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

THE S UN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 16, 1845.

and most distinct manner under the attention of the House, it
would be 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
addret.eing, that in the year 1841, her Majesty's late

_
G,)v,,rnmesit thought it their duty to propose
to Pdrlisincnt an alteration in the then existiog scale of sugar
deities, believing that the change which they proposed to Par-
liament would tend to increase the revenue, and give addi-

tional development to their commerce, and increase the sup-
ply of sugar, and reduce the price to the consumer, and add,
c. tquentiv, to the comfort of the poorer classes of the corn-
tatnity. The party then in opposition deemed that proposal
a fit!ing oceasiao to make trial of their strength. They
raise:i a cry to the eoun,ry, and upon that cry they sought to
tlr,ve the then Government from power. They stigmatised
t'.e measure of the Government as calculated to give additional
encouragement to the slave-trade and slavery. They suc-
ceeded in their opposition, and the Government of the day re-
signed their offices, and the present Government had not been
in power long b fore they came to the same conclusion as that
to abich the preceding Government had arrived, that it -would
be to the interest of the country to increase the supply of sugar
fir the consumption of the people. He (Lord Palmerston)
was quite sAtistied if the Government had been free agents—if
the}• had not been fettered by pledges. that they would have
ymposad ineusures similar to those of the late Government.
They were fettered by engagements. They, however, proposed
a measure which might be regarded as a notable expedient.
It was not a ,Taeasure 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 alarm to the West India monopolists. The measure
eat tip admit at a low duty foreign sugar the produce of free
1 theur, and continue at a high duty any sugar that was the pro-
duce of ,fare labour. They were told that this measure would
fail, and that it would be impracticable. The Government was
also warned that there were treaties in existence with foreign
powers, that we had treaties of commerce whereby the subjects
of those powers were entitled to certain privileges in regard to
goods and duties which were afforded to the most favoured
nation. That warning, however, was treated very lightly.
Thve was a treaty with the state of Venezuela, and that state
claimed to be put on a footing with the most favoured
nation, that they should be allowed to send sugars into this
country on the same terms as Cuba, Java, and Mobile, and
ether free-labour countries. This claim being admitted, next
. .

came the United States, who, having a treaty vrith 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.—( Laugiter.)
" Look ! in this place ran Cassius' dagger through:
See what a rent the envious Casco. made."
(Laughter.) At that time the " well-beloved Brutus" had
nst yet dealt his deadly stab—(Laughter) ; but he was not
slow in following the example.—( Hear, hear.) General
Nervaea, the Spanish Minister, claimed the same for
the Spanish colonies, through the Duke of Sotomayor, the
Spanish Ambassador to 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
note was argued, that Noble Lord refused to acknowledge the
claim. He ( Lord Palmerston) was sure the Noble Lord never
could have invented the aruments, 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
required. The letter which contained the answer was full of
fallacies, not palpable fallacies, for those would be plain and
easy, and seen at once, but fallacies that, nevertheless,
a very little examination could detect and expose.
Ile 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
premises warranted. The Noble Lerd then proceeded to canvass
the treaties of 1667 and 1713, between this country and Spain,
in which it was distinctly stated that the same privileges: rights,
and liberties should be mutually enjoyed by the inhabitants of
the :two eountries as by those of the most favoured nations.
T imposition
of treaties spoke distinctly of privileges as to the mposition
of duties on merchandise, providing that each should
enjoy the same advantages in this respect as the in-
habi'ants of the most favoured nation. They, them-
selves, 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, upon which the answer was founded, was an admission of
the treaties of 1667 and 1713, and confirmed by the treaty of
18'4, but contending that the last precluded them from
abiding by the original, or that of 1670, and that even that of
1670 was a bir to the claim of Sotomayor. Let them now
consider what the demand of Spain was ; let them analyse it,
critically, tf they would, but, at all events, equitably.—( Hear,
kear. ) 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-
tish 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 trade in the ports of Great Britain. But it did not imply
that British colonists were not to sail to, or navigate in, or
trade in Spaniels ports, nor was there one word in the treaty to
imply that the colonists of Spanish islands were not to trade
in the ports 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
reshippiag it, 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 PALMERSTON would not argue that particular
question, bet he contended that this principle of establishing a
distinction between the treaties of 1670 and 1814, was vision-
ary and fallacious, sad that the affected reciprocity between
friendly nations was no reciprocity at all, but the most palpable
injustice to peculiar countries and the industrial
labour 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
came the arguments in defence of the treaty of 1713, the pre-
cise nature of 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 pettifogeing
village attorney, and therefore it was not only a mere quibble to
apply such arguments to such a case, but he would not hesitate to
sty 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 Government defended the act of imposing a higher
duty upon articles imported from their own colonies than upon
these imported from foreign nations?—( Hear. ) This mode of
dealing with those duties put him in mind of a friend of his
who asked 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 he 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-
fense of this proceeding that the opinion of the Crown lawyers
had been taken on the gut stion, and they had declared in 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
law, but of honesty.—( Hear, hear.) This was not a question
upon which they were to cavil upon mere words, or the legal
meaning of words, but the matter was to be looked
upon as one importing the simple meaning accorded
to the language in which all documents containing
areectent; between two nations were usually drawn up. Well,
then, he ,as to stapo.e that those agreements and treaties
meant nothing more than a species of documents applying to
individuals, and not to measures as between England and
Spin; and if so, let him ask, did the House or the Govern-
ment see full bearilg of suck a course ?=( Hear, hear.)
Let the House remember the treaties that had been proposed to
be entered in'o, under another Government, between France
and Spain, in respect to the right of search treaty ; and if that
treads stionl.l not be carried out by the present Government,
beyond all doubt the world would look upon it as a breach of
faith.

