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

~►
,
JULY

. .
changed, and a constitution-s 1 Goverratent could net be cia
pected to entry out provisions of treaties formed in despotic
times. [ The Notsle Earl was so indistiuct. that far several
sentences it was impossible fa) collect his miming whilst compar.
ing the various treaties. J When this country wasabout makir, a
commercial treaty, two years ago, with Portugal, Spain made
no demand to be paced 011 the same lesel. On the contrary,
the Spanish atinis.er here manifested from day to day the
greatest aiixiety to know whether the treay was conclu.lerf,
confessing at the same time that. Portugal agreed to a com-
mercial treaty Spain must_ do the same. On several occasion:
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
81. 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 grour.d 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 the: e was 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 oilier 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 admit ted on an equal footing with other couutries. 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 ineepen-
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 b'en understood and acted twos) 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 a ould 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 hau
been drawn between the rights granted to the subjects of Spain
and the produce introduced from Spanish colonies. Treaties
with Spain and all treaties Octhat 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 Spani,h 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 t hat 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 them to be of no avail. He would ask
any persou 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 nations. 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 vas glad, however, his Noble Friend had abandoned
the ground which he had hitherto taken, upon rejecting the
application for the importation of Spanish productions, and had
re,ted 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—
Contents
Non- contents 2B
Majority against the resolution ............. —l4
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.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 15.
A House was mule a few minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE. --
Lord DUNCAN inquired what time the Lord-Advocate
would bring on the Scotch Poor-law Bill.

The LORD-ADVOCATE said that he thought about half-
past two, but the hour was to him a scatter of indifference.
Lord ASHLEY said that the Lunacy Bill was first in the
order of the day.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that he should certainly object to
the Lunacy Bill, which had been adopted by the Government,
in the absence of all the Ministers of the Crown.
Lord ASHLEY said that the presence of the Ministers was
not necessary.
Mr. WAKLEY said that he should certainly object to the
Scotch Poor-law Bill being considered to-day, and he thought
that the Scotch Members ought to be very careful how they
allowed such a Bill to pass into a law. It was a Bill for any-
thing but the relief of the poor.
The Bill was then postponed for the present.
The Borough Rates and Watch Bill was read a third time
and passed.
On the order of the day, that the House go into Committee
on the
. TURNPIKE ACTS BILL,
Mr. DICKINSON said that he was surprised to learn, yes-
te,day, the progress which this Bill had made, for, had he not
been ignorant of its proceeding, he should have objected to it.
The Bill then went through Committee.
LOAN SOCIETIES BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee, and Was read a third
time.

SCOTCH POOR-LAW.
Mr. WA KLEY, seeing the Right Hon. Baronet the Secre-
tary of State for the Hume Department in the House, wished
to know when the Scotch Poor-law Bill -
Sir J. GRAHAM said he would answe- the question if the
Hon. Member would tell him what time the previous business
would occupy.

