The Sun.
London, England, 1829-12-30 00:00:00

tuated. The article in the Time* to which we
allude is of two mortal Coluaiiis i±i leiigth,' and
:t is evidentlty the production of one deeply in-
terested in the opinions he advocates, and who
is but occasionally a contributor to the pages of
the Times. Its first object appears to be to
extricate Mr. Huskisson from the chtrgo of
being the author of} or 111 party responsible for,
those Viiiires which have entailed so much
calamity on the country. Mr. Huskisson is
represented to be the most innocent personage
in the world. He is said to be 'irresponsible for
the errors or the opinions of Lord pvti-pool and
Lord Wallace. He is lint forth its the
,sere instrument tit- political journeyman of
these Noble Lords, and of having been
innocently the means of carrying their
schemes into practice, and the pilot of the
avowed sentiments of the Legislature. All this
is very fine ; but it is nonsense, nevertheless. It
is very natural for Mr. 1104:is:son, now that he
has kissed the hand which smote him—now that
he has made his terms with the imperious Mi-
nister who openly insulted and dismissed him—
now that he has cringed before his master and
endearourd to drown past indignities in new
favours—it is well for him, needy and grasping
as he is, to make good his retreat before lie be
called upon to answer for his conduct. But is
there a man between this and the North Pole in-
sane enough to believe a single word he says ?
He was turned out of office for his disobedi-
ence—he was cast off for his consistency—he
was dishonoured and rejected because he dared
to offer an opinion of his own, or record a vote
at variance with the arbitrary dictates of the
Duke of Wellington. When, therefore, we find

such a nun jJtiltng the phalanx of which he
was expelled we may, in the first place rest as-
sured that he is ready to repudiate his former sen-
timents, and, in the next place, to deny his con-
nexion with a line of policy which he

must now see is calculated to reduce the
country to a state of beggary and ruin. All
this would be well if his last new opinions—
his altered opinions—his reconsidered .and mo-
dified opinions—should prove to be genuine.
But Mr. Huskissun is not a man whom we can

trust ; and, if it be true that he is to join the
presentCabinet,we hope he will be able to draw

into further diffieultie.s.

This, indeed, is our

hope and consolation. He may deny what he
pleases. He may cast the blame upon the dead
or the forgotteN. He may impute the error to
the silent ashes of Lard Liverpool or Mr. Can-

wing. fie may accuse Lord 6oderich or Lord
Wanace ; but who is there to take his word for
this ? We venture to affirm that his word on

this point would not be taken, even by the most
ardent of his former friends. For is a not
known that during the hitter years of Lord Liver-
pool—during the Administration of Mr. Can-

;tin,/ and that of Lord Goderich—he was the
principal Commercial Minister of the Crown ?
All his notions and principles were embodied
in the memures of the day. His word was la,v.

His ideas were orthodox. his specifics were
considered as infallible cures ; and, under this im-
pression, they were adopted by the Government
and carried into effect by the Legislature. It is true
he may come into the present helpless, imbecile,
and forlorn Cabinet as a new made man, with
new views, hating divested bitnself of the rust
and corruption of his earlier attachments and
his recorded errors. But NIT.. Huskisson must,

nevertheless, remain a suspected, and, come-
quemly, a feeble man. He can render no as-
sistance to any Ministry, however hopeless or
difficult may be their situation. Any pallatives
he may be induced to recommend will be treated
with disrespect and distrust ; and improvements,
even though they should come seconded by a
voice from Heaven, would, under these circum-
stances, be deemed dangerous evariinents. - -So
much for Mr. Huskisson. But ilet'lle!See what

the Times says in his favouG- -Thi-6ttly-«,te
trade," says our contemporaryi "'Olaf o.arlia-
ment has yet permitted, or which 14-r. Ituskis-
son has ventured to recommend, is the single
case of merchant vessels, and there it is a pro-
visional and bargained equality, rather than
what may be termed freedom." Now, we deny,
in the most positive terms, that the mea-
sures of Mr. Huskisson relative to mer-
chant vessels is founded on a " bargained
equality." We affirm that the advantage is all
on the side of the foreign shipowner ; and we
arc certain, if every merchant of Lloyd's was
called upon to -deliver his opinion upon oath
that he would coincide with us in this senti-
ment. Let us state the simple facts as they
apply to the respective interests of the British
and foreign shipowner. We concluded a treaty
with Prussia and other states, in which we

" bargained" (to use the city expression) that
equal advantages should be given to the ships of
both countries in their communication with each
other. For instance, it was " bargained" that
we should receive the same favour aiid benefits in
the harbours of our allies as the ships of our
allies should receive in British ports, Has this
been the case? We answer no. The Prussians
have, by the exercise of an oppressive and dis-
honourable monopoly, excluded British ships
from the valuable carrying trade in salt. We
give to them the advantage of our bonded
system—they give no such correspondiug faci-

lities to us. v The British merchant must
piiy his duties on landing his goods in Dant-
zic—the Prussian merchant is allowed to
land his goods in London, in bond, without
being compelled to pay his duties till
they are sold to the retailer or consumer. Is
this reciprocity ? h this equality ? Is this the
provisional and bargained free trade that was to
confer on both nations equal advantages? We
say that it is deliision. We say that the advan-
tage gained by our ally is a fraud. We are
robbed and laughed at. We are over-reached
and despised. We are bound by treaties which
are not only false and monstrous in principle,
but which place us at the mercy of those who
have outwitted us, and rejoice and triumph in
their superior tact and diplomacy. Of course an
end must be put to these tricks, and these advan-
tages, soon. But we submit that Mr. Hus-
kisson is not the man in whose hands we should
confide our interests. He is personally involved ;
and, however much he may shift, and
wince, and turn, and equivocate, he is
bound by his former deeds, and by dn.-0 he must
as a statesman stand or fall. He is.nalhe man
to extricate us from a painful and disgraceful.
dilemma. His character is mixed up with the.
system. He is chained down by his own Acts
of Parliament ; and God help us if on him
alone we are to depend for amelioration or relief.
No subterfuge cm avail us now. No plausible
speeches can administer a remedy. No mang-
ling of public documents—no appeal to foreign
returns manufactured by an artful envoy—no
figures arranged to deceive, no documents with-
held, at:d no documents published, after he has
formed his tinsel and disi►►genuous calculations,
can nvw livvdwink a suffering and deeply-ii:.