The Sun. — London, England, 1860-03-10 00:00:00

I morn .dts of -~', would o is of 'annot ad, in a son- a first rst in- "22 E SUN,: LO NDON, SATURDAY -EVINING, MARCH ellOe 1 his country than that which we May simply obtain by the - treaty now before us for consideration. But if—and I for one would not at all have critically examined the decision of the Government—if they. had arrived at that decision, if on the whole it had been thought wiser at once to have entered into some agreement with France, and not to - have waited for what I cannot but believe, though it might have been the gradual, must have been the inevitable decision of the French nation—if that had been the opinion of the Government of this country, taking into consi deration those vast and various circumstances that must have been placed before their examination on an issue so important —if that were their decision—if it were wise at once to enter into some agreement with the French Govern ment, I still think it would have been better, 'by some alte ration of our mutual tariffs, to have attained all those ends that could at the present moment be acquired, and then, when the period of July, 1861, had arrived—profiting, II hope, by experience—we might have completed the work and have accomplished all those ulterior results which, by the present treaty, are not achieved but only contemplated. I think that, under ordinary circumstances, that would have been the course it would have been wiser for us to have taken, and which this house would have had no diffi culty in sanctioning. But I believe that there are objections to a treaty even for the purpose of attaining an object so desirable as the increase of our commercial relations with our neighbours, and that it is to be objected to both on scientific and political grounds. I have not throughout the debate heard, either on scientific or political grounds, why it has been deemed expedient to tie up the policy of the country for a term of years so long, and to accomplish results which might, I think, have been realised by a simpler process. These are the views with which I have con sidered this subject under ordinary circumstances. Under ordinary circumstances, I should have 'regretted if the Go vernment, in order to attain a very desirable end, should have availed themselves of questionable means, but no one can for &moment maintain that - this treaty has been nego. tiated under ordinary circumstances. The circumstances. on the contrary, are indeed of the most exceptiona character, and under these circumstances I object to s this treaty on three grounds—financial, diplomatic, and political. • I will not enlarge on the financial, because a fair opportunity has been given to the house to decide on that portion of the subject, and though I cannot agree in 'the decision at which it arrived, I am content to take it as one which at least precludes me from at present entering into a lengthened review of it. I think that the condition of the revenue is at the present moment such that it is not Prudent for ns to increase a large deficit by creating a con siderable deficiency in addition, in ordcr to obtain the com mercial arrangements which are secured by the present in strument. The house has had the question fairly passed be fore it. However, they may ultimately regret these arrange ments, for I believe the time will come, and that, too, ra ipidly, when they will deeply regret it. However much the scheme propounded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year may be considered to be unsafe in principle, im provident in arrangement, and pernicious in its conse quences, I do not think that to-night we are called on to discuss it. So far from regretting that decision, I for one should not have thought I was doing my duty to my con stituents and the country had I been silent. I think the de cision of the house was not to the advantage of the country; but I do notlook with any regret to the means by which that decision was arrived at. I think the time will come when the principle the minority then held will be recog nised as sound. (Cheers.) Although my objections to this treaty are founded on what I deem the pernicious influence it will have on our financial condition it is unnecessary now to deal with it in detail. Being, therefore, under ordinary circumstances, in favour of any policy that may increase the commercial relations between the two countries, I neverthe less cannot agree with some gentlemen in the exaggerated views they took of this impending increase in our commercial intercourse with France. It has always been one great fault of the English people—having, as they no doubt have, com mercial instincts superior to all other nations—it always has been their failing to exaggerate the importance of particular markets; and it is a very curious thing that they have always over-estimated those markets that have proved the last pro ductive and the least advantageous to suchintercourse. The markets of South America, some years ago, were always exalted in this house in point of importance above the mar kets—those solid and substantial markets—of our Narth American brethren which have since been a source of so ranch wealth to this country; and so at this moment hon. gentlemen speak of commercial intercourse with France as if they had a new California or a new Australia opening to their enterprise and energy. (Cheers.) The hon. gentleman who seconded the address, and who, representing as he did great district of country, did so with authority, used argu ments much too frequent, to the effect " Australia, with her Million of inhabitants, takes £11,000,000 of imports ; France has 36,000,000 of population ; multiply the trade of Aus tralia by 36, and you will form some faint idea of the com mercial intercourse that is about to take place between the two countries" (Cheers.) These were just the-observa tions indulged in. (No, no.) Brazil was also taken, with her limited population of 5,000,000, and her great commer cial exchanges with this country, and in the next sentence they were told that France had eight times the population of Brazil, and from this hon. gentlemen might calculate what would be the results of the new commercial policy. (Cheers.) But ancient and long-established countries like France will never offer to a country like England the same mart that virgin colonies, like Australia or California, or countries settled under circumstances of modern civilization like the Brazils offer. We must remember that the manu factures of France are on the whole, with some few excep tions, more ancient than the manufactures of England, and that they are as skilful, if not more so • and although no inconsiderable increas e b e t ween the' commercial rela tions of France and England will accrue from this treaty these relations must still be of a comparatively limited cha rsqkor, an, g-ren - Drallell of industry ill France would ever be allowed to be superseded by any great branch of industry in this country. -No doubt the intro duction of our goods will increase the demand for theirs, stimulate invention, and reduce the cost of French goods. No doubt the French consumer generally will be benefited, and great advantage may accrue from that, but the moment there is any prospect of a large branch of French industry being susperseded by equal industry onthis side the Chan nel steps will be taken to prevent this result, and for this reason alone, if not for others. France, whatever may be her farm of Government, is a democracy—aegl a democracy will never submit to any great supercession enlist native in dustry of her country. His noble friend was perpetually appealing with pride to the instance of France and the United States as favourable to the protective principle he supports, and you may rely on it that if you succeed with your new Reform Bill, and especially with the aupplemen tary reform bill announced by the member for Birming ham, you will soon produce a protective interest in this helve which will be the resultof w h a t you littl e ant i c i pate. I think we are rather led away by a too sanguine view of what may be the consequences to our commerce of opening thoSe new markets. This new market will be subject to all thOse conditions that prevail in ancient, populous, and highly civilised countries, and the consequence will be ter tain limits to our enterprise which we do not see, at present. I object to this treaty further on diplomatic grounds. It appears to me to be a treaty unskilfully and negligently ne gotiated. I have heard nothing with reference to the pro posed arrangements of either a satisfactory or advantageous character, although more than one minister has addressedfor thelouse. I have not heard any ans wer y et to account the mysterious appearance of the 3d article , which ref erso the duties on shipping. There is no appare nt reason whyt that subject should have been introduced in to a strictly commercial convention ; but when the hon. member for Stamford reminded you_ that all the differential duties that have been temporarily terminated, indirectly or di rectly, between England and France, were only tem- Porarily terminated, and that it was within the power of the Government of France within a few months to put an end to the treaty of 1825, and that, under these circumstances, differentia duties will exist between French and English navigation, not only as to the direct but indirect trade, it is a question that must occasion great anxiety, and the very fact that in the 3d., article navi gation should be introduced into the treaty is one of a cha racter to create great apprehension in the public mind. With reference to the article which is the subject of the present amendment, there is a great objection to that article. I am told we are incapable of discussing it because it is legal, but it is a new theory in this house that members of it should not give a public opinion on a legal subject. As I understand it, th e S overe i gn i s entrusted with a certain power, and the advisers of her Majesty have advised her to part with that power; and now we are told that that being a legal question members of Parliament are not competent to give an opinion on it. I believe that the dispensing power was once considered a subject which members of Parliament were perfectly competent to give an opinion upon. (Cheers.) It appears to me to be not at all shrouded in obscurity. ; and I ask the house to consider how unwise it would bete evade this question, and by saying it is a legal question sanction the bases of this treaty. And suppose we evade the difficulty —assume that we agree to this address to the Crown. We shall then communicate that address to the other house of Parliament, which can hardly be prohibited from inquiring into the legal question ; and what may not probably happen in the other house of Parliament by our evading the fulfil ment of our duty in this house ? The 11th article will be discussed there, and it will probably be decided by the other house that it is not possible to carry that article into effect without an Act of Parliament. The other house, if it likes, may clearly resolve to address the Crown on the treaty, but at the same time they may, probably, introduce an Act of Parliament to carry that 11th clause into effect; but What humiliation and reproof to this house if we should have an Act of Parliament sent down to enable us to com plete the matter. I will not enter into any' discussion of a statistical kind as to our resources in coal and iron, to which the amendment refers. I take it for granted that the right I on; gentleman made no statement on that matter of the truth of which he was not deeply convinced; but we have also had a speech from one who, on such a subject , speaks with great authority. He bears the name of one with When). I was intimate in this house, and whom we all greatly respected ; but having myself not been