- - HiGHWAY RATES BILL.
This Bid went through ( omruittee, and was ordered to be
read a third time to-merrow,
LUNA sic ASYLUMS BILL.
On the motion that the House go into Committee on this
Bill,
Mr. DUNCOM BE objected to any further progress of this
Bill until the amendments which had been, or which it was
proposed to introduce into
the Bill, had been printed and
handed to the Members.
Mr. WA K LE Y also Objecand said that it
su wouledopoinely ted to proceedine.
, with the Bill,
take the printers four, or at must
six hours, to pply s to the Members.
Mr. DUNCOAIBE presented a petition from a person
named John Miller, of Camden Town, complaining of unjust
and oppressive treatment.
Lord DUNCAN said that as it was evident that considerable
discussion would ensue on
theßill before the House, it would
be impossible to take the
Scotch Poor-law Bill to-day, and he
wished to know 'what the Government intended to do ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that he would state when the
Bill would be taken at five o'clock to-day.
The House then went into Committee, and the two first
clauses were passed.
On the prop` sition ef the third clause,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that this clause had better be
postponed until they had got tllie returns from the inspectors in
lunacy of the cost of visiting the several houses and their state ;
but this was a part of the plan
of keeping the House in the dark.
Lord ASHLEY said that
the only return not before the
House was that of the amount paid to each commissioner.
Sir C. NAPIER said that before he received his half-pay
a de
he was obliged to make aration• and he did not see why
these gentlemen should not . be subjected to the same test
before they received their t
saler •es
Alr. WAls BURTON saw no use in the declaration.
h
Lord ASHLEY said that e treasurer's accounts were a
sufficient guarantee of the rectitude
also
of the payments, and for
~ the travelling expenses theresufficient evidence.
Mr. T. DUNCUMBE then moved that the clause be post-
potted. They ought to have paid commissioners, responsible to
the Government and the country, and not men who were part
amateurs and part professional, and who were
o responsible to
nobody. In the petitions presented
day by his
Noble Friend, it was positively stated that there was no means
rcival had not
of ascertaining what had been done. Mr.-
complained of the Commissioners, but therehadin Abiere. greatri
complaint from those who had sufferedinjustice
th;nandeommitted, and
Pater-
noster's case there was a great
teivierisonoefr.redrge'slise
the result there
al against
person complaining had no chance whatever
Before they passed this clause, which made ther Commission
permanent, they ought to have evidence that the Commis.
Y . He
teahxsesirectne
could
d n thatnt
havetl'
sioners had hitherto done their duty,
had not. He thought they ought to see if
a better Commission formed than at present
not press his motion for the postponment l'
1 the:
es.teaci 't
would call upon the Chairman to read the clause
Alr. V. SMITH defended the conduct Commissioners
generally, and especially with respect to the case of Mr
clause,
length. t le
but
Percival.
Mr. CHRISTIE trusted the Noble Lord would not only be
induced to reconsider the present clause, but the effect of the
Bill altogether. He was sorry that his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Finsbury bad withdrawn his motion for postponing the
clause.
Alr. WAKLEY felt convinced that the present Commission
would never work well.—( Hear, he
objected
even to three Cs mmissioners, believing that He
one Com-
missioner, who should be r
than three or even eleven
esponsibletoistshie ffion was formed.
Home•oce
for his actions would do more
good
could
Commissioners, of which the present Cornm
He thought that amateur Commissioners neivnenrerdoctuhaldt
good for the public that one properly Pahl Commissioner
i
do, It had been said that insanity w
malady ; now he asserted that
ina nine
oefasienssanoiutyt
of ten it arose from disease. There wall :o a
, purely mental
case
without structural derangement. He trusted that the Noble
Lora would reconsider the clause with reference to the Com-
missioners, as he thought it might be framed in a manner that
would operate far more beneficially for the public.
Sir C. NAPIER hoped the Noble Lord would reconsider
the clause. He considered that an unpaid Board was not so
good as a paid one.
osioensers were noLord ASHLEY denied that unpaid Commissioners
so competent to perform their duties as
paid
is n
. For him-
; he would say that when Commission, imnh,he
he entered the Corn
did so with a determination to do his duty, and he
considered himself as responsible for the performance of I here
duties as if he he had been paid a hundred guineas a visit.
As to the statement of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, that
one Commissioner would be sufficient, he asserted, without fear
of contradiction, that it would be impossible for on, individual
to i erforrn the onerous duties.
Mr. WARBURTON agreed with the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, that paid Commissioners were better than unpaid

or.e.a ; but, at the same time, he thdiett thrra esoulit bi nth
paid gentlinen connected with the Commission, who would
represent persons of, moderate fortunes, who were afflicted
with insanity.
Mr. HAWES preferred a mixed Board to one constituted
of paid or of unpaid Commissioners alone.
Sir J. GRA HAM was anxious that the Commissioners

named in the ciause-sbould be continued in the Commission.

The CHAIR:NIA N then pr rcoeded to read the-clause, pro-
posing that 1.,,rd Ashley and several other gentlemen should
furor the Commission, when
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose and said it was his intention to
take the sense of the House upon an amendment which he should
propose, to the effect that those gentlemen whom he called the
amateur Commissioners should be excluded from the Com-
mission.

