probably not now on the same footing as, the parties; and in this view also his arguthey had formerly been. Whether they ment was borne out by the fact. In the regarded the conduct of the countries, the year 1824, when the trade with the Spanish construction that might have been put upon Colonies was opened, the advantage was the Treaties, or sone violation of their in- not conferred on Great Britain alone, but tegrity, it was quite possible that the Trea- on all nations indiscriminately, and without ties might not now be considered as sub- reference to any particular Treaty; though, sisting in their full force. He made this according to the argument of the noble allusion out of deference to the argument Lord, Great Britain would have had a right of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone); to challenge the opening of that trade to but at the same time he did not think it her commerce by virtue of existing Treaat all necessary to rely upon that point ties. He had endeavoured to compress his in coming to a decision on the question arguments within the narrowest possible before the House. The Treaties of 1667 coni pass; and he trusted he had not tresand 1670 were confirmed by the Treaty of passed too far upon the indulgence of the 1713, and these were all confirmed by the House. He would admit, that in construTreaties of 1763 and 1783. In the Treaty ing Treaties with other countries, they of 1814 the commercial relations between should have regard to good faith, and should the two countries were to be established ; observe a true and just interpretation of and in reference to it, the previous Treaties their provisions ; but it appeared to him might fairly, he thought, be considered as that they would violate all the fair rules of still existing, and might be properly looked construction, if they came to the decision to in interpreting the nature of these rela- for which the noble Lord contended. tions. He would endeavour to deal, very Mr. F. T. Baring said, he felt strongly shortly indeed, with the question of the the inconvenience of trespassing upon the Colonies ; and here he had to express his House at that late hour; but he could not regret, that his right hon. Friend had not so far forget his character as to appear to taken the same view which he was disposed be influenced in the vote which he was to adopt. In his opinion the Colonial trade about to give by mere party purposes. He was entirely struck out of the Treaty of agreed with the hon. and learned GentleUtrecht. He considered the object of the man who had just sat down, that no quesEighth Article of the Treaty of 1670 to be to tion of policy should persuade them to give prohibit entirely the trade with the Colonies. up the real and just construction of the That trade was excluded, not only by the Treaty. But he also thought that when Eighth, but also by the Ninth Article of the Spain called upon them to adopt her conTreaty, and was, in his opinion, thusintended struction of the Treaties, it was worth their to be kept entirely in the hands of the Sove- while to consider whether that construction reigns of the two States. In the Treaty was a fair one towards themselves. He of Peace of 1713 there was an express thought that when the subject became a prohibition of any guarantee to France to question for a long State Paper, it should trade with the Colonies. Therefore, taking become a consideration whether Spain was all the Articles of all the Treaties together, not offering to them what they should be the construction which he was disposed to of all things in the world most anxious to place on them was, that the Colonial trade receive from her. He admitted the talent was, as it were, struck out of the Treaties, of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and was intended to remain entirely and who indeed never spoke without manifestexclusively attached to the mother coun- ing great ability; but be set aside entirely try. Now, by the Fourth Article of the the whole argument of Lord Aberdeen. Treaty of 1814, it was provided that in the The argument of the right hon. Gentleevent of the commerce of the Spanish Co- man was altogether contrary to the argu. lonies being opened, the subjects of His ment of Lord Aberdeen. The right hon. Britannic Majesty were to be permitted to Gentleman indeed said, that he did not trade to them on the Terms of the most adopt the argument as put in Lord Aberfavoured nation. He would admit that deen's letter; and the hon. and learned there was no reciprocity in that arrange- Gentleman who had just sat down differed ment, as it conferred a benefit only on one from the right hon. Gentleman, and he side ; but on that very ground he considered also did not adopt the argument of Lord it as strengthening his construction of the Aberdeen. The right hon. Gentleman prior Treaties. In construing Treaties, wished to show that the ancient Treaties they should have regard to the conduct of with Spain had ceased to exist. If they did not exist, what then was the use of, was expressly excluded from the enjoyment of inquiry about them? Now, Lord Aber. the privileges so conferred." been said that they did exist. The right Lord Aberdeen, therefore, admitted that hon. Gentleman admitted that there was a the Treaty contained a full and general severe strain on his argument by these clause ; but that the effect of the Treaty of Treaties; he therefore denied that they | 1670 was to draw both countries from now existed. He subsequently added that mutual Colonial trade. Therefore, be they did not exist to the extent of the started with the proposition that all determs, and therefore they were entitled to pended on the legal interpretation of the this interpretation of them. The only Treaties ; and as to how far the Treaty of limit to this, then, was the law of the 1670 affected that of 1667, the subsestrong man, who said that he would fix