altogether Miscquainted with the district to which.he refers I know that the railways of the present day have penetrated every valley in the South Wales district, and a stimulus has been given to the production of coal, in that part of the country Which it is not at all likely pan be sustained. But it is im • possible to settle a question of this kind by local experience. The question has occupied men of science of the greatest eminence. I do not pretend to offer any statement to the house to influence their opinion, and I can only refer them to those general statements which the highest authorities have acc e pted. The general result has always been con sidered to be that there are in England and Wales 12,000 s quare -miles of coal -fields ; that the half of that quantity is not workable; that every year exhausts 160 square miles; and therefcre every lion. gentleman can, if he think right, make out the account. If such a quantity would, at the pre sent consumption, last 300 or 400 years, everybody can ,estimate theresult if the produce and exportation from the coal-fields when doubled. I cannot pretend that the calcula tion should influence legislation ; but when the hon. gentle man, from his local experience, and speaking under the ex citement of the recent explorations made in South Wales, I Must remind the house that these are calculations which we should receive with due distrust, and that we must recollect that there are estimates which are sanctioned by the highest Philosophers and men of science. There are many ether PGiute in this treaty which appear to me to prove that it has not been negotiated with the skill, knowledge, and attention tit are required in such an instrument, that on the contrary htlesreare evidences of precipitation and carlessness. There been no satisfactory twofer to the charges that have been made. It does appear a very improvident arrangement that the silk manufactures of England cannot enter France without being subject to 30 per cent. duty, while at the Same time the raw material from France is also subject to a high duty. I have heard no answer to that matter. What said the President of the Board of Trade last night ?- He • said, "If you try to settle exacty the rate of duty on every detail of every branch of manufacture"— having, no doubt, in his head the celebrated passage which used to b be quoted from Mr. Eden as to the difficulties of ne gotiating treaties of commerce—" if," said the right hon. gentleman, " we had tried to do that, we should not have got over the matter by this time." But this is no answer to the unfortunate silk manufacturer, who is subject to 30 percent. duty, and receives at the same time the raw material of his manufacture subject to a high duty. He naturally says, "Why are there governments ; why are there negotiators ; why, above all, are there secret negotiators--(cheers)—if my interests are not considered ?" And, so far as I can learn —but of course I speak with hesitation on that subje.rt— t here would have been no difficulty on the part of the French Government if this claim had been preferred. If the claim had been preferred and refused, it would not have been in • dicative of amity on the part of the French Government to refuse it; but if it was not preferred I say it was great ne gligence, We have had no answer to these matters which is of a satisfactory character. It may seem a little point. I believe it is a point of great importance when you come,to the arrangement of a commercial ti eaty. I have not heard an answer to the complaint of the English brewers, that when they are sending into this country French wines the English brewers do not obtain a market in France. lam assured that if that claim had been preferred ,to the French Governnient they would not have objected to ;the proposi tion. I ask the house is it evidence of sedulous attention to English intei eats to have omitted a provision of that kind ? (Cheers.) Why was this state of thingi permitted ? Would such a request have offend-,d any of the principles of the new commercial system? Not at all; for even the hon. member for Birmingham would not pretend that the exchange of British beer for French wines would have been contrary to the principles of free trade. But all this shows me that this treaty has been negotiated with precipi tation; and the - very tone of the Government, when you make your criticisms upon the twaty, confirms that suspicion for what do they say ? They do not vindicate their instru ment. They say, "We are aware of it; we admit that there is a good deal of truth in what you say, but we have made a representation to the French Government and there is a fair prospect of obtaining a remedy for the grievance." But what was to be gained by this precipitation? My objections I have now stated shortly against this treaty financially and diplomatically. Financially it affects injuriously a revenue in a state of dilapidation, and diplomatically it appears that it does not fully provide for British interests. (Cheers.) I am now to consider the political objects of this treaty, and this is a part of the subject that I cannot avoid, because we arc challenged to consider this treaty on political grounds. This is a commercial treaty between England and France I admit; but it is a treaty between England and France mainly and avowedly negociated for a political purpose. (Cheers.) This treaty was not introduced to us by any Minister of the Crown; we only incidentally became acquainted with its provisions while involved in the dreary labours of committee on. the Customs Acts. But we have the basis of the treaty in a great public state paper, which regulates the principles on which thenegociation should be carried on, and the character of the instrument contemplated. To that alone we are in debted for our understanding of the nature 'of this instru ment, and the objects to be obtained by carrying it into effect. The noble lord, in language which has been referred to part ly, but not completely, in his instructions to the negotiators, which is in fact th e state paper on which the treaty is founded, while he talks of the advantages of commerce says, "But over and above this consideration the Government attaches a high social and political value to the conclusion of a com mercial treaty with France." Political value, and therefore I am obliged to consider this treaty in a political sense. Those who have deprecated introducing political conside rations into the discussion of this treaty, seem to have en tirely forgotten the standing point on which this instrument rests, and the introductory terms by which the House of Commons was made acs uainted with this instrument. These were the words quoted by the mover of the amendment. The noble lord says,—" Its significatipn at the present mo ment is that it would powerfully re-assure the public mind in some parts of Europe ;" but there the noble mover stop ped short, and omitted this, " that on these grounds the Government are prepared to enter into negotiations." I do not blame the noble lord ; all I say is, that in discussing the treaty of commerce that is preceded by a state paper of this character, the noble lord should not cavil with me if I endeavour to ascertain the soundness of the principles upon which he proceeded. Thenoblelord has gone out of his way though I am sure he thinks in due fulfilment of his duty to inform the judgment of the country what were the principal considerations in negotiating this treaty, that they were po litical—that it was on these political grounds the Govern ment were prepared to enter into this negotiation. The noble lord has received compliments from both sides of the house for the spirit in which he maintained the character of a British minister in those negotiations. I am notapt to be lieve that any one who occupies the noble lord's position would be wanting in his duty to the Crown or the country upon any occasion of importance. (Hear, hear.) lam not disposed to believe that the noble lord would form an excep tion to that rule. But the noble lord will not be offended with ine if I _do not address him in those terms of compli ment and eulogy with which his name has been associated. The noble lord will not be offended with me if I offer him some criticism upon a portion of his political conduct as Foreign Minister. I shall confine myself to facts, and what is even dryer than facts, to dates, and then I shall deduce and draw inferences so strikinglylogical that I am sure the noble lord himself will be willing to admit their accuracy Ho will not be offended if, by way of contrast to the compliments he has received, I shall ask him to give the house some satisfaction on a matter connected with the treaty, and that he will afford me that explanation which I shall require before I give my assent to fhe motion. (Hear, hear.) The night when the address to the Crown was first to be moved it was unexpectedly post poned. Some discussion, however, then took place upon the question of our relations with France. I had not read at that time the papers which were circulated only that morning, and therefore, I would not have presumed, even had the discussion then gone on, to enter at that time into the question. But I have read those papers since, which have been noticed in different moods by different speakers. But nobody had made the inquiry of the noble lord which I wish to-night to make, because until I have an answer from the noble lord I cannot form a correct opinion of the state of Europe, which he describes to be so critical, and which in consequence he considers as &reason , ror.enrerlrs into this treaty with France. Now I have read these papers, and I am bound to say that the conduct of the French Government upon the question of Savoy, which is the question above all others that renders the condition of European affairs so critical, appears to me, so fir as the English Government is concerned, to have been sincere, frank, and straightforward. (Hear.) That is my opinion, and I am prepared to prove it in a very short space of time. The house will remember in July last, when the noble lord the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs announced the preliminaries of the treaty of Villafranca to the house, and congratulated us on the fact that France 'required no ac cession of territory, he referred to the distressing rumour that had previously prevailed—namely, that it was the in tendon of France to demand the annexation of Savoy. Well, that circumstance showed that the mind of the noble lord was perfectly alive to that question. And, indet,d, he must have found in the archives of his office that it was a question which had occupied in such a sense and manner the consideration of his predecessor. In July last the noble lord was aware that the question of the annexation of Savoy had then been given up, and he justly congra tulated the house upon the fact. Well, we have a despatch amongst these papers, in which the Government are in formed, that after the preliminaries of Villafranca had been signed the Emperor of the French had renounced his intention of mooting that question, and that the annexa tion of Savoy was entirely given up. But it now appears in those papers before us, by the despatch dated the end of January last, that in the interval between the despatch which announced that the Emperor had given up all in tention to annex Savoy and the subsequent despatch, that on more than one occasion, in consequence no doubt of the difficulties which stood in the way of the carrying out of the treaty of Zurich, the minister of France had frankly in formed.the ambassador of the Queen at Paris that, in the event of the treaty of Zurich not being carried into effect, the Emperor of the French would certainly look to the annexa tion of the duchy of Savoy and the pi ovine of Nice as a necessary consequence. (Hear, hear.) That fact appears clearly in a ppe ar s