Mr. V. SMITH opposed the amendment. and contended that
great advantage resulted to the public• from the Commission
being composed in part of unpaid, or, as the Hon. Member for
Finsbury called them, amateur Commissioners. They acted
as a sort of check upon the paid Commissioners, and caused
them to perform their duties with fidelity.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM would oppose the amendment of
the lion. Member for Finsbury on public grounds. If what
had teen termed the amateur commission did not do their
duty, the Government would have the power of removing them.
sir R. IN GLI-3 advocated the appointment of the Commis-
sion, and opposed the amendment.
Mr. WA KLEY thought the Commission would be ineffec-
tive. They would have, if it were appointed, the same results
as those which had emanated from the Commission on the Fine
Arts, which was an amateur Commission.

Lord SEYMOUR believed that the Plan of the Noble Lord
would have the effect of preventing cruelties which had been
practised in lunatic asylums.
Lord ASHLEY said there were 34 board-days last year, and
he hid attended every one.
Sir C. NAPIER would be glad to have the attendance of
the other members of the Board.

The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
Fur the amendment ... 6
Against it 45
Majority against the amendment

On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE complaining that Dr. Turner had
been placed on the Commission, he being at the time between
70 and 8) years of age, and coasequently would soon be entitled
to be placed on the petition list.
Lord ASHLEY said that Dr. Turner was a most efficient
officer, and was well calculated for the duties which he had to
perform. The Lord Chancellor fully approved of the ap-
pointment.
Sir C. NAPIER understood that when the Commissioners
under this Bill should become unfit for work they should retire
on a salary; but he thought a little provision ought to be
made for those who had been all their lives acting as Commis-
sioners in the same way, and that they should not be turned
adrift in their old age.
WAKLEY was opposed to such a proposition upon
principle, for if such a principle were to be recognised by this
Act he would like to know where it would stop ? Certain per-
sons accepted situations for a certain amount of remuneration,
and it was evident they were contented with it, for they per-
Ormed the duties, but the public and the labouring classes
should not be made to pay large sums as retiring pen-
sions. He would ask the House what it did last night?
It came to a resolution to refuse relief to a man
who might not be able to get employment, yet a monstrous
r allowance of the description now proposed was asked to be made
for men in their old age who had received a large salary for the
discharge of their duties.
Mr. ARBUTHNOTT would wish to know if this clause
should be discussed now, or at any other time?
Sir J. GRAHAM said he hoped it would be discussed now,
as it was desirable to make some progress with the Bill.
Mr. DUNCOMBE did not approve of the Bill being passed
through the House at this railroad pace, for he was anxious that
the public should see how matters of this sort were disposed of
here, and how the public money was applied. Now, the Bill
provided that these Commissioners should have a retiring
pension after fourteen years service ; but, how did the
House know but that many of these Commissioners had already
served 13% years ? He had asked the Noble Lord opposite
to state what the age of Dr. Turner was, but he could get no
information at all on the subject. He could not ascertain
whether he was a young man or an old man, or likely to remain
long or short in his situation. He fully concurred with the
Hon. Member near him, that though the Noble Lori opposite
was a very humane man, it was an extraordinary thing that this
Houseshould refuse relief to an able-bodied poor man who could
not get employment, but let him starve, and then in twenty-four
hours after come down and ask for a provision of this sort, in
the shape of a retiring pension.
Lord ASHLEY said he had uo objection whatever to answer
the question, but he could not really say what the age of Dr.
Turner was ; but this he knew, that he believed him to be per-
fectly equal to the discharge of the most delicate and arduous
duties.

Mr. WAKLEY said he did not object to the individual, but
to the principle of connecting past duties with future; and he
would again repeat, that the public money should not be dis-
p )sed of in pensions, when that money was taken from the
poor man in the shape of taxes upon every article he consumed,
and to whom rebel from the public money was refused, because
he was able-bodied, though he might be starving.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Committee was now only dis-
cussing the names of those who had been recommended for the
officers, and he would not shrink from the responsibility of
having recommended them. But the subject of the amount of
salary was a matter far future discussion.
i►lr. DUNCOM BE said it was putting the cart before the
horse, to first nominate persons and then tell them that they
were to have certain salaries and retiring pensions, if the Go-
vernment did not intend that such should be the case.
Lord ASHLEY said there would be no breach of faith
towards those parties if this clause should be left out. _