Mr. GLADSTONE said that, although he did not now
hold the position of a member of the present Government, vet
he felt bound to say a few words in reply to the Noble Lord
who had jest sat down, knowing, as he (Mr. Gladstone) did,
that he lead a right to participate to a certain extent in the
responsibility that attached to the present Government in
reference to this question. He (Mr. Gladstone) would
not follow the Noble Lord in much of that which he
had addressed to the House, because he was surprised at the
paucity of the facts he had to present to the House connected
wit% the wide field which he had to travel.' He had favoured
the House with a long disquisition on the Ashburton treaty and
on other matters totally unconnected with the subject, and
iegainst the sense of the House, and went out of his way for the
purpose of making an attack on the Government. If the Noble
Lord hat been content to have abstained from that party dis-
cussien, and to have confined his observations to the subject
bef,rre the House, he would have done more wisely. He had
averred that the Spanish Government had broken faith in their
treaty against the interests of this country. That measure had,
however, never been defined. It had been drawn up at a time
when there were no less than twelve commercial treaties in
existence whose protisiows had extended over a period of 200
eare He was ready to contend that the treaties on which the
Ingle Lord had founded the case of the charge against Spain
weeC still in full operation. He (Mr. Gladstone) would not
undertake to define is what degree they had a binding
effect ; ' hot he would undertake to show that whatever
the circumstances of those treaties might have been, they were
distingui hed in many important particulars, as regarded the
universality of their operation, from the general treaties
which were included in the code of nations. He believed that
np to the year 1763 those treaties all stood as a complete act.
In the year 1763 they were confirmed in the most absolute
form by the treaty is ertenso of 1667. The treaty of the
year 1783 obtained a new confirmation, in which it was stated
that the former treaties were ta be taken as its b se, and to be
religion ly observed. He found in that treaty of 1783 the de.
btiration attacked to it. The declaration provided for both
parties. With respect to the British interests it drew a clear
distinction between all the different clauses of prevention in the
former treaties. ('hose were divided into the classes of com-
mercial privileges and commercial regulations, and it was only
with respect to the commercial privileges that the then
Sovereign of Great Britain would consent to the alteration of
lutes. Tho, Spanish declaration was evidently meant to
fortify the state of things in which those old treaties were
habitually used. He would point out that Spain, in the year
1783, wanted to be placed on the footingt of reciprocity—Spain
had acted on the established.eprac tee—a practice of twenty.
tvae years' duration. In thel76l, it would be found that
Spahr, France, and Naples hitelar agreedeetto the
tplace one and the
other of either country, with respect
pr act ice of Spain had interests
tfesoro twenty-
two waelintoyn-
the same footing. The
France
two years founded on the system of reciprocity
arid Naples, and she was bound to have admittedwEi7land on
t!'w same footing. In 1782, an admirab!e treaty formed
In that commercial treaty, a nationar clause
adie:el, which provided that on the part of Eegiand,"gawas
sneu'd have a claim in favour of their contract with Spain. Anlcee
I,io-, by a moat solemn act, ratified the power of that treaty..
Again, in the year 1809, an engagement was entered
i:.t i lo'teeen the two powers to negotiate. In 1814 it would
be found that the engagement to negotiate in 1809 was re-
newed, thus manifestly recognising the binding nature of the
old original treaty. He would now refer to some other pro-
views which were susceptible of a double interpretation. In
1780 the French treaty had been referred to the Board of
Tesde. be 'alr,,Boitt, for their opinion. The Hoard of Trade
Ind Cieic at tart called to the q
In question, whether, if a corn-
t'ri'id rea
- . were formed with France, England would be
Tt
subia.i's'to t e operation of the differential duties with Spain.
eint report of the Board of Trade distinctly laid down that
AitaiteW occurred lie,: to impose those differential duties on
11. ....i
thaat ow cUso. In WI time oven of Mr. Pitt a treaty
1..:

Fr n

was made between France and this country relative to some dif-
ferential duties to be imposed upon the produce of Quebec,
but he was not aware that Spain ever claimed to be
placed on the same footing, or remonstre ed against
the adoption of such a treaty. Hew was the Noble
Lord to explain this ? he was in office while these duties were
in existence, indeed they were in existence at the present
time, and yet the Noble Lord had ventured to c. arge the pre-
sent Government with being guilty of a v ant of good
faith towards Spain, in not placing her produce upon the same
footing as that of the United States. He now came to the
treaty of 1814, and here let him ask how the Noble Lord could
eccount for the introduction of what he would term the colo-
nial clause into that treaty, for, according to the Noble Lord's
argument, such a chase must have been perfectly superfluous.
The Noble Lord was in office in 1822, and he had a
serious catalogue of his own misdeeds to answer for.
In 1819 the formation of the reciprocity treaty was
commenced, and during the four succeeding years they con-
tinued to put one nation after another upon the footing of the
most favoured nation with regard to their ships and produce.
But Spain did not get the benefit of that reciprocity treaty,
and Spain continued to pay their differential duty as before,
while other nations were in the enjoyment of duties reduced
to a very low rate, but Spain had never complained from that
day to this. Before, therefore, the Noble Lord ventured to
declaim against the Government he ought to be prepared to
explain away these circumstances. The Noble Lord had said
that a constant struggle had long been going on between the
Governments of the two countries upon the subject which he
had brought under the consideration of the house, but he abso-
lutely denied that such was the case. It was true that
some letters had passed between the two Governments on the
subject, but nothing had taken place which could be designated.
Mr. Bulwer, during the present Government, had applied to
the Spanish Government to have the ships of British mer-
chants placed upon the footing of the most favoured nation,
but that claim had not been granted up to this hour ; and he
therefore could see no reason why the ships of Spain should be
more favoured in this country than English ships were in
Spain. He had shown, he thought, that the ancient treaties
were not now in full force ; but even if they were in as full
force now as they were in 1763, when they received the con.
firmation of the two countries, still they did not stipulate for a
minimum duty upon the produce, but they only placed the
subjects of Spain, and all that belonged to them, upon
the footing of the nation most favoured by this country.
In the statute 12 Car. 11., cap. 4, it was proved that the
principle of taxing different commodities, brought from differ-
ent countries, into different ports, by different persons, was not
only recognised but asserted; and this was a matter which had
altogether been overlooked by the Noble Lord opposite,
although it imposed different duties on wines imported into the
country. Spanish wine was subject to a much less duty and
poundage ad valorem than French, and Rhenish was subject to
less than either. And if they looked into the principle narrowly,
it was both just and rational. The spirit of legislation, then,
was to keep their own trade in the Bands of their subjects; and
was it likely, then, that the King of Spain would fail to put a
stipulation in any reciprocal treaty, that his subjects and the
produce of his subjects, not his colonists, should be received in
a friendly manner, and subject to a less binding impost
than either other less favoured nations or colonists ?
While, therefore, he deprecated such appeals keel
the letter to the spirit of the law, where the letter was clear
and unimpeached, as the Noble Lord bad made, yet he con-
tended here that both the spirit and the letter of the law were
perfectly consistent and concordant. Again the treaty of Mr.
Pitt, in 1787, and the treaties of the N Ible Lord ( Palmerston)
himself, when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies, re-
cognised that very principle which he now sought to repudiate.
The first was that which the Noble Lord had concluded with
the Netherlands in 1837 ; but in that with the Sublime Porte,
in 1838, the principle of the village attorney was even more
distinctly and unequivocally propounded and maintained; and
lest it should, in some two or three hundred years hence, be
doubted whether the produce or the subjects were in-
tended to be treated as friendly, an express clause was
appended to the former, and a stipulation affixed to
the latter, both providing that British produce should be
received by the foreign ports in a friendly and liberal spirit.
In 1667 the principle of differential imposts, as analogous to
the excise of the British and foreign produce, was clearly
established; and subsequently, in 1667 and 1685, enactments
were passed by the Legislature. not abrogating, as the .1\ oble
Lord contended, but positively and 'solemnly ratifying it. The
treaties with France respecting wine, and with Spain respect-
ing snuff and tobacco, more fully recognised, if they did not
perfectly complete, the principle previously asserted and now
despised. He had shown, by a stream of precedents, that
Spain imposed a higher rate of duty on the produce of this
country than on that of others that were considered the high-
est favoured nations. With respect to differential duties, he
might state that in this country, at present, there were 71 ports
in which a distinction was made between the ships of Spain
and the ships of France and the United States. The Right
Hon. Gentleman here instanced Belfast, as one of the ports to
which he referred. Spanish produce and Spanish ships had
been taxed from time to time by the British Legislature ac-
cording to circumstances, without any regard to stipulations.
They talked of reciprocity and of a family compact. That
family compact which had been referred to only pro-
vided that the ships of Naples, France, and Spain
should be permitted to enter British ports on exactly
the same terms, and at equal rates of taxation; but it did
not provide that this taxation should be the minimum,
as applied to the most favoured nations. It only provided that
there should be an equality in the relative position of these
countries towards this country, but nothing more.—(Hear,
hear.) He had been amused by the Noble Lord saying they
were now untying the hands of Spain ; but did the Noble
Lord wish this country to enforce this treaty at the point of the
sword ?—( Hear, hear.) Spain asked it of them, and yet she
now imposed a doctrine she had been acting on for two
hundred years, for she was imposing a duty on
British ships, which she did not, and had not imposed upon
the ships of France.—( Loud cries of" hear, hear.") The re-
sult of the treaty, if they were to take the interpretation of the
Noble Lord, would involve an absurdity, for if all the ships of
Spain were entitled to be placed on the footing of the most
favoured nations, then by the same interpretation the Prussians
and the Danes—the best navigators in the world—would be
placed in a similar position in our ports ; an advantage that in
return would not be conceded to the shipowners of this country.
The principle they had hitherto acted on, was that proposed
by the late Mr. Huskisson, namely, that they should only con-
cede advantages toforeign nations in proportion as those coun-