ppers. Now, I want to ask this of the noble lord. It ppthat the noble lord was fully aware that under certain circumstances clearly indicated—namely, the aggrandisement of Sardinia—that is, if Sardinia became a considtejornabfloerpsouwoehr a in ei l r ta eu l m y— sta F n r e a e nc th e e w a o n u n ld ex r a e g quire no a f s t c h o o ra se - S ensa that the noble lor d ardinian provinces. frona (He th ar a , t h in ea o r ra ) en How came a it, p t o h l i e c n y , nexa tion of those successful provincesinltalyt,owFouraldneehaivnee-vrietuadhelerV (tHheeaarn.) which, if e n s i ul on t. th T a h t ethneoabglegrlaonrdlise and his colleagues were of opinion that it was an English inte restnlThe meat t o f noblelord Sardiniaw was a c s l clearly l e y s desirable bl o e p siderable importance.. Now o t now. Ihave no doubt the noble to strengthen Sardinia, and to m le a t ke u i s t e a n P te o r w in er to o a f con- Now con troversy upon that point g while they lord and his colleagues, after mature f c E on n si l d a e n r d at t i o on p , u w rs e u re e convinced that it was for the in terest o that policy. B u t this result is inevitable—that, 1 lead to te were pressing this policy in Italy for the aghgaranvedkinsoemwnentthoatf Sardinia, he r M a j es ty's Government mu st the success o f th e i r en deavours must necessari y ea u !" annexation by France of those two provinces. hveeerrhn.? Well, if that b e th e cas e, how can her Majestyh s ment now turn round to F ra nce and say, for? You h ave t a k en us b y s urprise; we you all thisare going to annex S avo y an d Nice to France--this is be having in a manner w hi c h can on ly be described in t he language used in the despatch of the nob le lord find t a h t a is t —that such a course w ill produce distrust and suspicion throughout Europe—" it will disturb the set tlement of Europe, and will lead men's minds back to the long and sanguinary struggles that took place some years ago ; and perhaps, after all, the re su lt ma y prove fatal to your own happiness." (Hear, hear.) But so strange are the facts contained in those papers laid before Parliament—so much better informed is every other nation under the sun of its foreign affairs than is the British public—(hear, hear) —by a remarkaple circumstance there isno record on the table of the fact to which I have just referred. I here is not amongst of fe Italy.erd a t t A h t e commencement commencement' those papers an official document disclosing the attempt of he to n r s o b me ementoilathe of theyearto settleyear the ala ithe noble lord produced four propositions for the settlement cf" the affairs of Italy Lord J. RUSSELL—They are numbered in tho paper. Mr. DISRAELI—There is no:printed record of them. At all events the fact does not affect myargument. But wehave a despatch of the Foreign Minister remarking and comment ing on those four propositions which have been published to all Europe. But strange to say, owing only to the casual inquiry of the hon. member for Tamworth, the noble lord in his place here expressed what those propositions were. Although this circumstance took place a fortnight, or per haps, a month ago, it is only on this evening that they have been placed upon the table ,of this house. (Hear, hear.) Now, let us look to these propositions. The gist of them, if thsy mean anything, is the establishment of Sardinia as a powerful Government in Italy. The noble lord will not deny that. the noble 1-ird proposes that it be left to the voice of the people in Central Italy to arrange to whom they shall belong. Surely the noble lord must have lieen impressed with the conviction that the declaration of the people would be in favour of their annexation to Sardinia. Well, as I before said, the gist of the four prepositions is that Sardinia should be established as a powerful Govern ment in Europe. Well, these are offered for the coisi deration of France, and France agrees to them and accepts them all, except in onevoryminor. particular: (Hear, hear.) But I want to knew, then, from the noble lord—when he of fered a proposition for the settlement of Italy to the French minister, the result of which was that Sardinia should be aggrandised in this manner, did the Minister of Prance in form the noble lord that his Government renounced the con ditions they had previously attached to such an event— naniely, that Savoy and Nice should be annexed to France? (llear, hear.) That is a question which we must have an swered by the ;noble WO.; The noble lord was aware six mouths ago, by a letter from Lord cowley, that in case of Sardinia being aggrandised in this manner France would claim' Savoy and Nice. (Hear, hear.) Now Ido not think the noble lord will rise and say that the French Government had announced any intention of changing their original po licy in this respect. (Hear, hear.) But is that all ? The noble lord-sent his propositions to the great powers, to Austria, Russia, and Prussia. I ask him, when he sent those pro positithas to the great powers for the settlement of the affairs of Italy by the annexation to the dominions of the King of Sardinia of the central states of Italy, did he inform those great powers that if that policy were adopted it was within his knowledge that France would demand an expansion of her frontiers in the direction to which I have referred (Hear, hear.) But if the noble lord, with the posses - sion of that - knowledge. did not impart it to those powers, I ask the house to say whether that is the mode in which the diplo macy of a great country like this is to be carried on ? (Hear, hear.) These are subjects upon which, when we are asked to agree to a treaty on account of the critical condition of Eu rope, I think we are bound to demand the fullest informa tion from the noble lord. There is one point in regard to the subject of these dispatches I consider to be of the utmost importance, on which we should have the fullest information from her Majesty's Government, and that is the manner in which very important information oozes out which otherwise never could have reached the ear of Parliament, and that is by what is called "private letters." (Hear, hear.) Now, I am willing to admit to the noble lord that it is not only of the utmost advantage, but of the greatest importance, that the'most unreserved communication should exist between the Secretary of State and the ambassadors and minis • sters of the Queen at foreign Courts. (Hear, hoar.) Our ambassador in France has sometimes to write as often as three , or four times a day. There were many observations and views which it was his duty to communicate to the Secretary of State, and which ought to form the subject of a private letter and not of a public despatch. (Hear, hear.) But it-is right-that the house should understand what these private letters are, and that the private letters of an ambas sador to the Secretary of State are purely private, as the epithet implies; and that the Secretary is not bound to show these letters to his colleagues. (Hear, hear.) Rarely are they shown to any of his colleagues, with the exception of the Prime Minister. Indeed, they came so rapidly that his colleagues could not afford the time to read them all; but as a matter of usage he is not bound to show them even to the Sovereign. When he quits office he takes those letters with him, and they form no part of the regular dip • lomatie correspondence, or of the records of public business. It would be a most unwise step to put an end to this confi dential communication between the Ministers and the agents of his Soverei g n. No man would undertake the responsi bility of Such an office as that of Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he were deprived of such advantageous means of carrying his duty into effect. (Hear, hear.) But from the very nature of those confidential communications it is not right that a Secretary of State or an ambassador should, in his public despatches, fall back on his private letters. (Hear.) I find, however, from those papers, that the most important information is contained in private letters which do not appear. (Hear.) We should have no evidence that the French Minister, subsequently to the despatch which announces that the Emperor had renounced in July his in tention bf annexing Savoy, neutralised and qualified the intimation of that renunciation, but for the private letters of Lord Cowley. (Hear.) Here we have an ambassador sending a public despatch, in which it is positively an nounced that the Emperor has given up the intention of an nexing Savoy ; and it is only by these private letters we dis cover afterwards that circumstances having been changed, the French ministers have with perfect frankness informed her Majesty's ambassador, at least once, that the treaty of Villafranca not having been carried into effect, the Empe ror should turn back to his original intention. (Hear.) A diplomatic narrative placed before this house should be a complete narrative. (Hear, hear.) I think that the highest interests, of the State are involved in that principle. Suppose there had been a change of administration at the beginning of this year, the first duty of the new Ministry would have _been to consult on the affairs of Italy. It might have been their opinion that the policy that would be most advanta geous to England and Europe would be to strengthen Sar dinia and establish her as a power of considerable import ance ; but so far as the records in the Foreign-office wore concerned,. they would have been completely in the dark on the fact that the carrying out of that policy would necessarily have led to the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France. (Hear, hear.) It now appears that from the mont h of Jul y , or a little' afterwards, her Majesty's Government were per fectly aware that if the treaty of Villafranca was not virtually carried into effect the intention of France was to again claim the annexation of Savoy and Nice. All this time her Ma jesty's Government were pursuing a policy which, for the, sake of argument, though I do not agree in it, I will grant was an advisable one, but which certainly was one that would have led to the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France. (Hear, and cheers.) Under these circumstances it is that her Majesty's Government have asked the house to enter into this treaty with France, perfectly well aware as they were for so long a period before, that it was the inten tion of France to annex those provinces. Mr. Grey, her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Paris, in a despatch of the 9th January, communicated to the Government the alarm that existed in- Switzerland on the subject of the annexation, Still the negotiations for the treaty went on, and no attempt was made by her Majesty's Ministers to instruct Mr. Grey on the subject or to take or adopt any other proceeding, and it was ndt till the 27th or 29th, or some day near the end of the month of January, that the noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wrote that despatch for which he has received the compliments of several hon. gentlemen. Is that despatch any compensation for the negligence of the Minister? Is it right that after all the mischief is done he should take refuge in a grandiloquent despatch ? (Hear, hear.) I should like a despatch in that spirit to have been sent to the French Government months before. The Em peror of the French is a Sovereign who is said, and I be lieve with justice, not to be insensible to public opinion. That is a quality not to be despised, but we do not see that any effort was made by the noble lord. He was silent. Yet the noble lord commences this session by placing upon the table a denatch which is to be the foundation of a treaty of commerce between this country and France, which he re commends on account of the critical position of the conti nent, and of the significance of the treaty, because it would reassure the public mind in the various countries of Europe. These are questions which require explanation when we are asked to consent to a treaty of the nature of that- now under discussion. (Hear, hear.) With all due respect to the house, I must say that I think it has been placed in a very embarrassing position, brought about by a lashes which I think it will ultimately regret. I endeavoured at the time to call attention to our true position, but unfortunately the house was not then sufficiently aware of the circumstances, and the matter was hurried on, not, I believe, to the advan tage of the Government, and I am sure greatly to the dis advantage of the house. (Hear.) Had we only understood then what we are beginning to understand now, what was the course adoped in 1787, we should not be at present in the position in which we mow find ourselves. If the treaty had been put before the house first, not in a committee on the Customs Acts, but in a committee on the commercial treaty, all this embarrassment would have been avoided. That was the motion which I made, not in form, for the rules of he house would not allow of that, but in effect. The Government might, if my motion had been adopted, have carried all their resolutions in commit tee on the commercial treaty, and after that might have addressed the Crown. (Hear, hear.) And under such cir cumstances the revenue would not have been disturbed; the resolutions would have been only provisional, subject to the approbation of the tl•ca,ty by the house. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) It is idle now to think that you are in a po sition to enter With effect into this most momentous subject. The hon. gentleman who moved the address accused me of thinking that the most advisable thing we could have done would have been to consider the treaty before we addressed the Crown. No such nonsence ever entered my head. (Hear, hear.) How could you consider the treaty but on a motion for an address to the Crown ? What I said was—" Do not go into committee on the Customs duties till you address the Crown; because I knew if you did so, movmg the ad dress would be an idle ceremony—(hear, hear) —and an idle ceremony it is to-night, for whatever may be my opinion on the treaty I feel it is idle and impossible now to oppose it on diplomatic grounds. You cannot refuse to address the slj n ti eehs e (svu i ehias g ne ra r . iwG o )ts u htoh n avLeat d neees s r ntort b nefhm e csia c ees a ffnn u atiti s l rryaeesraeyebt understandx iy o e n u eswnot hwaaasasvetultehanahlleai announced u ntgn r e rgwuo a cpuh d ef ood y ni nerdht l oht o wohu s an t eert wyCtwaorhebuarilnirl decision.eeF hd v a re n e tor n Dom fi u Abo n i e eae a a . e aepalngue adrvis empires entdinseettndhso— h uuh a can : hscu r e oea n dn atural boundaries. Who can foresee what will be the resu haea l oo t tsech o toar f nitn s e u e ch a policy ? We know that at the 0. must Majesty'sfitrtfiiefill el knowT n G o o svtt Europeehr Government wta m nii tt e ghh n e tars dangerous i h shi spae suspicion, et nehntr, describedec ap e n t r e be de lo withn g the ed fatesan sanguinary n d a y r y n a s w t i a e r s s . , with (Hear, th e hear.) fall e f empires,Thi This s your and appre hension and distrust—as one that has been associated with description of the critical condition of Europe, aad it is under these circumstance's that we are called on to ap prove this treaty with the power which the noble lord has described as the power of disturbance and distrust. Sir, all the circumstances are changed since the right hon. gentleman introduced to us his financial motion. We are not influenced by the same feelings, the country is not influenced by the same considerations ; all is altered ; all is altered from the day when I endeavoured to' lead you to a safer course—(cheers fram the Opposition)—which from Ministerial A si li b n e is s, te a r s ia i l t b i e s nc m h e e t s) n — o w w h w ic i h th wa n s n t m h e e a n n m in e g t everybody now f ee l s an d in private acknowledges—(derisive a w h i a t h e r r laughter. (Hear, hear.) But, sir, I hope we shall at least have the satisfaction, before this address is voted, of hearing not icy o some explanation from the Secretary of State of the incom prehensible passages in his despatch to which I have called attention. I hope we shall hear from him why, being in that he did pol France possession—full and frank possession —of the policy of an French d eve Government,n precipitated communicatewhiitchtohuesandour allies, why he followed a policy in Italy which favoured him self disapproved of, and why, when he placed these papers before us, he placed them in such a manner that it is with the utmost difficulty that we can arrive at'the policy of the Government, but of which, under these circumstances, I will only say of it what the noble lord has said of the Em peror of the,French—that "it fills me with distrust; and I believe will lead to disturbance:: (Loud cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who was received with cheers from the Ministerial benches, said—l think, Sir, that the house will be of opinion that the time for the full discussion of the important matters that have occupied the greater part of the speech of the right hon. gen tleman has not yet arrived—(hear hear)—but will be afforded at that probably early period when we shall be invited by the motion of the honourable member for Bridg water toenter on the consideration of the conduct of the Government, and of the position of the country with reference to the province of Savoy. (Hear, hear.) At pre sent it is necessary for mo to sa but very little on that or yif any other question of point. If the question of Savo y , f foreign policy upon which a difference of opinion with the French Government might possibly arise, was before the Cabinet of her Majesty at the time when the substance of this treaty was negotiated, it was before us a s a compara tively remote and hypothetical difficulty • , and I hold that, inasmuch as, in the state of European politics which exists at the present day, you cannot expect a uniform concurrence of opinion between two great and in dependent countries like England and France, therefore if we were to contemplate the possible occurrence of cases in which it migh be our duty frankly to express our dissent from any proposition of France, and to point out to her the evils which might follow its adoption, the very best mode of strengthening our own position for all events was to unite cordially with France in a great act of policy, fraught with benefittcrhoth countries; to which we were frankly invited by her, and which, whatever might occur, was the best preparation for friendly relations between the two Go vernments, because it tended not only to create these friendly relations between the Governments, but also to give! them a broad and deep and solid basis in the friendly sympathies of two nations. (Hear, hem Tk" Itu respect to the course of the debate I must confess should be , perfectly content to rest the argument for the treaty of commerce with France, irrespective of the 41e speech made by a member of the Government, upon the various speeches which have been delivered by hon. gentle men, most of them, though not all, sitting on this side of the house, beginning with the admirable spell' of my hon. And the member for Middlesex, ea ably seconded by the hon. ' member for Leeds, and fol lowed by a long list of gentlemen who brought to the sup port of this treaty every gift of knowledge and ability, ailid among whom if I do not include the hon. baronet the moil bar for Tamworth it is only because of the much tpo favourable and flattering terms in which he thought fit Ito allude to myself. (Hear, hear.) At the same time' I an sorry to say that there was one speeeh which, ifl I estimate it aright, stands in striking contrast with the general tone of the debate. I refer, of cousse, to t e speech of my honourable friend the member f r Stroud. (Cheers.) Her Majesty's Government have been unfortunate beyond description during the present ses sion in attempting to win the favour of my right honour able friend. (A laugh.) Scarcly had the session Opel* when he complained that never did a Government pit sent to Parliament so scanty a programme of busi ness ; but scarcely had it proceeded three weeks more when he again complained that such was the crowd and mass of business forced upon the attention of the house by the Government that they were greedily and irrationally demanding from private members a portion of time which did not belong to them. (Cheers.) My right hon. friend told us to-night that he is an older Freetrader than any gentleman except one who sits upon the Treasury bench— (cheers from the Opposition)—and yet almost in the same breath he informed us that the country which diminishes its import duties makes a present of its revenue to the foreigner., (Cheers and laughter.) Two millions, says he, of import duties we shall have made a present of to France before France begins to act upon this treaty. Such is the mode in which my right hon. friend illustrates his old ex perience and his happy conception of the doctrines of free trade. (Cheers and laughter.) My right hon. friend says that the Government have contrived in this treaty to betray the interests of England, and at the same time to ruin the interests of France ; for, he tells us, whoever supports the plans of the French Emperor is, in the opinion of the French people, ruining the interests of France. He says, again, that by the 11th article of the treaty my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who is necessa rily in a peculiar degree responsible for every treaty, and the entire Government have abandoned and betrayed the highest and most vital interests of this country ; and yet he is perfectly satisfied, as. he declared in another part of his speech, to leave in the hands of my noble friend the conduct of our foreign relations. These are the declarations of my right hon. friend, but they are declarations of secondary importance, because they merely express the criticisms of an individual member of Parliament on the conduct of the Government. There were graver matters involved in his speech—(hear, hear)—and, as a member of the House of Commons, as an Englishman, and not less as one holding office under the Crown, I must take leave to enter my respectful protest against the whole tone and language of my right hon. friend, when he described the character, policy, and conduct of a neighbouring and friendly nation. (Cheers.) My right hon. friend, in drawing a contrast between England and France, said that the policy of France was "aggression, aggrandize ment, and war." (Cheers from the Opposition.) I admit to my right hon. friend that if the time has really come when it is the duty of a member of the British Parliament, of a man of ability and experience like my right hon. friend, thus to describe the permanent and standing character and policy of a neighbouring and friendly nation, then, indeed, it is inappropriate to be discussing either treaties of corn • merce or amendments to treaties of commerce, not to speak of some paltry amendment relating to tie export of coal,but we ought to have a sweeping and unmistakable vote of con demnation passed at once upon the treaty that has been made and upon the Government that has made it. .