Mr. DUN dONIBE said he had no objection to give the
medical man 1,500/. a year, but he did think it too much for
the lawyer. The police magistrates, who were obliged to be
barristers of ten years standing, had only 1,0001. a year, from
which 5 per cent. was deducted, which went to a fund for a
retiring pension. The prison inspectors also had but 70C/. a
year, with no allowance for travelling expenses. On these
greunds he did think 1,500/. a year would be too much for
these Commissioners. He conceived 1,0001. a year would be
abundant, and he would undertake to get barristers of ten
years standing who would be very glad to get it, and who
would discharge the duties most ably.
Mr. HINDLEY did not see why the doctors should be
favoured beyond the lawyers.
Lord ASHLEY contended that the proposed salaries were
not so high as those paid to other public officers in the same
position, and he was quite sure that less than 1,500/. would
rt:d secure the services of men whom it would be desirable to
employ.
Sir. WAKLEY never heard of anything so easily done as
finding excuses for giving men large salaries.
Mr. CHRISTIE believed that a salary of 1,000/. a year
would command the services of many most intelligent and clever
men.

Sir C. NAPIER did not see why the proposed Commis-
sioners should not be satisfied with 1,0001. a year, when the
Lords of the Treasury and Admiralty only received that sum.
Mr. BOUVERIE did not think 1,5001. a year a large salary
when the duties required to be performed were taken into con-
sideration.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought, after the valuable sug-
gestions that had been thrown out, it would be better
that the Chairman should report progress, in order to
enable the Noble Lord to improve the Bill by adopt-
ing some of those suggestions. The Honourable Member
then withdrew his amendment as to the word six.
At the suggestion of Mr. WAKLEY, the words barrister of
ten years' standing were struck out, and the words barrister of
five years' standing inserted.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then moved as an amendment that
the salary of the six paid Commissioners should be I,ooa, in-
stead of 1,500/. a year.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For Vie original motion ... 31
For the amendment
Majority against the amendment —24
The amendment was consequently lost, and the words,
1,5C01. were ordered to stand part of the clause.
On the question that the clause stand part of the Bill,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE again divided the Committee, when
there appeared,
For the clause
Against it
Majority in favour if the clause
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 4.
The Chairman then obtained leave to report progress, and
left the chair at half-past four ()clock, and the business of the
House was suspended till five o'clock.

The House resumed at Five o'clock, when the SPEAKER
took the Chair.

The reports on the Epping Railway, the Rye and Tenter-
den Railway, the Launceston and South Devon Railway, the
South Devon (Tavi,tock Branch) Railway, the Dublin Pipe
Water, and the Gravesend and Rochester Railway Bills were
received and agreed to.
The Darby Court Bill was read a second time.
11ANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL RAILWAY.

Mr. BROTHERTON moved that the Lords' amendments
on this Bill be agreed to.
Sir G. CLERK objected to the reception of the Bill, on
the ground that certain clauses were opposed to the report of
the Board of Trade, and to the standing orders of the House.
Mr. M. GIBSON proposed that the consideration of the
amendment he deferred for a week, in order to give time for
the alteration of clauses.

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 2
Against it
Alajority —4l
GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN (IRELAND)
RAILWAY BILL.
The Lords' amendments to this Bill were read and agreed to.

RICHMOND (SURREY) RAILWAY BILL.
The Lords' amendments to this Bill were read and agreed to.
Mr. HUME moved for certain returns respecting the
sewers, of which the House had never received any account.—
Ordered.

Mr. YORKE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to extend
certain provisions in the Act for Consolidating and Amending
the laws relating to Highways in England.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

Mr. MACAULAY, who was almost inaudible in the gal-
lery, from the noise which prevailed at the time, was understood
to say that, a few evenings ago, he had pot a question to the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite as to whether or not the Go-
vernment countenanced certain proceedings which had been in-
stituted against Sir David Brewster and others, for not taking
the test of the General Assembly. He now repeated the
question, and wished to know whether the Government would
undertake and conduct such a prosecution, and whether they
would lay on the table of the House the communications which
had taken place between the Government and the General Assem-
bly on th• subject?
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had no further knowledge of the
subject than the Right Hon. Gentleman himself possessed.
With respect to the prosecution of Sir David Brewster, he did
not understand that any resolution had been come to by the
General Assembly respecting his prosecution. 1-1.2 was not in
a condition to lay before the House any communications on the
'abject. SCOTCH POOR-LAW.
Mr. P. M. STEWART asked when the Scotch poor-law
would be next brought on ?

