§ Sir R. Peelpresented, on the part of her Majesty, the treaty which had been agreed upon between Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain, for the suppression of the Slave-trade. He said, that in the gracious Speech which her Majesty had delivered from the Throne, she had announced the ratification of the treaty 722 which had been signed by Austria, by Prussia, by Russia, and by France, for the suppression of the Slave-Trade, and that as soon as the ratifications had been exchanged, she would communicate that treaty to the House. This was that treaty as signed by the five powers. The ratifications of the treaty had been exchanged between this country, Russia, Austria, and Prussia. He regretted he could not announce to the House that the ratification on the part of France had been received. The protocol of the conference, however, was still open, and France might, if she thought fit, accede to the stipulations of the treaty. France had entered into no engagement as to the particular period at which she would exchange ratifications, but he would express his confident hope, not certainly founded on any assurance received from the government of France, that that exchange of ratifications was only suspended, and not permanently withheld. He did hope that the same motives which had induced France to unite with this country in inviting the three other powers to join in an object so interesting to humanity, would ultimately prevail in leading that country cordially to co-operate in the suppression of the slave-trade. Of course the treaties with France of 1831, and 1833, having the same object in view, still remained in undiminished force, but he did hope that a long interval would not elapse before France lent the moral sanction of her high authority, in combination with the other great powers of Europe, to the present effort for the suppression of this detestable traffic.
§ Viscount Palmerstonwas sure he was expressing the sentiments of the House, in expressing his own satisfaction at the presentation of the treaty which the right hon. Baronet had laid on the Table. He also most sincerely shared in the wish expressed by the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet had expressed a hope, which being a Member of her Majesty's Government, the right hon. Baronet might be entitled to do, but he not knowing what had passed, could only express his humble wish that the hope of the right hon. Baronet might be realised by the speedy exchange of ratifications with France. He could not but add to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, that, according to his understanding of the usual practice of governments, the only grounds which could be properly 723 assigned by a Sovereign for refusing to ratify a treaty concluded by his plenipotentiary, were, first, that the plenipotentiary had entered into the negotiation and concluded the treaty without being authorised by his Government to do so, or else that the plenipotentiary having entered into the negotiation by the authority of his Government, had either exceeded or violated his instructions. He apprehended that neither of these objections could be felt by the French government on the present occasion. The original negotiation had been entered into, not by England towards France and the other three powers, but by France and England towards the other three powers. The draft of the treaty was equally proposed by the French, as by the English Government. The negotiation, therefore, was not undertaken unknown to the French government, but with its sanction and approval, and well might the French government sanction and approve a measure that reflected such high honour, not only on itself, but on its representative, Count Sebastiani, by whom the negotiation had been commenced. He apprehended that the first objection could not lie, nor, so far as he was informed, the second, because this treaty had been signed by the present representative of France at this court, of course in consequence of special instructions sent to him for the purpose, or of authority given to him before he left Paris to conclude this very treaty. It appearing to him (Viscount Palmerston) that no reason, consistent with the practice of governments, could be assigned by the government of France, for refusing its ratification to what was concluded by its own direction and sanction. He entirely shared in the hope, he might say the confidence, of the right hon. Baronet, that no consideration of a local character—no consideration even though it were one affecting the strength or solidity of a government or a ministry—should induce the sovereign of the French nation to withhold his ratification from that which, he must say, did such infinite honour to all parties engaged in it.