tries gave advantages to this country in return.—( Hear, hear.)
But the Noble Lord did not extend his motion to include all
descriptions of Spanish goods. He merely took one article,
sugar, and on that he wished an assimilation to the import
duties imposed on the produce of the most favoured
countries—on the produce of Java, Manilla, and Cuba.
Though he (Mr. Gladstone) had shown, by an unbroken chain
of precedents, in opposition to the views advanced by the
Noble Lord, he would admit so much to the Noble Lord that
the object sought to be obtained by the clauses of the present
treaty was similar to that which be contended for.—( Hear. )
The difference was, that the Noble Lord wished to accomplish
the result by other means than he (Mr. Gladstone) could
support or recommend. On two several occasions had this
country asked Spain to come to an arrangement on the subject
of duties. This was lately done by Mr. tlulwer, their minister
at the court of Spain, who requested that British ships might
be placed on a footing of equality with the ships of France.
He thought the instructions of the Noble Lord to Mr. Ashton
were most extraordinary instructions at a time when they
were levying a ±ffcrentiai duty on Spanish goods coming into
this country. The construction or the treaty for 200 years,
and the mode in which it had been obsi.rved and regarded,
showed that the Noble Lord's view of the case was erroneous.
But he would allow the Noble Lord to put what construction he
pleased upon the treaty of 1667. It could not be denied but in
the treaty of 1667 the West Indian colonies of Spain were
excluded, and they were not included in the subsequent treaty.
As regarded the treaty of 1670, he thought the Noble Lord
had put an entirely erroneous construction upon it. The
Noble Lord said the nature of the treaty allowed the colonists
of Spain to partake of advantages which the mother country
did not by that treaty herself possess.
Lord PALMERSTON—I did not say so.
Mr. GLADSTONE sail he would pass to another branch
of the case. In another part of the treaty of 1670, it was
clear that they had it in their power to give the Spanish colo-
nies just as much or as little of the advantages of the treaty as
they thought proper. He was very much surprised that the
Noble Lord did not quote this passage to the House. The
treaty expressly said that both countries could, of their own
free will and discretion, measure the degrees, laws, and con-
ditions of the colonial trade. Colonial trade was expressly
mentioned ; they could not, therefore, exclude a colony, and
an important one. If they included Cuba, they must likewise
include its sugar ; and when they admitted that Cuba sugar
came under the treaty, they must likewise admit
the power of England to impose a duty upon it as
colonial produce. But the treaty of 1814 was conclusive
on the subject. By that treaty—he would not say by a con-
struction of it, for there could be but one construction put
upon it even by the craft and adroitness of a village attorney,
or what was still more, the adroitness cf an ex-Foreign Secre-
tary—well, that treaty or convention of 1814 gave:the power of
regulating the colonial import duty. But Spain did not at that
moment possess the same colonial privileges which had been
granted by England to many other foreign Powers. The obli-
gation of these treaties was no longer such as to justify one
nation in making demands on the other, and though within two
years we made such demands on Spain, yet Spain did not allow
these demands, nor did England persist in them. He showed
that the whole stream of history was adverse to the construc-
tion put upon the treaties by the Noble Lord, which construc-
tion was also opposed to facts ; but even if that construction
could be put upon these treaties, he'ceuldnot see how it applied
to the Spanish West India possessions of the Spanish Crown.
He hoped, in conclusion, that he had been as good as his word,
and that he had substantiated the position which he took up
in the early part of, the evening. He was sorry to have tress
passed on the House at such a length, but he thought the cir-
cumstances of the ease in some measure justified the intru-
sion ; and he would conclude by saying, that the honoar and
interests of the country were quite as safe in the hands of her
Majesty as they had been at any former period.—(Cheers. )
Mr. LABOUCIAERE said the length at which the Right
Hon. Gentleman addressed the House was evidence of the
badness of his case. There was, he thought, no necessity for
the employ of all the ingenuity and nicety of argument which
the Right Hon. Gentleman thought it right to use. The
Right Hon gentleman said the sense of the treaty might be
seen by any plain illiterate man. But his own argument went
to prove the very reverse. He would read Mr. Ashten's letter
on this subject, and Lord Aberdeen's reply, and leave it to the
House to say what construction the Government itself had at
a very recent period put upon these treaties.—(The
Rightd
hi neither
which
h ieimust
thenu.
Right Hon. Gentleman then read the letter of Mr. Ashton. )
sAticspreeonfsetilrteimotnoa.nno,sr the will to follow any point
in thene hi
taTshpeeertchig;htleuHt
~trhherGeewataies
Gentleman
tsaid that he did not look at the strict letter of the treaties, but
that he looked at the analogy and at the spirit of the case.—
( Hear, hear.) Why, that was exactly what he (Mr La•
bouchere) wished the Government to do; and if they did so
properly, anti in a spirit of justice, they would put Spain on
the same footing as the most favoured nation. True it was,
that the whole system of politics had since that period changed,
hut they still were bound to respect those treaties which had
fixed the treatment of the subjects of the different nations ,
and though he had not studied the history of both countries
with the same diligence as the Right lion. Gentleman, yet he
thought that sufficient would be shown in its pages to justify
them in sacrificing minor considerations for the good of Spain.
The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to have adopted the same
fallacious reasoning as Lord Aberdeen, when he described the
rights of Spain as specific rights not extending to her colonies.
He was unwilling to detain the House at any length ; but there
was one part of the subject to which, more than to any other, he
must request the attent ion of the House. It was a something more
than a niece construction of technicalities, and the House, he
conceived, would be ill discharging its duties if it did not
give the matter its consideration. lie 'spoke now of the pro-
priety of the policy which the Government was piirsuing, and
he must .ay he had never listened to a speech with a more
painful feeling than he did to t-at of the Rght Honourable
Gentleman. Spain was not urging her ergagements at sword
point, but by diplomatic and friendly means, and she cnly
claimed to be put on the same
why
had they
madethey thishad shacardifict with other nations. And
eh
a? t
dTi
sheea
sRa
ogih t
bile
foanr oe u. r a
ce
G
( Mr. Labouithere) sail they ought to have
it again and again—
and he would ask, for what had they made the sacrifice ? They
had made the sacrifice for • no object whatever, and the flimsy
pretences urged by the supporters of the Gov
ment were so ern-
very untangible that the most
staureh supporter of the Government was to be praised
for his power of face, who preserved his gravity while he ad-
vanced them, Let them not deceive themselves. In putting