Sir R. PEEL was understood to say on Thursday next.
NATIONAL EDUCATION ( IRELAND).
Mr. OSBORNE wished to know when the vote would be
brought forward for the purpose of national education in
Ireland.

Sir T. FREMANTLE said on Friday next.
After some further conversation respecting the fixing of the
Committee of Supply,
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that he had no objection to
fixing Friday evening for that purpose.
THE VOTES ON NEW ZEALAND.
An HON. MEMBER asked when the supplementary list of
votes of the division on the New Zealand question would be
ready for delivery ?
Mr. CARDWELL said, that they were in course of pre-
paration.
BRAZILIAN CLAIMS—SUGAR.

L ABOUC FIE ltE wished to get some explanation on a
subject which had caused very considerable anxiety among the
merchants of this country. fie referred to a rumour which
had had already an injurious cffe,tt upon the funds. That rumour
was, that the 13razdian Chamber had sanctioned an -enactment
prohibiting the imi:crtation of the cottuni of England into
that country, unless the differential duties at present imposed
upon their sugars should be done away with.

. ,

(IN. .nT PE bid, tido A .rata akin, AA ihs
.1 " • i
Stock Exchange, f-om the firiti,h M.nlA4.r at the Brasil,.
It was dated the 24th of May, and made no allusion to Puch
an enactment. He concluded, therefore, that the rumour was
unfounded.

SPANISH DUTIES.
Lord PALMERSTON said, that it was now his duty to
address the House on a matter of the very highest import-
ance, as it concerned the hoer) it of this caumry, inasmuch as
it related tothequestion whether the treaties subsisting between
Spain and Great lirPain had been preserved inviolate. It
vas a cpiestion relating to the commercial interests of this
country, because it raised the question, whether those treaties
had or had not been heedlessly thrown aside. The question
had been raised in consequence of a correspondence which had
recently taken place between the Spanish minister'and the Se-
cretary of State for Foreign Affair-. That correspondence
had been lately laid on the table of the House by command of
her Majesty. That correspondence related to the claim made
by the Spanish Government, in virtue of those treaties, that
the sugars of Porto Rico and Cuba, although these were
slave-
grown, should be admitted on the same terms as those sugars
which were the result of free labour. His opinion was, that as
matters at present stood, great and positive injury was in-
flicted on the commerce of the country, and he considered it
his duty therefore to ask the House to address the Crown upon
this subject. In order to bring the question in the clearest
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
addressing, that in the year 1841, her Majesty's late
Government thought it their duty to propose
to Parliament an alteration in the then existing scale of sugar
duties, 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,
consequently, to the comfort of the poorer classes of the com-
munity. The party then in opposition deemed that proposal
as a fitting oecasian to make trial of their strength. They
raised a cry in the country, and upon that cry they sought
to
drive the then Government from power. They stigmatised
the 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 before they came to the same conclusion as that
to which the preceding Government hi.d arrived, that it would
be to the interest of the country to increase the supply of sugar
for the consumption of the people. He (Lord Palmerston)
was quite satisfied if the Government had been free agents—if
they had not been fettered by pledges, that they would have
proposed measures 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 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 alarm to the West India monopolists. The measure
was to admit at a low duty foreign sugar the produce of free
labour, and continue at a high duty any sugar that was the pro-
duce of slave 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.
There 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
other free-labour countries. This 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. Here were
two great holes in the system—
" See what a rent the envious Casca made."
General Narvaez, the Spanish Minister, claimed the same rel.
the Spanish colonies, through the Duke of Sotomayor, the
Spanish Ambassador to this country, and a note was dedvered
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. lie (Lord Palmerston) was sure the Noble Lord never
could have invented the arguments, 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 conSiderati -n to the question which its importance so much