(Hear, hear.) Again, says my right hon. friend, it is not the best way to secure peace with the French people to wound and irritate their feelings. That is one of the dicta necessary to make up the budget of inconsistencies and contradictions which my right hon. friend has exhibited to-night. "It is not the best way to wound and irritate their feelings." I ask him to put himself in their position, and then to inquire of himself whether, if he had heard suck a speech delivered by a subject of a nation in peace and alliance with his own, his feelings would or would not have been wounded and irritated ? (Cheers.) But my right hon. friend endea voured to save himself by drawing a minute distinction be tween the Government and the nation, and he told us that we were conspiring against the French people with their ruler. Does he really imagine that, in order to soothe the feelings of the French people, he has only to draw these distinctions between them and their Government, which no I foreign nation has a right to draw ? We have no right, I re peat, to draw such distinctions. It is not only an interference, bait it is an interference of the most offensive kind—(cheers) I —and if there be in France one spark of that patriotism which I we weretold to foster in England, every Frenchman must I read, as every Englishman wouldread,withindig,nationmuch of what has been said to-night. (Cheers.) It appears to me that there is no great difficulty in construing the passage whichhas been quoted by the right hon. gentleman opposite from the despatch of Lord Cowley on the subject of the treaty. I think he gives it too narrow a construction if he intends it to be understood that the *pinion of the Government was that only on polibic.l grounds was this treaty to be judged. Wo have always frankly admitted that the treaty must be tried upon its merits with reference to commerce and trade, and with reference - also to the indirect effects which com merce and trade would produce. (Hear, hear.) 'With re spect to political grounds, we could not, undoubtedly, be insensible to the fact that there was much at the time when these negociations were going on in which France and Eng land had a common feeling, and in which France and Eng land jointly were the main European champions of the principles and representatives of the Powers by which alone we could hope to see the affairs of Europe settled. When we looked to Italy, which has long been a suppressed vol cano, certain to burst out and to produce most dangerous complications in Europe, no impartial man could deny that, whether tho Emperor's title to make war in Italy was good ' or bad, no inconsiderable effects had been produced by the I , war, whether th"y were duo to the valour of France or to I the moderation of Austria, and no inconsiderable progress 1 made towards the settlement of Italian affairs, which upon every ground of European interest and of British feeling was a consummation much to be desired. (Hear.) Take the state of feeling in Italy. It surely could not be possible for any rational man to see the state of things that prevailed in Italy and not to desire to make an effort, in itself beneficial, but likewise recommended by the likeli hood of its being successful, for the purposes of applying a i remedy, or at least a palliative. We had the greatest alarm and apprehension in the public mind on the scero ef military preparations. Wo had an immense and constantly growing increase of our own expenditure, connected verymuch with that alarm and apprehension. Last year it was the painful duty of the Government to propose a great addition to the burdens of the country, and we had the prospect of furtherad ditional expenditure in the present year and for a long suc cession of years. Was not that a reason for endeavouring to act upon the alarm and apprehension which prevailed, not by the discontinuance of measures which the safety of the country required, but by the adoption of a process which, like the silent and ceaseless processes of nature herself, would bring into play a thousand beneficial influences on the side of peace, and which from day to day and from year to year would counteract the prevailing alarms by under mining their causes, and by substituting for whatever re mained of panic on the one hand or undue military spirit on the other those solid habits and usages of friendship which are cemented and strengthened by the peaceful in tercourse of commerce and trade? (Cheers.) But the political part of the treaty I will not dwell upon, and I will go to those portions of it which are more within my own proper sphere. And here I have listened with great satis faction to the course of the present debate, because I take it for granted that the best objections that could be made to the treaty have been made. And what do they come to ? We have heard something of bargains, and we have been told that this treaty is a bargain, that we have asked for equivalents, and that we have not got them. Sir, I deny that this treaty has ever been a bargain, for it is of the es sence of a bargain that you give away something which it would be of value to you to retain, and that you receive something which it is important to the otter party to keep. (Hear, hear.) This is a reciprocal instrument if you like, but a bargain it is not, for you are giving nothing to France that is not a gift to yourself, and you are receiving nothing from France except measures by which France confers a a benefit upon herself. (Cheers.) 'ln the first place it would be unnecessary, and in the next place it would be mischievous, to inquire the precise measure of percentage on this article- or on that—whether the restraint on the exportation of rags is duly balanced by the duty on paper, or whether the duty which France leaves on the raw silk she sends to us shall be removed when we are sending her enormous quantities of raw silk without any duty at all. All these propositions it was unnecessary, and much worse than unnecessary, to en tertain. The hon. member for Stamford fell into a ludicrous error last night. He speaks of the slovenliness of the treaty with regard to the export drags. He says we have covered that by obtaining the removal of the prohibition, but that is only one fault in the treaty, and there are 20 others. But that is not a fault in the treaty. We have never attempted the impossible task of constructing such a system of equi valents. We have had warning enough in the experience of former years. And what says the hon. and learned mem ber for Belfast, who finds fault with us and comes forward to instruct us? He finds fault with us for not having en tered into these minute adjustments—for not having settled how much duty should be levied on linen goods, and then he says, "Why not go to Sp a i n and see whether she will not enter upon these minute and endless discussions ?" will tell him why. Because we knew quite well that, if there were any means of obstructing the progress of free trade, it was by entering upon these negociations in the spirit of bargain that he recommends. And even that is not all, for, not only would ho have been entangled, if he had had the management of these negociations, in hopeless complica tions that would have made 'lira times out of mind pray his stars that he had never meddled with it—(cries of " —but while he was involved in the attempt to disentangle these inexplorable difficulties and complications—and I really pay him the compliment of saying that he was the man to de it if it could be done —the whole of these proceed ings involving millions o f revenue, would have become pa tent to the public, and the last result of that blessed under taking would have been a total paralysis alike of trade and of revenue, and of no inconsiderable portion of the commerce and industry of the country. (Cheers.) These, sir, are the reasons why we declined these negotiation, and it is no blot on the treaty that it does not provide for the free export of rags. We came to the conviction that if France once frankly, sincerely, and de cisively entered upon the career of freedom of trade, her own experience of the commencing stages would be a secu rity for her proceeding onwards towards its confirmation such as we could not by any other ;news obtain, (Cheers.) That is the meaning of the treaty, and that is the reason of the avoidance of these minute arrangements, which, hope less and impossible at any time, would have been mischie vous and absurd under the particular circumstances, be cause they would have led to a total misconception of the fundamental principles of the treaty. That is the reason why the treaty has been framed such as it is; and not such as has been recommended by the hon. and learned gentle man opposite, I will only say one word on what fell from the hon. member for Norfolk, who says that the increase of the income tax is due to this treaty. I must say that is a very inaccurate statement of the case. In the first place it must be recollected that the loss really due to the treaty is extremely small in amount. In all the stages of our pro ceedings we never have given it with precision —I have never heard any computation of the exact loss of revenue we shall incur by the treaty with France, because we have endeavoured to deal with it conjointly with the whole loss arising from.the treaty. But France is not to be charged with the benefit arising to Spain or Portugal through the admission of their wines at a low price, nor are we, so far as I am aware, bound by an y t rea ty t o extend unconditionally to those countries the benefits we extend to France. The whole annual amount of loss of revenue under the treaty on our commerce with, France cannot, I think, even at the outset, be estimated at more than'£6o,ooo or £70,000 a year —that is, including the ultimate fall of the wine duties, which will not take place before the expiration of 9 months. On commercial grounds, then, I put against a very small loss of revenue for a year the promise of a very great exten sion of trade. (Cheers.) Wish regard to the great staples of France, wine and brandy, the reduction of duty is such as to promise a _great increase of trade. As regards our selves I wish to call the particular attention of the house to this—that we have long acted on the principle that all differential duties are impolitic and bad, and that there is not even a single duty of any moment—l am not sure there is even one of the very smallest that we abandon under the treaty with France that is not strictly a differen tial duty. (Cheers.) I look to France, and I must say that I can conceive no measure more qualified to attach the people of France than a treaty like this. We have been told that the people of France, forsooth, are opposed to thistreaty. So far as I have had opportunities of judging, I should say it appears to me the case is this—that there is a limited and powerful class in France to which, at any rate for the me. ment, the treaty may be obnoxious. But you have hardly any country where so large a mass of the population are so directly interested, not only as consumers, but also as pro ducers, and whose productions would immediately receive so greatly increased a value from a commercial treaty, and you will have another most powerful agency that willattach the people of France to this treaty and l 'all connected with it. France is likely to receive a very large increase of, Customs revenue under this treaty. What can be more beneficial to France than a treaty which will enable the Government to reduce the additions to the direct taxation of that country ? I believe that even the hon. member for Birmingham will admit that the people of France are not so enamoured of direct taxation as not to see with pleasure the prospect of its remission. (Hear, hear.) I must confess I have the strongest conviction that there is another great commercial benefit not alluded to in this debate, but which may be anti cipated from this treaty. Should circumstances be favour able to its development, I do not think that anything could withstand the moral contagion of France and England acting together in the sense of liberty of commerce. (Cheers.) As long as England stood alone it was easy to say—" This na tion has grown old and great by protection, and she can afford to throw away the ladder by which she has mounted to eminence." That is the current language. I admit