quent passage read his own interpretation on them. The right hon. Gentleman, when he came to the

“ As far as not repugnant with the Articles

in the latter Treaty." conclusion of his speech, said that the Treaties did not exist entirely. He added | The probibitory clause prevented all trade that he did not know what had been done with the West Indies, and gave powers for away with, and what had not; it therefore the purpose of future regulations. This was hardly possible to meet him on the was perfectly consistent with the principle point. It was very well for the right hon. that this negotiation should be subordinate Gentleman to say that they did not exist; to the principle of the most favou red nation. but the matter, as between nations, must There was nothing repugnant in giving be determined by Lord Aberdeen's letter. this power to Spain, or inconsistent with Lord Aberdeen admitted that the Treaties the clause in the former Treaty. By the existed, and did not venture to say that most favoured nation clause they did not they had been abrogated; therefore the say a nation must create a trade; but if it whole language of the right hon. Gentle did, the trade should be put in the conman, on this point, was immaterial. Instruction of the clause. It was consistent the main question, Lord Aberdeen said, with this that the whole of the West Inthat there were two grounds involved in dies might be excluded. So far, then, as the question, the Colonial ground, the ar- they kept up the prohibition in the Cologument with respect to which was well nies from trading with all foreign coun. known; and the next ground was the dif- tries, they persisted in adhering to the ference between persons and produce. And most favoured nation clause. It gave the upon this point,' he was surprised to find power to England and Spain reciprocally that the hon. and learned Gentleman who to regulate the trade, always subservient had just spoken, and who had been the to this principle. He would show, howorgan of the Government in this debate, ever, that the Government admitted the had taken a different ground from that most favoured nation clause. They did so adopted by Lord Aberdeen. Lord Aber by the Treaty of 1814, by which they addeen made the admission, that the Treaty mitted thatof 1667, was a general Treaty; this the - In the event of the commerce of the hon. and learned Member did not admit, Spanish American po sessions being opened or that it involved anything respecting the to foreign nations, His Catholic Majesty promost favoured nation clause. He would mises that Great Britain shall be admitted to now read the words of the letter :

trade with those possessions as the most fa

voured nation." “ Admitting that the Treaty of 1667 con

Now, within a month afterwards, it apferred upon the subjects of Spain, the position of the most favoured nation in British ports, peared that the old Treaties were not in yet that privilege could not, subsequenily to force, although Lord Aberdeen seemed to 1670, have belonged to Spanish West India think that they were. Within two months trade, because, under the terms of the Treaty of the former Treaty, additional Articles of 1670, such trade could not have been car- were agreed to, by which all the old Trearied on with British ports.”

ties were renewed, by which Spain ad. Again, Lord Aberdeen stated

mitted that we should be put on the same “ While, therefore, the Treaty of 1667 gavę whole question depended upon the fact,

footing as the most favoured nation. The generally to the subjects of Great Britain and Spain respectively ine privileges of the most

to whether the regulating power was favoured nation, the trade belonging to the opposed to, and inconsistent with the prinWest Indian Colonies of the two countries ciple of the most favoured nation clause.