required. The letter which contained the answer was full of
fallacies, not palpable fallacies, for these would be plain and
easy, and 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
premises warranted. The Noble Lord 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 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-
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 monstraus to
keep up the distinction between sugar manufactured by ilif-
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
1814, but 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 Sotomayor. Let them now
consider what the demand of Spain was ; let them analyse it,
critically, if they would, but, at all events, equitably.—( Hear,
hear. ) 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 Spanish 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
reshipping 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 PAL NIERSTON would not argue that particular
question, but he contended that this principle of establishing a
distinction between the treaties of 1670 and 1814, was vision-
ary and fallacious, end 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 anse ered
the arguments, in reference to the treaty of 1670. Thin
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 con: urred with him in
saying that nothing could be more absurd than such atguments,
suited only to the position and advantage of a pettifogging
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
say that such consluct 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 grout ds
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 be voted against him ; and or) 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-
fence of this proceeding that the opinion of the Crown lawyers
had been taken on the question, and they had declared in favour
of it. But he (Lord Palmerston) could not see what the law
had to do 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
agreements between two nations were usually drawn up. Well,
then, he was to suppose that those agreements and treaties
meant nothing more than a species of documents applying to
individuals, and not to measures as between England and
Spain; and if so, let him ask, did the House or the Govern-
ment see the full bearing of such a course ?—( Hear, hear.)
Let the House remember the treaties that had been proposed to
be entered into, under another Government, between France
and Spain, in respect to the right of search treaty ; and if that
treaty should 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, yet
he felt. bound to say a few words in reply to the Noble Lord
who had just sat down, knowing, as he (Mr. Gladstone) did,
that he had 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
with 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
against the sense of the House, and went out of his way far the
purpose of making an attack on the Government. If the Noble
Lord had been content to have abstained from that party dis-
cussion, and to have confined his observations to the subject
before 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 provisions had extended over a period of 200
years. He was ready to contend that the treaties on which the
Noble Lord had founded the case of the charge against Spain
were still in full operation. He (Mr. Gladstone) would not
undertake to define is what degree they had a binding
effect; but he would undertake to show
been,tha they were
that whatever
the circumstances of those treaties might h
distinguished in many important pxrticutary general treaties
ieas regarded the
universality of their operation, from the a
which were included in the code of natioes. He believed that
up to the year 1763 those treaties
c,, all stood as a complete act.nfirmed in the most absolute
form by the treaty r
In the year 1763 they
weree tenso of 1667. The treaty of the
year 1783 obtained a 9
83 the new confirmation, in which it was stated
that the former treaties were to be taken as its b se, and to be
religiou.ly observed. He found in that treaty of 17
de-
claration attached to it. The declaration provided for both
parties. With refpect to the British interests it drew a clear
distinction between all the different clauses of prevention in the
former treaties. These 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
duties. The 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 footing of reciprocity—Spain
bad acted on: the established practice—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 eountm with respect to the lotereits of all, on

