two years' duration. In the year 1761, it would be found that
Spain, France, and Naples had agreed to place one and the
other of either country, with respect to the interests of all, on
the same feeling. The practice of Spain had been for twenty.
two years founded on the system of reciprocity between France
and Nvies, and she was bound to have admitted Eegland on
the same footing. In 17072, an admirable treaty was formed
In that commercial treaty, a national clause was
eti, which preceded that on the part of England, France
„ed have a claim in fa-rour of their contract with Spain. Mr.
Pitt, by a moat solemn act, rAtified the power of that treaty.
Again, in the year 1899, an engagement was entered
jete oeveen the two powers to negotiate. In 1814 it would
lw found thet the engagement to neeociate in 1809 was ie-
newed, thus manifestly recognising the binding nature of she
old orieinal treaty. He would now refer to some other pro-
visoes which were suieeplible of a doable interpretation. In
1739 the french treaty had been referred to the Board of
Trade, by Mr. Pitt, for their opinion. The Board of Trade
leel their attention called to the question, whether, if a com-
reerehl treaty were formed with France, England would be
subject to the operation of the differential duties with Spain.
The report of the. Board of Trade distinctly laid down that
Spain had a perfect right to impose those differential duties on
Dritish merchandise. In the time even of Mr. Pitt a treaty

r~!e: ci:

r

with F-an.x..