this ir.terpretation on the Spanish treaties, they had untied the
hands of Spain. What if that country should put on a duty
adverse to the manufacturers of this country? What right
had Great Britain to complain in such a case ? Were Spain
so to retaliate, she would strke a heavy blow upon the export
trade of this country ; and if the Brazils were to adopt a
similar policy, in what degree would it not cripple the manu-
facturers of this country ? And under these circumstances, was it
not the duty of the country to ask why they made this sacri-
fice ? They were told that they did so for an object dear to
every British heart—for the purpose of discouraging slave y
and the slave-trade. He (Mr. Lahouchere) would defy any
man in that House to say that the policy pursued by the Go-
vernment had in the slightest degree tended to prevent one
slave being introduced from Africa. They made a difference,
it was true, between free and slave-grown sugar, by discou-
raging the latter in the market, but at the introduction of the
very measure which legalised this difference was it not demon-
strated as plainly as any proposition in Euclid, that as free-
labour sugar was not sufficient to supply their markets, the de-
ficiency must be made up from slave-grown sugar. It was
most mortifying to witness a British Ministry calling upon the
merchants of this country to make these sacrifices. He re-
peated, it was mortifying to see a Ministry, which plumed
itself on the protection it gave to commerce, stulti-
fying the energies of the country in this manner. He
would read the House a quotation from the Jamaica
Morning Journal to show that even the colonists
themselves did not feel themselves bound by any debt of
gratitude to the Right Hon. Baronet's Government. ( The
Right Hon. Gentleman then read the quotation.) Without
agreeing with his Noble Friend in every particu'ar, he should
only say that this country ought, in an imperative manner, to
call upon the Government to do justice to the claims of British
merchants by acceding to the wishes of Spain. He could not
but hope that after the case made out by the Noble Lord
(Palmerston) even the Government would perceive the fallacy
of their position, and place the honour of the country upon a
solid, lastine, and creditable foundation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, when the Right Hon.
Gentleman rose immediately after the Hon. Member for
Newark, he had expected to hear at least an attempt to refute
the incomparable speech of that latter Member, and in that
opinion he was sure the House universally coincided.
But though his Right Honourable Friend near him
(Mr. Gladstone) had used argument after argument
to prove the position of the Government, and invited
discussion on the interpretation of the treaties, as questioned by
the Noble Lord who introduced the present debate, the Right
Hon. Gentleman had flown off from that invitation, had shirked
the great subject at issue, and, considering the great talent of
that Right Hon. Member, the only reason he could allege for
the course adopted by him W 8•, that the arguments of the
Learned Member for Newark were unanswerable. The pre-
sent question was not one of policy and expediency, as it had
been attempted to convert it by the Right Hon. Member, but
of the construction of treaties. Good faith alone, as in cases of
private agreements, could be taken as the principle for con-
structing such treaties which, with a view to assist other con-
ventional ratifications, had been constituted on broad and
equitable bases. if they looked to the treaties of 1667 and
1713, in a narrow and limited view alone, they might possibly
interpret them in the fallacious manner contended for by the
opposite side of the House, but if they regarded them in con-
nexion with the spirit of the people and the state of commerce
at the time, they would easily see the absurdity of such a posi-
tion, and the necessity of considering them in a broad and
liberal view. At the period when the clause was in-
troduced into the treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, and
also when the treaty of Munster was concluded between
the Netherlands and Spain, the feeling of the people was emi-
nently prone to protect their fellow-subjects at home, and the
produce they procured from foreign countries, even at the peril
of their own colonists. It was perfectly clear, from the articles
of this treaty, that the subjects of the two countries, and not
the produce, were referred to. The same was also apparent from
a treaty in 1714 between the Netherlands and Spain, and that
this was' a case in reference to the treaty of Utrecht in 1713,
on which the present question was founded, must be apparent,
for it was expressly covenanted that the subjects of the Nether-
lands should not pay a higher rate than the Spanish merchants
who were trading in their respective countries. This was also
clear from the same treaty of Utrecht entered into with France
in reference to tobacco. He would not advert to the subsequent
treaties which had been referred to by the Noble Lord, of 1838
and 1837, for sufficient had been said to prove the meaning of
the stipulation. He would now refer to the treaty of Portugal
in 1820, in the third article of which it was expressly stated
that the subjects of both countries should be under the same
rights, liberties, and exemptions. No one could doubt that
the treaty of Utrecht was based on precisely the same prin-
ciples. It was not considered sufficient to cover the produce
of both countries, for there was an express provision regulating
and providing for it by an additional article. In one part of
the treaty there was a clause relating to the subject, and in
another a clause relating to produce.- He would therefore ask,
was not the distinction here clearly laid down ? They were
charged with inconsistency in admitting the sugars of Vene-
zuela and the American States, and refusing admission to the
Spanish sugars, but he denied there was any inconsistency.
What was the clause in the article by which the Government
were bound to admit the sugar of the American States, which
was slave-grown, and deny the same privilege to Spain ? The
Hon. Gentleman then read the article, and, comparing it with
the article in the treaty of Utrecht, which he also read, con-
tended that there was no similarity whatever between the two
cases. The House was bound to consider whether these
treaties existed in their past integrity now or not;
or if they did, whether they were now placed on the
same footing or not. It appeared to him that the
treaty of 1796 and that of 1814, were very different indeed in
their meaning, and that they did not at all remain in the same
force originally applied to them. He had, in the course of his
address to the House this evening, endeavoured to go over the
statements of those Hon. Members who had preceded him, and
to answer the arguments adduced by them ; but with regard to
the other points, he should say—at least in reference to the
treaty of Utrecht—he should say he did not think the argu-
ment applied at all in the way in which it had been
used by his Hon. Friend opposite.—( Hear, hear.)
The treaty of 1813 incorporated the provisions of the treaty of
1667, and surely it did not apply to the colonial trade. If
they looked at the articles of peace it was impossible that the
parties contracting could have contemplated anything like
colonial trade. Taking these articles together it appeared to
him that this was the correct construction of the treaties—that
the colonial trade was entirely struck out of these treaties.
That seemed to be confirmed by the treaty of 1814, and he
could not understand how, if that treaty referred to the most
favoured nations, it could apply to the colonial trade. He found
that in the 4th article of the treaty of 1814 the commerce of
the American possessions might have been admitted to Great
Britain as one of the most favoured 'nations. There was no
reciprocity entered into with respect to Spain. Was it intelligible
that in 1814 they would have a specific boon conferred by Spain
without any equal advantage granted to her as the most fa-
voured nation. The treaty of 1814 confirmed the construction
of the former treaties. In the year 1824, trade with the colo-
nies was opened by Spain, not to Great Britain alone, but to
all nations indiscriminately, and there was no reference
to any treaty whatever. Thus, according to the view
taken by the other side, Great Britain would have
a right to open the trade of her colonies to Spain.
It appeared to him that the colonial trade formed no part of
any treaty that was entered into. They admitted the Manilla
sugars on the same duties as if they were the produce of the
most favoured nations. It was the free gift of Great Britain,
and depended on no treaty entered into with Spain. The in-
terpretation put en the treaty by Lord Aberdeen was the cor-
rect one, in his opinion, and the interpretation given by the
anish Minister was an incorrect one. The argument that
the colonial trade was included in the treaty was totally
groundless. They were to regard treaties with other countries
with good faith, and to regard the fair interpretation of those
treaties. If they were to put the interpretation urged by those
en the opposite side, they would commit, in his opinion, a
breach of the treaty. Under these circumstances he would
oppose the motion.
Mr. BARING said that no party persuasion would induce
him to give any particular opinion on this matter, nor did he
think that any consideration of policy should induce them to
put an interpretation on these treaties.—(Hear.) A similar
policy might induce Spain to put the same interpretations on
the treaties. Before another con truction was put on the
matter, ought it not to be considered whether Spain was not
now offering the very privileges that were contended for ?
( Hear.) The entire speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the
Member for Newark, was an endeavour to set aside the
treaties that did exist. If these treaties do not exist, then
the arguments of Hon. Gentlemen opposite were valuele,s ;
but, if, on the other hand, they did exist, their reasons were
all-powerful. Nothing could be more dangerous than the lan-
guage of the Right Hon. Gentleman. It would do very well
for the President of the Board of Trade, to argue whether
these treaties existed or not, but the decision should be taken
from the Earl of Aberdeen's letter, that those treaties did
really exist—and that was the opinion of the nation. The Earl
of Aberdeen admitted those treaties, first on a colonial ground,
and secondly, on the difference between persons and
produce.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Earl of Aberdeen
stated that although the treaty of 1767 conferred general pri-
vileges on the subjects of Spain, it excluded them from trading
from their colonies into British ports. The Right Hon. Gen.
tleman had quoted clauses from the Treaty of 1770. It was
perfectly consistent that the power first granted could be acted
on by Spain. One of the clauses provided that if yoe do
trade, you shall have the privilege of the most favoured na-
tion, which included certain restrictions, and therefore a pro-
hibition to trade with the West Indies was not inconsistent
with the treaty. The regulating treaty gave England the
power of superseding the restrictive privileges left in
the hands of Spain. In 1814 a treaty was made,
in which Spain admitted that England should be
in the same position as the most favoured nation.
It would be a difficulty for him to express himself on this sub-
ject. The Government itself had admitted that it would be
impossible to carry out their own stipulations. Their own
treaties contemplated the opening of the trade with the West
Indies. It his assertion was doubted, he held in his hand a
statement of Mr. Canning's in 1810, which entirely bore him
out. The exception, as regarded the colonies, was done away
with, by the understanding at the time avowed between the
two countries. It was at that time in the power of
the Spaniard to introduce sugar, the produce of his colonies, in
British vessels through Spain, and claim the full benefit of
the treaty. The argument was, that when the provision was
made in 1804, the old treaties were not in force. He wished
to follow the case as shortly as possible, and not to tire the
House with details. He now came to the point of the subject,
and one, too, which had been dealt with, he must admit, with
great force and ability, by his Noble Friend who had brought
the question before the House. He meant that part of the
question which related to the subject of produce. He per-
fectly admitted that there was a distinction in the wording of
the treaty, but at the same time he could not conceal from him-
self the fact, that its the early part of our commercial negotia-
tions, they attempted to do through persons what they now did
through things. The object of the treaty, therefore, clearly
was not merely to give a personal privilege, but it was for the
purpose of providing that the commerce of the two nations
should be dealt with in the same manner as that of the most
favoured nation.—( Hear. )
Sir G. CLERK said the Hon. Gentleman opposite was the
only one who had attempted to grapple with the arguments of
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Newark (Mr.
Gladstone). He had but a few words to say. Whether the
Noble Lord was justified in the charges which he had made
with respect to their conduct towards Spain.—( Cries of
" Divide," and " Adjourn.") The Hon. Gentleman then
proceeded to show that the Government were perfectly justified
in their policy, and referred to the various treaties which had
been contracted between this and other countries with respect
to the sugar and the slave trade. The Right Hon. Gentleman
concluded, amidst great noise and confusion, by asserting that
there ought to be no treaty entered into by this country, ex-
cept it was based on the principle of reciprocity.
Mr. BARKLY said, that as the Noble Lord the Member
the Members
any
reply o n
t e that
the sidear arguments
e thetit s
they
House
had f .r Tiverton (Lord Palmerston) and the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Taunton (Mr. Lebouchere), had taunted
thaadtvatnhceed, y h ande
wasnot
offered
anxious, if the House would permit him, to offer a few words
:0'
tDheirytideen,,,liviinde,t"heanredid"stAolouwrnhfe'h,"alti
tlerr
several essays to continue, he sat down ).
hseiarr.,'
B'
in reply. ( The Hon. Member was here stopped by loud cries
Hofro"thielretaorn,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here inter-
fered, and said that as the question had alread been amply
discussed, they should endeavour to finish it that night.
Mr. BARKLY again rose, amidst loud and continued
interruption, and cries of " Adjourn" and " Divide." His
observations could only ba imperfectly heard in the gallery,
from the noise and confusion that prevailed. He considered
that he had a right to be heard, because a challenge had been