eta *lO4 t.,isliw, OTs lara VMI..
toe years 015i4hueu Inesysiens rcpt-,seet Between
and Naples. and she has bound to have admiiteti Et:gland on
the same footing. In 1782, an admirabie treaty was formed
with France. In that commercial treaty, a national clause was
introduced, which provided that on the part of Eiigiand, France
should hare a claim in favour of their eentract with Spain. Mr.
Pie, by a most solemn act, ratified the power ot 'hat treaty.
Again, in the %ear 1809, an engagement was, entered
into b tween the two powers to 'iego'iate. In 1814 it would
be found that the engagement to riegociate ui 1869 was re-
newed, thus manifestly recognising the binding nature of the
old original treaty. He would now refer to some other pro-
visoes which were susceptible of a double interpretation. In
1780 the French treaty had been referred to the Board of
Trade, by Mr. Pitt, for their opinion. The Board of Trade
had their attention called to the question, whether, if a com-
mercial 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
British merchandise. In the time even of Mr. Pitt a treaty
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 remonstrated against
the adoption of such a treaty. How 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 charge the pre-
sent Government with being guilty of a want 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
account 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 clause 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 ger the beer fit of that reeltreer.y
and Spain continued 'to ply their differential duty as before,
while other nations were its 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 eas subject to
less than either. Arid if they looked into the principle narrowly,
it was both just and rational. The spirit f legisiation, then,
was to keep their own trade in the hands of their subjects; and
was it likely, then, that the King of Spain weuld fail to put a
stipulation in any reciprocal treats, teat his subjects aud 'he
produce of his subjects, not his colonists, should tie received an
s friendly manner, and subjis to a less bindere imeest
than either other less favitui ed nations or s e ?
While, therefore, he deprecated sueh appetes frees
the letter to the spirit of the law, where the letter wart clear
and unimpeached, as the Noble Lord Lad made, yet he con-
tended here that both the spirit and the letter ut the law were
perfectly consistent and concordant. Again the treaty of
Pitt, in 1787, and the treaties of the N \bat Lord ( Palmersten )
himself. when he was .eke, teary of State for the Coee.tes, le.
cognited that very principle which he hors sought to repudhee,
The first was that which the Noble Lord had concluded with
the Netherlands in 1837 ; but in that with the Sublime Porte,
in !838, 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 imports, as analogous to
the excise of the British and foreign produce, was clearly
established; and subsequently, in 1667 and 168.5, enactments
were passed by the Legislature. not abrogating, as the Noble
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. Well 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 heie instanced Belfast, as one of the ports to
which he referred. Spanish produce and Seanish ships had
beers taxed from time to • ime by the British Legi latore ac-
cording to circumstances, without any regard to stiputatione.
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 nsthing inure.—(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, arid on that he vs ishi d an assimilat:on 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 to much to the Noble Lord that
the object sought to be obtainiel by the clauses of ihe present
treaty was similar to that which iie contended fal Hear )
The difference was, that the Noble Lord wished to aceompli.h
the result by other means than he (Mr. Gladstone) cowd
support or recommend. On two several occasions had this
country asked Spain to come to ati arrengement on the subjeet
of duties. This was lately stone by Mr. Bulwer, their minister
at the court of Spain, who requested that British ship. might
be placed on a footing of equality with the ships of France.
lie thought the instructions of the Noble Lord to Mr. Ashton
were most extraordinary instructions at a time when they
were levying a differential duty on Spanish goods coming into
this country. The construction of 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 be that treaty herself possess.
Lord PALMERSTON—I did not say so.
Mr. GLADSTONE said 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 cone
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 of 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 ebb-
gation of these treaties was no longer such as to justify one
' nation in nicking 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 theshciteenapsrtoprwluieden-.
tion put upon the treaties by the Noble Lord, which construe-
tion was also opposed to facts ; but even if that construction
couldto
the bp
Spanishu t upvne
stth elsneditar eiamt isesse,shsei
possessions
uoldf ntehtesesepha
no
andl ie hoped, (11,wi
acdons
uelubsstiaonn, ti
at
thea he
dt
the h a
pdobs
ietei
on as good
n a
which
hes hti woos
took
rust;
in the early part of, the evening.measure H_ e
justified
•as sorryto t haveh e
inttrres:
passed on the House at such a length, but he thought the cit..
cumstances of the ease .
seen ; and he would conclude by
fsoaryiteigr,pethirniaotdth.t_eheh(alicnohdnesoeoerfsr.
oa)hnet!
evidence hich the
o Right
igihhet
interests of the country were quitet as
Majesty Mr. as
B they
uhca
E beenß Esaid h
at
any
m
e nsagfteh at w
Hon. Gentleman addressed the House was
badness of his case. There was, he thought, no necessity for
the employ of all the ingenuity and nicety of argument which
the Right lion. Gentleman thought it right to use. The
Right Hon gentleman said the sense of the treaty might be
semi by any plain illiterate man. But his own argument went
to prove the v. ry reverse. He would read Mr. Ashten's letter
oti this subject, and Lord Aberdeen's reply, and leave it to the
House to sty what construction the Government itself had at
a very recent period put upon these treaties.—(The
'ight Hen. Gentleman then read the letter of Mr. Ashton. )
He had neither the disposition nor the will to follow ally point
in the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech ; bat thsre was one
thing which he must refer to, The Right Hon. Gentleman
said that he did not look at the strict letter of the treaties, but
that he looked at the ailalogy 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 dic so
properly, and in a spirit of justice, they would put epain oft
the same footing as the most favoured nation. True it was,
that the whole system of politics had since that periotwi
which
haded,
but they still were bound to respect those treaties
fixed the treatment of the subjects of the different oestrus;
and though he had not studied the history- of both countries
with the' same dilieence as the Right Hon. Gentleman, yet he
thought that sufficient would be shown in its pages to justify
them in sacrificing minor consideratiens for the good of Spate.
The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to have adopted the same
fallacious reasoning ai Lord Aberdeen, when he described the
rights of Spain as specific rights not extending to her colonies.