that' the admirable example we set has been but slightly, reluctantly, and partially followed, and I believe that the right hon. gentleman, who, I admit has spoken with mode ration, is in error in supposing that the Emperor was about to introduce a system of an analogous kind by independent legislation in France. Such an opinion is totally contrary to the information we possess. It rests upon no documents. The right hon. gentlemen has, I think, mistaken the nega tive promise of the Emperor, that no prohibitions should be removed before a certain date, for a positive promise of the Emperor that at that date those prohibitions shall be re moved. It was not a fraud practised on the people, but we enabled the Emperor to hold out to France additional in ducements by which the system of prohibitions might be altered. But the advantages to be derived from this treaty will go far beyond France, for I believe that the example of France joined with England in one course and policy will spread far beyond the limits of those two countries, and the results which the changes in this treaty ought to achieve will be not merely making 2d. into 4d., as an hon. member has said, but knitting together the hearts and minds of men, and the benefits will spread from region to region and from country to country. (Cheers.) We must now consider shortly what are the articles on which many of the hopes of the opposition to this treaty are founded. Great hopes which had been entertained with regard to one item were dispelled by the prudent and kindly announcement we were per mitted to make the other evening on the part of the French Emperor—(cheers)—but, though rags have failed, yet some hopes were entertained until a recent period on the -subject of shipping. The hon. member for Sunderland very frankly admitted that when he first read the article with regard to shipping—the 3d article—he, in common.with the rest of the world, totally misunderstood it--(laughter)—but he congratulated himself that he had by study extricated himself from his error, whereas a portion of the wor ld are still wandering in darkness. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) We have had unfortunate proof that such is the case. My , hon. friend the member for Stamford showed last night that he did not understand the article, and the right hon. mem ber for Buckinghamshire, following hini to night with ready confidence, has likewise exhibited a similar unac quaintance with the spirit and intention and whole effect and character of this article. The hon. member for Stam ford 'began by ascribing to Government a defence of the article which the Government did not make, and having set up a lay figure wherewith to fight, he, of course, had no difficulty in knocking it down. (A laugh.) He said that the Government defended the article by asserting that it related to the indirect trade. My right hon. friend last night did not so defend it. I say that it does not refer to the indirect trade, but to the direct trade only. I want to give an example of the extravagancies into which ingenious men are led—(ironical cheers from the Opposition)—when there is something or other to which they must object. " Now mind," it is said, " you must object to the 3d article ; handle it, turn it over, see what you can make of it, but object to it you must ;" and so my hon. friend oppo site detected a deep plot in this article, and urged that the Freneh Emneror had outwitted_and gutrannetbe negotiators. The article secures differential duties on French shipping; and it is 'true that these differential duties are not paid by British shipping; but my hon. friend says that the meaning is obvious, and that the French Em peror, having got the treaty of commerce, will give notice to terminate the treaty of navigation, land then the diffe rential duties will be applicable to British shipping. An argument more far-fetched, or more contrary to nature and reason, there could not be than one which supposed that the man who with almost unpiiralleled boldness has under taken to negotiate this treaty in France, in the teeth of so much interested opposition, would the day after pledg ing himself in the face of his people the principles of free trade,. reverse the only instrument which prevents the unlimited protection of shipping, and revert to the old state before the treaty. But that is not all, for what would be the effect if the Emperor exercised this cun ning ? It is perfectly true that, if the treaty of navigation were at an end, this 3d article would enable the Emperor to impose against English - shipping the differential duties which now exist in the French law,—that is to say, that by terminating the, treaty of navigation he would obtain a limited power of imposing differential duties.' But what should we get ? That proceeding would give to us the un limited power of imposing duties on French ships, for then there would be nothing to prevent our prohibiting the en trance of every French ship into our ports. (Hear, hear.) Let me give to my hon. friend the real, natural, and true account of this article. So far from having to apologize on account of this treaty to those who represent British ship ping, the Government maintain that the treaty does much for British shipping. What will be the increase of the coal trade under this treaty ? What is the meaning of your alarms and fears for the exhaustion of English coal in 300 years? At any rate, as long as it lasts a great many more English ships will be employed in carrying it. (Cheers.) Perhaps you think that French ships will carry it all. On the contrary, of the shipping employed in the trade 69 per cent. are British ships, 28 per cent. French ships, and the other 3 per cent. are foreign ships. Tlidge list, going from English ports to France, are in the indirect trade, and lia ble to the differential duties ; and the article was inserted to prevent competition with the French shipping in the in direct trade on the part of Swedes, Danes, and others ; se that there is a small pinch of the powder of protection in favour of French shipping and likewise of British shipping. (Hear, hear.) At any rate the hon. gentleman opposite will not think that that part of the treaty was written in Bedlam. (Laughter.) Ships constituted one of the points on which great hopes long turned, and those hopes have not been abandoned to 'night by the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire ; but I trust that he also is now satisfied as to the object and scope of the article. Everything else having blown down, there still remained the subject of coal, which has been thought strong enough to bear the weight of an amendment. I do not think that the right hon. member fir Stroud has done justice to himself, for this is but a narrow conclusion to a broad speech. His speech went much further, and the conclusion ho has arrived at is, compared with the speech, so inade quate that I am afraid the right hon. gentleman cannot go home easy to-night. (Laughter.) At any rate, he has the consolation of reflecting that he made a gallant struggle to save one of the most vital interests of England. (A laugh.) T must say, however, that I do not think my right hon. friend relies much on what may be called the extra-com mercial part of the case. He did not enter into details on that part of the subject relating to the prerogative of the Crown, nor will I now attempt to do so. I will satisfy my self with stating that, so far as we are 'advised, with re spect to the rights of the Crown no duty arising out of any obligation that appertains to it is in the smallest degree compromised, qualified, or surrendered !by . this treaty. (Hear.) The question we have to consider is entirely a commercial question. It is the question whether we ought to enter into an engagement, even for the period of 10 c to lay no duty on the exportation of c oal to France. ( H ear , l y o e n n g r s e w s h h o i Uh a l d ab s c o ol nu tt ie n l y b u aninced sus of the during treaty b t e h a r et pe s lv r e o d d o — n il — r hear.) It is clear, however, that we could not enter into any treaty of commerce with France without having assur ance of her and she of us that we would not be subjected to exceptional legislation. I think, therefore, no one will take the slightest objection to the 19th article, by which France is secured against any exceptional legislation on our part. The question, then, is whether we have done wisely or un wisely in undertaking that for a period of 10 years at least we shall impose no export duty on the 'Article of coal • arid w hether or not this is a fit subject for such an amendment as my right hon. friend has proposed. I trust the house will not entertain that amendment, on any other except the very strongest grounds. Thehouse is going to the foot of the Throne to express its loyal sense of duty at this com mencement of an arrangement which it declares, willin its judgment, be beneficial to the interests of commerce and of peace ; and in such circumstances no person would obtrude such an amendment as is now proposed, except from a very strong sense of duty. (Hear, hear.) And what is that sense of duty ? That I had better leave inscrutable. (A laugh.) But what I will ask is—What is the object or policy my right hon. friend hopes to defeat by pressing upon the house the adoption of this amendment - I hope the notion has been disposed of tbat the object of France iu regard to the article of coal is a military one. lam sure that in the mind of any impartial person it is impossible that such anotion could remain for a s i n gl e mom ent.' (Hear.) the first place, France has con t r i ve d at this moment to secure a fleet, by means of whi c h fl ee t s h e has considerably shaken the ith nerves of a portion of the population of England t the favour of any stipulation on our part not to prohibit the o export of coal. (Hear.) The whole extent f . the naval consumption of France is 16 0 , 000 tons, representing l e t ntang a value of £200,000. (Hear.) The whole affair is u insigni ficant. (Hear.) Why, as larg e a quantity has been raised from a single mine, and we have been told that at one iron w a u-se of a single week. (Hear.) For piovrskmaosutmhuicnhthceoactl has been consumed as useless at the the description of small coal here referred to a good market at t foundfmroafrom in sa a France. t difference m a may under o t f h is a tinestion of cost, e t h t (Hoar.) a estimated i m T a t n e i d s French point of view, will be les, a ton, Wile Frencli expect to gain 100, a ton • cost, is tr e looked at yanbed and from tat very estimate , it will become evident to th house that a great deal of coal is certain to find a , market in France. (Hear, hear.) Let me state in a few work what is the rational eonstruction of this article, and what the motives of France are with regard to it. It may be true that the Fiench Government might have been in r duced to surrender or qualify this article, but I should have been ashamed to demand such a concession —(hear, hear)—for thete is no article of the treaty More 'beneficial in a commercial point of view, or one that will more powerfully tend to knit together in kindly feelings the two countries. (Hear.) To prohibit the export of coal is impossible, except the limited prohibition that might arise with respect to war. It it altogether outside the view of 1 this article to stop the exportation of coal. Te do so is just as impossible as it would be to prohibit the import of cotton, or to pi -event iron being dug out of the bowels of the earth. (Hear, hear.) France has abundance of coal for those pur poset that may be termed political. For the domestic use of the rich and for all the purposes of the State her coal is abundant; but for commerce her coal is scanty, and the physical conformation of France, and the wants of her manu facturers have gone far to determino_ the manufacturing enterprise of the