held out by the Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, and
reiterated by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Taunton—(Cries of " Divide," " Go on," and great con-
fusion )—and it was stated by them that the sugar question
had not been met by any one on that side of the House.—
( Great confusion, amid which the Hon. Member in vain en-
deavoured to make himself heard.) But this was beside the
question.—( Immense cheering, and cries of "It is." The
House was all impatience, which was further increased by the
Hon. Member looking over a paper, which we may presume
contained the heads of his speech. The Hon. Member con-
tinued, however, amid ironical cheers, and shouts of " Read
it, read it.") The Government, in acting as they had done,
had consulted the best interests of humanity.—( Here the noise
was so overpowering that the lion. Member was fain, like
the redoubtable Mrs. Partington, in her struggle with the
Atlantic, to give in, and resume his seat amid deafening
cheers from every part of the House )
Lord PALM F. RST ON said, after the general impatience
evinced by the House, and the unanswered and unanswerable
addresses of his Right Hen. Friends near him (Mr. Labouchere
and Mr. Baring) he should consider it presumptuous to detain
the House by a lengthened reply. The Right Honourable
Gentleman the late Vice-President of the Board of Trade
had treated the question with his accustomed ability
and ingenuity, but when a Government had a good
case, it would not require one of its prominent defenders to ad-
dress the House for more than two hours together. If the ab-
surdities of the existing law of treaty were really so great as
was erged by the Right Hon. the Attorney-General, he would
answer that the conflicting anomalies of the law ought to be
obviated and removed. The Hon. Member who had last ad-
dressed the House with such talent and such courage—(A
laugh)—had pleaded the West Indian interests, but he (Lord
Palmerston) advocated the interests of the empire, and instead
of appealing to the private feeling of the colonial merchant,
urged the right of the question on the sense and honour of the
country.—( Cheers. )
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the resolution
Against it ... 175
Majority against the resolution -88
PRIVILEGE.