This was the argument, and yet they had , find that the object of this Treaty was a signed a Treaty in which both co-existed. separate Article, and not a secret Article The right hon. Gentleman said that the to prevent the renewal of the Family ComColonies were taken out of the operation pact between France and Spain. Subseof the Treaty. But to consider this, they quently they renewed all the former Treashould look to the practical effect of the ties, and with a larger construction. The trade carried on in that time. Formerly, next argument of Lord Aberdeen was, there was no trade there ; for, as far as the that in 1824, when a reciprocity power West Indies were concerned, they might was granted to other nations, and when be considered out of the inap. They re- Spain opened her Colonies 10 foreign nanewed the old Treaties at the Peace of 1814, tions, it was in 1828 only that such power and when the right hon. Gentleman ad- was given to Spain in return. He would mitted that they were in force; and by not attempt to conceal a difficulty he had this Act, at that time, the most favoured always felt on this subject. He felt the nation clause was renewed, and part of greatest doubt whether, under the reciprothat Treaty contemplated that at some city Treaties with the most favoured nafuture time the trade to the whole Spanish tions, they always gave the reciprocity to West Indies might te opened to this coun. England. He knew that the strongest try. There was no doubt, however, that doubts remained on this point; and as far from 1810 to the time of the Treaty, in as the argument went in this case, the Gothe return of the Bourbons, the trade vernment did not admit this to be the between the Spanish Colonies and Eng- case. The right hon. Gentleman upset land had been opened. The right hon. Lord Aberdeen's argument in his letter, Gentleman could hardly doubt this. He and the hon. and learned Gentleman upset held in his hand a passage from a despatch the law of the right hon. Gentleman. In of Mr. Canning, of the date of 1823, in the earlier part of our commercial negotiawhich he stated that the trade had been tions, we did through persons what we opened, and the prohibitory clause had been now did through things, and certainly the practically repealed. This had occurred in latter was much more effective in manner consequence of an English vessel having than the former. According to the strict been seized under the prohibitory law. In Article of the Treaty, Spanish subjects 1814, the old Treaties had been renewed, might introduce Cuba sugar into this containing the most favoured nation clause, country the same as sugar from Venezuela. with the full knowledge that the Colonies if this was the case, there was little diffi. must be opened ; and they could not now culty in the objection. The right hon. pretend to say that the trade was not to Gentleman threiv overboard entirely the be opened. But supposing that the case arguments of his noble Friend on this part of the Government was admitted, and the of the subject, as if they had never been argument was allowed ; suppose, also, that uttered. In the Treaty of 1715, the the navigation laws continued still in force, Treaty of 1667 was regarded, not merely and that on the part of Spain the most as a Treaty giving personal rights, but as a strict laws were still in force, still it was Treaty for two nations, and that the comperfectly clear that it was in the power of a merce between the subjects of each should Spaniard, as far as the laws of this coun- be carried on on an equal footing. In the try were concerned, to import Spanish oth Clause it statedsugar in a British vessel. He therefore

“And the said subjects shall be used in said, that at the time of the attempt to do / Spain in the same manner as the most fa. what they now did, a Spaniard might have, voured nation, and consequently all nations introduced sugar through Spain, provided shall pay the same duties on wool and other it was brought in a British vessel, and he merchandise, which shall be brought into or might call upon you to give him the full carried out of these kingdoms by land, as the benefit of the most favoured nation clause, said subjects pay on the same goods which But what was Lord Aberdeen's argument? they shall import or export by sea." He stated that some things existed which The object of this was to prevent the goods were inconsistent with this trade, and he of France getting into Spain at a lower confessed that he was somewhat puzzled duty than when imported by sea. He at the argument used. The Article al should be glad to hear how this consequence luded to was not signed at the time, but of the Treaty of 1667 followed, unless it was an additional Article to the Treaty of had in view, not the interest of parties, 1814. The right hon. Gentleman would but of the general commerce of both

a

countries. He would not trouble the Spain was not considered as one of the House further than to observe, that the most favoured nations. The noble Lord personal question as regarded a Spaniard and his Colleagues, in 1841, were quite was on the same footing as regarded a ready to conclude that Treaty with France Swede or any other foreigner. Now, how on this basis. The right hon. Gentleman