country. Easy access to the raw material and abundant. supplies of fuel led to the creation of manu-1 factures. Put these two together and you have the com bination that ma k es S out h Lancashire' a * manufacturing county, with the great town of Liverpool behind it. The part of France in which there is the best access to the raw material, and therefore so far is the most desirable for her manufactures, is, the seaboard of the Atlantic; but then it is farthest from her supplies of fuel, that lie on the south coast. But give, Franco this treaty, .and an assurance that fir commercial purposes she can depend on a supply of coal, and then the cheapest part for obtaining coal in France will be that part that gives easiest access to the raw material. (Hear.) The places where cotton and other articles that come across the sea are to be found will also be the places where the coal will be lowest in price. (Hear, hear.) I have been inforthed that there are already migrations con templated in France from Ole centre and eastern parts of the country to localities on the Atlantic seaboard, where cheap coal is expected to be obtained. That is the process that goes on in this country, where the iron trade has gone to the neighbourhood of the coal pits, and where the cloth manufactures of Wiltshire and Dorsetshirs has moved into Yorkshire. (Hear, hear.) You can conceive no process more beneficial for the com mercial interests of France than this, or one better calcu lated to promote the advantage of the great mass of labour in both countries and to secure the peace of the world. (Hear.) The house will understand, then, why I declare that we could not take advantage of the offer of the French Government at one time, that rather than, allow the treaty to be lost they would consent to an alteration of this article. (Hear, hear.) But there seems to be au honest fear that, after all, we ought not to part with our coal as it is so valu able. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Dis raeli) most ingeniously laboured to cut down that estimate of coal, though he seemed rather afraid to state the result of his figures. He rather evaded the, point, and could not see the termination of our coal in less than some centuries. I am only sorry that my hon. friend behind me (Mr. Vivian), whe so clearly disclosed the facts of the case, was not heard by a larger number ofhon. members. (Hear, hear.) There is in the minds of the class of persons most closely con nected with coal-mining in England not the slightest ap prehension of an exhaustion of the stock. I have before me a letter from one of the best, most instructed, and most ex perienced coal-viewers in the north of England, in which I am informed that we have coal in this country to last for upwards of 2,000 years. I allude to Mr. Nicholas Wood. (Cheers.) But, as my hon. friend (Mr. Vivian) observed, that does not represent half the case ; for you don't reckon the unworked seams ; you don't reckon the deeper seams which are accessible ; you don't take into view the hun dreds of cases of new beds of coal which are discovered from Month to month in England. But, after all, is my right lion. friend sincere in this amendment? It does all very well as a subject for a speech in this house—(a laugh)—but are we really afraid I Does my right hon. friend econo mise the use of coal in his own house ? No. (Oh I) An hon. member says " Oh." I agree with his sneer. The consumption of coal is 70,000,000 tons; the quantity sent to France is 1,000,000 tons; if you are alarmed about the exhaustion of the existing stock you will economise on the remaining 69,000,000. (A laugh.) It would be absurd, it is said, when we consume 70,000,000 tons of coal at home, that we should export to another country 1,500,000 tons, which may increase to 3,000,000; we cannot afford it ; and therefore, we must retain power to restrain the export. Sir, these are not the grounds on which this house will carry an amendment to the foot of the Throne. (Cheers.) But I have done with this consideration. The hon. gentleman the mem ber for Norfolk says he thinks a War with France and Eu rope would be better than this treaty should receive a final sanction. (A laugh.) It is not often we have the benefit of hearing a gentleman stand up and with engaging frankness state calmly and coolly in this house that he would rather have a war with France and Europe than see this treaty ratified—adding, in the same breath, that no man is more alive than he to the blessings of peace. (Laughter.) I must confess I don't feel at all disappointed at the course of the discussion with respect to this treaty. I hope the hon. gen tleman will not think it all disrespectful to him if I use free language, and if I confess I think that that one sentiment, and one or two others which he has used in these debates, are not worthy of the high standard of legislative wisdom which I am sure he would seek and desire to attain. (Cheers and laughter.) Much has been said in the course of these debates that will not bear sober examination. Let us go back to the debates of 1787, and there we shall find that all the same foolish things and a great many others were said, and said too by very wise and distinguished men ; but timecasts a light on the events of those days. The mass of the coun try, at any rate so far as it can be tested by the ordinary re cords of the expression of opinion, has no share in these apprehensions. 1 don't wishto overstate the case, but when the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire travels backto a debate which took place three weeks ago, and rather glo rifies himself on the advice he then gave to the house, but which the house refused to follow, he ought to recollect that that refusal was uttered not only by the members of the Government, not only by the majority which a party can supply; but that into that majority there entered many of the most able and respected members from the opposite side of the house, who usually vote with the right hon. gen tleman himself. (Cheers.) He appeals to the future—to the future we also appeal. We cannot presume to predict the course of events. The experience of Mr. Pitt would warmais against any anal' preeuraptiOn. But althOUgh tltn instrument which he concluded was not intended to last, it did not on that account redound with the less honour to his name; we don't the less believe that even for the time it existed it may have done much to allay the excitement which in both countries followed the close of the American war, and to produce greater feelings of self-command among the English people in the earlier stages of the French Re volution. It is not for us to presume to say that this treaty will work with such power as to control future events, but if, by the blessing of the Almighty, the spirit of justice, prudence, and moderation shall prevail in the councils of Europe, then, looking to the state of Europe—to the power of every country to attain strength and eminence through the development of its internal resources, and to the absence of all legitimate causes of strife and collision, we ought to hope that that state of circumstances may remain under which this treaty may produce beneficial effects beyond any power of judging; and I must say that in that case I cannot but cherish the cheerful and sanguine expectation that it will of itself do something to make the year 1860 one memorable—memorable because fruitful of blessings—in the annals of Europe and mankind. (Loud and prolonged cheers.) Mr. NEWDEGATE, amidst cries of "Divide I" was understood to ask whether the sth article of the treaty, which touched the larger number of commodities, was to apply to commodities imported from all countries, or from France alone ? Mr. HORSMAN, in explanation, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had mistaken him in supposing that ho had said upon his own authority that there was any difference of opinion between the French Emperor and the French nation. He had quoted the language of the Emperor him self and of the French Journals. (Hear.) As there was a feeling that the carrying of any amendment upon the 11th article might effect the whole treaty—(laughter and cheers) —under those circumstances, in compliance with the wish that had been expressed by the majority of those who agreed with him, he should not press his amendment. (Divide.) The house then divided, when there appeared 56 For the amendment 282 Against .. 226 Majority The announcement of the numbers was received with cheers. Mr. NE WDEGATE inquired whether article 5 of the treaty would apply to goods imported from France alone, or to the goo ds imported from all countries. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said this was a point on which the hon. gentleman had before refused to accept his statement, and had expressed a st rong op i n i on of his own. If any point should arise which required to be elucidated, reference would be made to the law officers of the Crown. The motion for an Address to her Majesty was then agreed to, and a committee appointed in conformity with a resolution to that effect to prepare the terms of the Ad dress. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at 25 minutes to 2 o'clock. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—Mr. Benson, L udgate-hill, published anew illustrat e d pamphlet en watches has just (free by post for two :stamps). It should be read by all who are about buying a watch, as it contains prices and important informa tion as to—What watch to buy ! where to buy it ! and how to use it t [ADVERTI SEMENT.]—ItoIIoway's Pills, a certain cure for headaches, bile, loss of appetite , and lowness of spirits. These Pills can b e taken without danger from wet or cold, and require no interruption of business or pleasure. They act mildly on th e bowels , strengthen the stoma ch, and pro mote a healthy ac ti on of the liver, whereby blood, clea nse th e skin brace the nerves and invigorate the whol e system. They effect a truly wonder f u l c hange in a debilit a t e d cons titution, as they create a healthy aPPe'' tite, correct indigestion, remove bile, giddiness, headaches, and palpitation of the heart. Plain directions for using these Pills, at once so mild and efficacious, accom pany each box, llolloway's Pills may be fearlessly taken by the most delicate, [ADVERTISEMENT.]—Mothers and nurses will find Du Barry's delicious Revalenta Arabica Food admirably adapted to remove all disorders of the stomach and bowels to ' which infants and children are state all times liable, such as indigestion, flatulency, colic , dyry, diarrhom, consti pation, debility and restlessness. It strengthens, nou rishes, and is used with more advantage than milk in rearing infants. We quote a few out of many testimo nials :—" Amsterdam, 31st Dec. 1852.—Dear Sir,—Our child, up to the age of eleven weeks, was very delicate, and wasting away, and milk, sago, and arrowroot turned sour on its stomach, causing great suffering. We then fed it upon Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica, which agreed won derfully with her; and she is now, at tho age of nine months, a plump and lively little girl.—Daniel Serval." " Wildervank, Holland, 20th Sept. 1853.—Dear Sir, —Our baby, which Heaven presented us with ten months back, was attacked, when four weeks old, with a disease of the stomach and glands, by which our seven previous infants had all been carried off, and this last child seemed destined to follow its sisters and brothers before many days, for our doctor, a very able practitionex, had, during three 'a eels, exhausted all his skill, and was at a loss what to prescribe next, when he ad vi:;cd Du Barry's llevalen la ,t, which, I am happy to say, worked a great change for the better in a few days; and in six weeks time the child was perfectly well, and is now a cheerful blooming boy —a source of the greatest happiness tons all.