Sir J. Y. BULLER said that at this late hour of the night
and this late period of the session, he did not think it would be
advisable to press the motion of which he had given notice,
and which was to the effect that a Select Committee be ap-
pointed to investigate the allegations contained in the petition
of David Phillips, presented to this House on the 1 Ith May.
Mr. WARBURTON did conceive it due to the character
of Mr. Parrot that the question should be brought forward
at once.
Sir R. PEEL said, that his Hon. Friend near him should
either withdraw the motion, or persevere in it.
After a few words from Sir J. YARDE BULLER, the
motion was withdrawn.
The other orders of the day were then read.
Sir R. PEEL said, in answer to a question from Mr.
J. A. Smith, that if the House went into a Committee of
Supply, the Government would take the earliest possible period
of taking a vote on the New Zealand question.
Sir J. GRAHAM proposed that the Poor-law Amendment
Bill be committed on Thursday evening next.
The motion was agreed to.
The other orders of the day having been disposed of, the
House adjourned at Half-past Two o'Clock.

mistrust, and the violation of good faith. He had already
occupied the attention of the House at too great length in sup-
port of the ,Lotion. It must be matter of indifference not only
to Cuba and Brazil, but even to our own colonies, whether the
sugar of the former places were imported for home consump-
tion or for re-exportation. We had already lost the very im-
portant market of Brazil. We were, besides, setting an ex-
ample of the means by which a treaty may be evaded. We
were thereby incurring a greater loss than that of our com-
merce—the loss of our honour and character for good faith in
the observance of treaties. It was to remedy, as far as possible,
that injury, that he would now move a resolution to the effect—
That, in deference, not merely to commercial treaties, but to
regulations, according to which, under those treaties, the trade
between this country and Spain and Brazil had been for many
years carried on, all the products of those nations should con-
tinue to be imported on as favourable a footing as the products
of the most favoured country.
The Earl of ABERDEEN, who was throughout his speech
heard with the greatest difficulty, and in no one sentence dis-
tinctly, was understood to say that his Noble Friend had strongly
impressed on their Lordships the necessity of maintaining the
national honour by the faithful observance of treaties. Ne
person could be more deeply sensible of that importance than he
( the Earl of Aberdeen) was. But he suspected that if it had not
been for the policy of the Government last year in connexion
with the sugar trade, the House would not have heard of those
ancient Spanish treaties.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that if
the claim had been put forward upon any other grounds, it
would not have met with the same support. He thought that
the policy of the Government in this case was just and wise,
with a view to contribute to the suppression of the African
slave-trade, and that the result was not to encourage that trade
—( Hear, hear)—but it had the effect of bringing into this
country a large quantity of free-grown sugar. Our colonial
trade with Spain had, even under the treaties insisted on by his
Noble Friend, been actually prohibited, although to some ex-
tent it was carried on in a contraband manner. But when the
treaty was formed, twenty years ago, we became entitled to all
the privileges of the most favoured nations. He was astonished
to hear that interpretation put upon the ancient treaties ; on
the other hand, ',pain had always refused to acknowledge then
in that light. Let their Lordships recollect the " Family
Treaty" of the 10th of May, 1671, by which France, Spain,
and the Two Sicilies mutually bound themselves to give to the
subjects of each other equal privileges with their own, in their
respective dominions. By the 25th clause of that compact it
was stipulated that no other Power should be admitted to share
in the same advantages. This was entirely at variance with
the interpretation put upon their former treaties by his Noble
Friend. Mr. Pitt's treaty of 1806 stipulated, is the 7th article,
that the subjects of the two Powers should be placed upon the
footing of the most favoured nations, except so far as was pre-
cluded by the treaty of 1671, in respect to France, and on the
part of England in respect to the treaty with Portugal in 1703.
So much for the observation by Spain of her ancient treaties
with this country. But it always had been the practice to look
at those treaties with regard to altered circumstances. The
stipulations of treaties were frequently in themselves incon-
sistent and contradictory. Spain had always resisted the ap-
plications of this country, even where their provisions were
most clear and satisfactory. For instance, by the treaty of
1667 English subjects were exempted from certain contribu-
tions, but of late years these were exacted, and the reply of the
Spanish Government to our remonstrance was that times were
chanced, and a constitutional Government could not be ex-
pected' to carry out provisions of treaties formed in despotic
times. [The Noble Earl was so indistinct, that for several
sentences it was impossible to collect his meaning whilst compar-
ing the various treaties. j When this country was about making a
commercial treaty, two years ago, with Portugal, Spain made
no demand to be placed on the same level. On the contrary,
the Spanish Minister here manifested from day to day the
greatest anxiety to know whether the treaty was concluled,
confessing at the same time that if Portugal agreed to a com-
mercial treaty Spain must do the same. On several occasions
the duties upon French and Portuguese wines had been reduced,
when those upon Spanish wines were increased, yet Spain
never, until now, set up the treaties as a ground of complaint.—
( Hear, hear.) In the first year of James the Second a duty of
8/. was imposed upon French wines, and a duty of 121. on
Spanish. But for this preference of France there was no re-
monstrance on the ground of treaties.—( Hear, hear.) Again,
with respect to the duties on tobacco. down to a very recent
period the duty upon Spanish tobacco was 6s. per lb., whilst
that upon Portuguese was only 4s. That was the case down to
1822. when therewas a general equalisation of the tobaccoduties.
His Noble Friend had given a representation of the mode in
which that condition had been exacted from Spain. After
the great services they had given to Spain, they thought it not
a very unreasonable return that they should stipulate for equal
advantages with other countries. The truth of the matter was,
that Spain had offered, on more than one occasion, to admit
England to exclusive privileges in the colonial trade. This was
invariably declined. All they stipulated for was, that they should
be admitted on an equal footing with other countries. But this
engagement was unilateral—there was no engagement on their
side. They might say that it was illiberal, but it was the
fact. He did not, considering their relationship with Spain,
see anything unreasonable in the demand, even though they
did not grant anything in return for that concession. The en-
gagement of 1814 admitted them on the same footing with
other countries, and in 1824 the trade was nominally opened.
It was perfectly true that that took place before the indepen-
dence of the colonies was recognised. This decree was issued,
and when the Spanish Government thought it proper, as a
matter of course, in consequence of that stipulation, they were
admitted to whatever was granted to other countries. It did
not appear to him that there was any obligation imposed upon
this country, as for several years, till 1828, no return what-
ever was made to this country. His Noble Friend
said that the Spanish Government did not remon-
strate because they were ignorant. He (Lord Aberdeen)
was of opinion that no country was more ready to make large
pretensions than Spain. As this was a contract, it must be
strictly interpreted and examined. He (Lord Aberdeen) had
told them how it had been understood and acted upon by both
countries, and he would therefore say that there was nothing
in the present relation of the two countries which could possibly
justify Spain in claiming a right to that admission of produce
which his Noble Friend supported. He would say a few words with
respect to the last part of his Noble Friend's speech, in which
he treated with ineffable contempt the distinction which had
been drawn between the rights granted to the subjects of Spain
and the produce introduced from Spanish colonies. Treaties
with Spain and alt treaties of that day were framed in very
different terms from that which at present existed. The Noble
Lord then read the original treaty, in which the Spanish Go-
vernment only claimed the same privileges for its subjects as
Frenchmen claimed. The modern treaty gave the largest.pos-
sible privileges to both the subjects and to commerce. If it
were not the case it would lead to much confusion, and would
lead to absurd consequences, for what was the claim of his
Noble Friend founded on but on the last treaty—it must be
in relation to the subjects of the King of Spain, who had,
under that treaty, that right which they refused to British
subjects ; because, if the Spanish subjects had that right under
the treaty. it was quite clear that only Spanish subjects had it,
and that *British subjects had not. That was reducing it to an
absurdity, and provided that the rights, immunities, and privileges
were connected with persons, and did not apply to produce. This
facthad been considered by her Majesty's Government with a
due regard to the tenour of the treaties, and his Noble Friend
was quite in error if he supposed that this had been
unadvisedly done, er that those treaties had been newly dis-
covered. As to the wisdom, or policy, or generosity, or libe-
rality of the proceedings, it was a matter which might be dis-
cussed at another time. In accordance with the general inter-
pretations of the treaties they had done nothing but what was
just. That being the case he did not think that they were at
all liable to the imputations that had been cast upon them by
his Noble Friend, and he must, therefore, oppose his resolution.
Lord RADNOR said that the Noble Lord had made use of