. did the case work, and how did the Go- concluded by opposing the Motion. vernment fulfil the Treaty in dealing with Mr. Barclay moved the adjournment of Spain as with the most favoured nation? the debate. A Venezuelan could bring his slave-grown The Chancellor of the Erchequer thought sugar into England in a Venezuelan ship. the subject had been sufficiently debuted, A Spaniard proposed to bring his slave and that adjournment was not necessary. grown sugar into England. He carried [“ Divide," " Go on.") his sugar to Venezuela, and changed it Mr. Barclay resuined. He differed for Venezuelan sugar; and brought it to from the Attorney General in his view of England. The reply then was, that this the case. It presented two points. One, was not Spanish sugar; the objection, in the conduct of the Spanish Government; the first place, was not to the produce but the other, the policy of Her Majesty's Goto the person ; but when it was taken to vernment on the Sugar question. The Venezuela, the objection was to the pro-noble Lord attacked one point as a feint duce and not to the person.

10 cover his assault on the other. What. Sir G. Clerk rose amidst loud cries of ever were the correct interpretation of the “ Divide," which continued throughout Treaties with Spain, it was clear by that the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's of 1670 that the Colonies of that country aildress to the House. He denied that the had no claim on Great Britain. At the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) same time, he thought it would be better was justified in charging the Government to concede the same right to Spain as was with not having kept faith with Spain granted to other countries. It was absurd What construction had the Parliament of to talk of the honour of Spain, a country England in 1668 put upon the Treaty of which had violated all her obligations to 1667 ? It was obvious what the construc- this country on the subject of the Slave tion was which they put upon it, from the Trade—all her officers being engaged in fact that they imposed a differential duty that traffic. If the sugars of Cuba and on Spanish wine. Though that was done Porto Rico were to be admitted, they so recently after the Treaty, Spain made should be admitted on the ground of selfno remonstrance. In 1686 again, a differ- interest, not on the ground of right or of ential duty of 50 per cent. was laid upon honour. He maintained the inexpediency of Spanish wine. It was not until 1828 that allowing slave-grown sugar in the British we opened our Colonies to Spanish vessels. market, on the ground of religion and huDid Spain, during all that time, even manity, though he admitted the discrimithink of the Treaty of 1713? No, nor did nating clause was an innovation on the she act upon it herself. In 1814, Spain commercial code of this country. It was levied upon American ships entering the no argument to urge that coffee and cotton port of 'Havana, a duty of one dollar; were slave-grown in favour of sugar; but while upon British vessels she imposed a they were not so destructive of human life. duty of a dollar and a half. Mr. Canning, There was no inconsistency greater than on our part, remonstrated, and threatened that of the noble Lord in the course of to resort to retaliatory measures. The an- that night in respect to the Slave Trade. swer of Spain was, that she was acting on It would be impossible to suppress that a principle of reciprocity with America. trahe while the demand for slave-grown She made no allusion io the Treaty of sugar was promoted by such notions as 1713. Nothing could be so absurd as the that of the noble Lord. [Cries of“ Disupposition that Great Britain could enter vide.") He did not attach such importance into any such Treaty us that assumed by to the discriminatory principle as regarded the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentle- sugar, as did the West Indian interest; man. There were abundant authorities in but he considered that it checked very favour of the course adopted on this occa- much the cultivation of slave-grown sion by the Government, from Mr. Pitt sugar. down to the right hon. Gentleman oppo- Viscount Palmersion : Sir, after the site, whose attempted Coinmercial Treaty able speeches of my two right hon. with France was a distinct proof that Friends, it would be presumptuous on my