—L. 11. Vaalmau. ,, In tins, at ls. 6d. ; 11b., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; 51b., 12s.4;oul2elosbnt. ~ 265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carri 7 a , g j e t free, egen re cei p to t_ n seet,id of p office order. Du Barry and Co., 7 63, Piccadilly an, ; Regent-s tr eet, 60, F or t num , Mason, and Co., 1 82, Gracechurch - street ; 4 , Cheapside ; Orford street; ; 330 and 451 , Strand ; 49 and G, 150, Oxford- Bishopsgate street ; 85, Tottenham -court-road. _Also at Dublin, B ew l e y 'and Draper; Edinb a ur , Rahnes and Co.; at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; t Dianehester, Sharp and Scott; at York, Ral mes , f - B1 at Snutk amptclOtandea and son. me Ard, and Co.; - I ~ -~ -~-5-~ PABLIA MEN 2',IR Y DIT7SIO-W. HOUSE OF, COMMONS.—Morten 9. TREATY WITH FRANCE, Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question (Bth March), " That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, to assure her Ma jesty that, having considered the treaty of commerce concluded between her Majesty and the Eniperor of the French, this house begs leave to approach her Majesty with their sincere and grateful acknowledgments for this new proof of her Majesty's desire to promote the welfare and happiness of her subjects . to assure her Majesty that we shall proceed to take such steps as may be necessary for giving effect to a system which we trust will promote a beneficial intercourse be tween Great Britain and France, tend to the extension of trade and manufactures, and give additional security for the continuance of the blessings - cif peace." - Question again proposed : —Debate resumed :=-Another Amendment pro posed, at the end of the Question, to add the words " But' humbly to represent to her Majesty ,that, in the opinion of this house, Article XL imposes on the Crown and Legislature of the country unnecessary and impolitic restrictions to which this house cankot assent ; and to pray her Majesty to effect the omission of that article from the treaty." Question put, " That those words be there added."—Th e house divided ; Ayes 56, Noes 282. _Pe v a e coc n _. skeye: G Viscount ArEs _ s6. 4,....... 1 ..,.; .IPAlgitia,i .5,1 Beach, W. W. B. Gore, J. R. 0. Bent - hick; G. - 0: - Greene, Capt. J. _pe i Bond, J. W. Hartopp, E. B. Ridley, Sir M. W Bovill, Wm., Hennessy, J. P. Rogers John W. Bridges, Sir 8., Bt. Henniker, Lord Smith, Abel Brooks, R. Hill, Hon. It. Spooner, 'lt. Burghley, Lord Hubbard, J. G. Stirling, Win. 'Cochrane, A. D. Ingestre, Viscount Steuart, A. Curzon, Viscount King, J. K. - Talbot, Hon. W. C. Darner, L: S. W. D. Knightley, R. Thynne, Lord E. Dawson, R. P. ' Leeke, Sir H. Trefusis, Hon. C. IL Dickson, Col. Long, R. P. Valetort, Lord Duncombe, W. E. Lygon, Hon. F. Vance, John Dunn, John 3lanners, Ld J. Vansittart, Wm. Edwards, Major H.' Newdegate, C. N. Vernon, L. V. Egerton, Sir P. Nicol, William Way, Arthur E. Eiphinstone, - Sir J,-North, Col.-- - -- •- --- - - Fergusson, Sir J. Paking,ton, Sir J. S. TELLERS. Gard, R. S. Palmer, R. W. Horsman ,E. George, John Parker, Major W. Bentinck, G. W. P. NOES-282. Adam, W. P. Freeland, 11. W. Moody, C. A. Adeane,t H. J. Gaskell, J. M. Morris, D. Agar-Ellis, lion. L. Gavin, Major Mowbray, Rt. lin. J. Agnew, Sir A. Gibson; T. Ti. Newark, Lord Alcock, T. Gifford, Earl of Noble, J. Andover, Lord Gilpin, C. Norris, J. T. Angerstein, W. , Gladstone; Capt. North, F. - Antrobus, E, Gladstone, W. E. O'Brien, P. Arnott, Sir J. Glyn, G. G. Ogilvy, Sir J. Atherton, W. Goddard, A. L. Onslow, Guildford Brwell, J. Goldsmid, Sir F. O wen , Si r J . - Bailey, C. Gordon, C. W. Packe, G. H. Baines, E. Greaves, Edward Paget, C. Baring, Thos. Geo. Greenall, G. Paget, Lord C. E. Bass, M. T. Greenwood, J. Palmerston, Visct. Bathurst, ik A. - - -Greville, Col, F. - Patten, J. W. - Baxter,'W. E. Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir G. Paxton, Sir J. Bazley, Thomas Grey deWilto,,Lord Pease, H. Beale, Samuel Gurdon, B. Peel, Sir It. Bellew, It. M. Gurney, John H. Peel, F. 4 , Berkeley, F. Gurney, Samuel Pete., Sir M. Betheli, Sir It. Hadfield, Geo. Pilkington, James Biggs, John Hanbary, R., jun. Pinney, Wm. Black, Adam Hanbury, Captain Portman W. IL' B. Blake, J. A. Handley, John Pritchard, John Blencowe, J. G. Hankey, Thomson Proby, Lord. G. L. Botfield, Beriah . Hardy, Gathorne Pugh, D. (Carmar.) Bouverie, E. P. Hartington,lilarquis Puller, C. W. Bouverie, P. P. Hayes, Sir E. S. Raynham, Viscount Brady, John Headlam, Thos. E. Ricardo, O. Bramston, T. W. Henley, Lord Ridley, G. Bright, J. Herbert, H. A. Robartes, T. J. A. Bristow, A. Herbert, S. Robertson, D. Brocklehurst, John Hervey, Lord A Roebuck, J. A. Brown, James Hodgson, K. D. Rothschild,BaronL Browne, LordJ. T. Holland, E. - Roupell, - W. - Buchanan, W. . Hope, G. W. Russell, Lord J. Buckley, Maj.-Gen.. Hornby, W. H. Russell, Hastings Buller, J. W. Howard, Hon. C. Russell, A. J. El' Buller, Sir A. Howes, Edward Russell, F. W. Butler, C. S. liumberstone, P. S. St. Aubyn, J. Butt, Isaac Hunt, G. W. Salomons,Ahlerman Buxton, C. Hutt, W. . . Salt, Titus Byng, Hon. G. H. C. Ingham, R. Scrope, G. P. Caird, James Ingram, 11, . Selwyn, C. J. Calthorpe, F. H. Jackson, W. Seymour, Sir M. Cardwell, Rt. lin. E. James, Edwin Shafto, It. D. Castlerosse, Vist. Jermyn, Earl Shelley, Sir J. V. Cavendish, Hon. W. Jervoise, Sir J. ' Sheridan, R. B. Carley, E. S. Johnstbue, Hon. H. Sheridan, 11. B. Childers, H. C. E. Johnstone, Sir J. Smith, J. B. Cholmeley, Sir M. Kendall, N. Smith, M. T. Clay, James Kershaw, J. Smith, Augustus Clifford, C. C. King, Hon. L. Smith, Sir'F. Clinton, Lord R. King - lake, Serj. J. Somerville, Sir W. Clive, George Kingseote, Lt.-Col. Stackpole, W. Coke, W. C. Kiimaird, Hon. A. Stafford, Marquis of Colebrooke, Sir T.E. Knatelibull-Hugess Stanhope J. B. Cowper, Hon. W. F. Knox, Major NV. S Steel, John Craufurd, E. H. J Laing - , S. Stuart, Col. Crawford, It. W. Lanigan, J. Sykes, Col. IV. H. Crook, Joseph Lawson, W. Taylor, Hugh Cross, It. A. Leatham, E. Tempest, Lord A.V. Crossley, Frank Lefroy, A. Thompson, H. S. Dalglisti, Robert Lee, W. — Tite, Wm. Davey, R. Legh, G. C. Tollemache, Hon.F. Davie, Sir H. R. F. Lewis, Sir G.C., Bt. Turner, J. A. Davie, Col. F. Liddell, Hon. H. G. Vandeleur, Col. Deasy, Rickard Lindsay, W. S. Verney, Sir Harry Denman, G. Lindsay, Colonel Villiers, Rt. Hon. e. Dent, John Dent Locke, Joe. , Vivian, 11. H. Dillwyn, Lewis L. Locke, John Waldron, L. Divett, Edward Lockhart, A. E. Walpole, S. H. Douglas, Sir C. Lowe, Rt. Hon. R. Walter, John Duff, M E. Lyall, G. Warre, J. A. Duke, Sir James Lysley, W. Watkins, J. L. V. Dundas, Frederick M'Cann, J. Wemyss, J. unkalin, Lord Mackie, J. Western, T. S. Dunlop, A. Mackinnon, W. A. Westhead, B. Egerton, A.'F. Maguire, J. F. Whalley, G. H. Ellice, E., jun. Mainwaring, T. Whitb rea d, S. Emlyn, Viscount Marjoribanks, D. C. White, Luke Ennis, Jelin Marsh, M. H. Wickham, 11. W. Evans, T. W. Marshall, W. . Williams, W. lowan, - Miriam Martin, r. w. - Wike, J. A. Ewart, J. C. Martin, J. Wood, Rt fin. Sire. Ewing, H. E. C. Massey, W. N. Woods, Henry - Penwiek, Henry Matheson, A. IV$ Id, James brinoy, Lord Merry, James Wynn, CoI. Finlay, A. S. Mildinay, 11. Wynne, C. G. Foljambe, F. J. S. Miller, William Wynne, W. W. B. Forster, Charles Mitchell, T. A. Wyvill, M. Foster, W. O. Moncreill; J. TELLERS. Fortescue, Hon. D. Molise'-1, Rt. Tin. W. Brand, 11. B. Fortescue, C. S. Montgomery, Sir G. Dunbar, Sir Wm. RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE. GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN. The half-yearly meeting of this company was held in Glasgow on Wednesday; Sir Andrew Orr in the chair. The CHAIRMAN said there was a fear last half year, on the part of some of their more prudent shareholders, that the directors in paying 5 per cent. had rather overstrained matters, thereby going a little beyond their ordinary prudent course. The results had removed all these doubts, as they had now not onlypaid 5 per cent. on all their stocks, with nearly £6,000 to begin the succeeding half year with, but the most liberal and ample provision had been made for contingencies. (Cheers.) If the traffic had not been so seriously affected from so many furnaces being temporarily placed out of blast in Ayrshire, to the extent of over £5OO a week, they might have considered the propriety of recommending even an addition to the 5 per cent., but the directors deemed it more prudent to adopt the course they had taken. During the last half year the addition to the capital account had been. only £6,500 for additional plant and outlay at the new station at Dumfries. The payment of £lB,OOO for one half-year of the issued preference shares in the Castle Douglas Comp any he did not vi ew as an increase to capital, as it was a good 5 per cent. in vestment, which had been provided for by money increasingat 4 per cent.so rabidly raisedtrade found their mineral ey that no time must be lost in providing for itsproper accommodation. They wer e now working the Castle Douglas in ad dition to the Ayr and Maybole Railway ; the Gir van line they had agreed to work also. And all these, with the growing demands of their own traffic, rendered the addition to the plant absolutely indispensable. Although the loan capital during the half-year had been some £12,000 more than in 1859, still the charge for interest on mortgage was actually £l,OOO less than in the six months, owing to the reduction in the average rat es of interest which had been effected by bonds falling in. Their rate of interest at present was only about £4 ls. 7d. per cent. if they excluded some Dal mellington 5 per cent. bends which they had to take over with that line. (Cheers.) The Port patrick Railway would add 60 miles to their sys tem, besides being the means of greatly increasing their traffic on the Castle Douglas line, on which they were interested to the extent of one-half of the capital. They proposed to increase their sub scription to the Portpatrick from £60,000 to £lOO,OOO. He then alluded to the proposed amal gamation of the Caledonian, Edinburgh, and Glas gow, and Central Companies, to which he was fa vourable, and thought it should be further extended. A long discussion ensued, in the course of which the report was adopted, and a dividend at the rate of 5 per cent. per annnm was declared on the ordi nary stock. Resolutions were also passed autho rising the purchase of a portion of the new prefe rence shares created by the Castle Douglas and Dumfries Company,' also of shares in the Maybole and Girvan Railway to the extent of i 5,000 ;em power ing the directors to subscribe an additi ona l su m not exceeding £4 10 , 000 towards the Port patrick Railway, but at the same time expressing regret at the necessity for such an increase in their ' subscription t rip r t e io i n ri The retiring directors and. auditorre elected, and the pr ocee di ngs were terminated with a vote of thanks to the L EWES o AND UCKFIELD. in Th e e o r r e r p esp ert n of the directo rs s tated that they were Brighton ltail a w c a n y ee Com wi ptahn y the t o d i t r h e o c, to s r a s ie o o f f the t e railway, and had received a communication from the latter that, they were prepared. mbject to the approval of their proprittor4, to become the pur chasers by issuing to the Uckfiald Company, as the consideration for such transfer, preferential 4 per cent. stock of the Brighton Company to theamount of £33,900, the Brighton Company taking uponit self the mortgage debt of the company, amounting to £13,400. The directors believed that those terms would be considered satisfactory, and they intended convening a special general meeting of the shareholders at an early period to sanction a sale on such terms accordingly. They would in the meantime receive their dividend at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum for the past-half-year. ~. .-~` ~-r-. y re at it neral r the .oyed es of 1 be cene- ~- N