quite different arguments from those which were contained in
his answer to the Duke of Sotomayor. They may as well have
no treaty at all, according to the statements of the Noble Lord
just now, for he held then, to be of no avail. He would ask
any person of common sense, who had read these extracts,
whether they did not bear on the face of them that the
Spaniards were entitled to the advantages of the most fa-
voured rations. He could not but concur in the resolution of
his noble Friend.
The Earl of CLARENDON briefly replied and said that, in
consequence of those treaties, the property and horses which
had in the course of the civil wars been taken in Spain from
the subjects of other nations, were not taken from British sub-
jects. He was glad, h wever, his Noble Friend had abandoned
the ground which he had hitherto taken, upon rejecting the
application for the importation of Spanish productions, and had
rested his rejection now solely on the frequent violations of
those treaties on the part of the Spanish Government. He
thought it unnecessary to take up their Lordships' time further,
having already taken up so much of their attention on this
subject.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—
Content s
Non-c0ntent5...........
Majority against the resolution
Several Bills, chiefly relating to railways, were then brought
up from the Commons, which, with the amendments, were
agreed to.
The several Bills on the table were advanced a stage, and
their Lordships adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.
TUESDAY, JULY 15.

The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were
agreed to
Great Western Railway (Ireland) (Dublin to Mullingar
and Athlone).
Cockermouth and Workington Railway.
Cork and Bandon Railway.
Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland).
Richmond (Surrey) Railway.

Standing Orders Committee,—Resolutions reported ;
1. " That, in the case of the South Eastern Railway
(Widening and Extension of the London and Greenwich
Railway) Bill, clause on consideration of report, the clause is
of such a nature as, under the circumstances of the case,
ought not to be adopted by the House."
2. " That, in the case of the North Walsham School
Estate Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed
with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their
Bill." _ _