The Sun. — London, England, 1860-03-09 00:00:00

with France, as it was at present. The navigation laws with regard to the French trade were divided into four heads. There was the direct trade between this country and France, it reminded him of Swif 's story, when he talked of the fears of the people of Laputa, who, although they enjoyed many advantages of soil and climate, yet were perpetually troub lingthemselves with the apprehension that some day or other therays of the sun would be excluded, and they should be unable to derive any warmth or light from its rays. (Hear, hear.) Bearing ou all the objections which had been urged, he would ask the house whether they believed the treaty was right in principle, and if carried out fairly and honourably, would conduce to the advantage of the two con tracting parties. Did they believe it had been entered into in &sprit of friendship and in the hope that a cordial alliance night be concluded between the people of the two countries, and that it would bear the scrutiny of time and the judgment of posterity ? if the house could return an affirmative on these points, he asked them for their co-operation in the ad dres he was about to place in the Speaker's hand. They had all probably consulted the precedent of 1787, but they thought the address moved for at that time deserved a pass ing notice The righ t hon. member for B uckertook a techni cal abjection to the words of that treaty, but he (Mr. Byng) found, upon reference, that it breathed the same spirit of loyalty to the throne which animated the address of to-night (Hear, hear.) But ho felt he had another duty to perform, If it were true that the man ought to be considered a bene• factor of mankind who made two blades of grass spring up where only one formerly grew, he (the hon. member) thought' a aaan was not less worthy to be considered a wise and useful citizen in his generation who gave up his time, health, for tune, and the mere precious treasures of private interest, to c ry out what he believed to be for the benefit of his coun try. They had seen such a man, and seen him rewarded in the successful results of the efforts he had made. But not contented with his position, he sought a wider scene of action, and wished that other countries should receive the benefits which had accrued to his own. There might be dif ferences of opinion with regard to this treaty. On the one hand people would be found to over-estimate its advantages, and, on the other hand, some would underrate its benefits, but he believed they were all united in thinking that, during the last few months, a wise and practical part had been • played by the hon. member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden)—(cheers) —and if the commercial treaty bore the good fruits which many an ticipated, he did net think it would least redound to the credit of the Commons of England that these negotiations have been entered into, and this treaty has been in the main concluded, by one of its own number. (Cheers.) In con clusion he would respectfully appeal to hon. gentlemen on the Government side of the house not to allow individual discrepancies of opinion to prevent their joining with himin this address. To those who sat opposite he would hold a different language. He would ask that . great historieal party—the conservative gentlemen of England—to approach this discussion in a spirit and tone worthy of the importance of the subject. He would ask them to lay aside private in terest and party prejudice while they discussed the question. It would be impossible to stifle discussion in that house, and it ought never to be attempted, but he would ask hon. mem bers to give a vote upon the present occasion which they could hereafter look to with genuine pride and lively satis faction. (Hear, hear.) If they object to the treaty finan cially, commercially, politically, morally, or socially let them return an indignant negative to his proposition. (Hear, hear.) If they believed that in these negotiations the honour and dignity of the English Crown and English interests had suffered, aacl that the Government had shown them selves inadequate to their position, let them displace the Go vernment ; and although he thought the country would not ratify such a proceeding—(hear, hear)—still the people would understand the manliness and straightforwardness of that step. (Hear, hear.) But if they believed, as he was confident the great majority of the house did, that the treaty would be beneficial to the interests of both England and France, then he would ask them to approach the sovereign with the proposed address, and to express with him by their votes a hope that, under the blessing of Providence, those two great nations might yet be more firmly united by com mon bonds, resting on identity of interests and reciprocity . of benefits, and that they would continue to act as they had hitherto done, as the pioneers of civilisation and pro gress in all parts of the habitable globe. (Cheers.) The on, member concluded by proposing the address to her Majesty. Mr. BAINES, in seconding the motion, said Ire had great satisfaction in joining his hon. friend in asking the house to give its approbation to a treaty which was framed to unite in ties of friendship, and to advance the prosperity of the two greatest nations in the world. He felt that her Majesty had conferred another great boon upon her sub jects by entering into the treaty ; and it was due to her that they should express their grateful thanks to her for it. History would mention the treaty as among the memorable events of her bright and :happy reign. (Hear, hear.) In expressing, as he did, the sentiments of his constituents upon that treaty, he believed he was speaking not merely for a great town possessing a considerable variety of impor tant branches of industry, but also for allthe great branches of industry in Yorkshire, Lancashire, and generally for the northern and midland counties of England. He might venture to say that by all those engaged in the manufac ture of cotton, woollen, worsted, linen, leather, porcelain, cutlery and hardware, and, in fact, all the great branches of English industry, the treaty was regarded as a means for opening new markets for their several commodities, and as a new pledge for the maintenance of peace. (Hear, hear.) He might mention that, although many articles of English manufacture ware displayed in the French Exhi bition of 1855, none of them were permitted to be sold. The customs laws of France prohibited their intro duction, and they had only been admitted by special license, as samples for the inspection of French manufacturers. That circumstance alone showed thet there was not that perfect alliance between the two nations which ought to exist. No one could deny that commerce was the best guarantee for peace, and the present treaty had been nego tiated for the express purpose of remedying the defect he had pointed out. The exports to France were disgracefully insignificant compared with the vast commercial resources of the two countries. In 1859 the total exports from England to different parts of the world amounted to £30,440,000, of which France, their nearest and wealthiest neighbour, only took £4,740,000, and it was that inequality which led her Majesty's Ministers to seize upon the-first opportunity for placing their commercial relations with that country on a better footing. In 1858 the imports into the United King , dom from France were £13,271,000, but the exports of Bri tish and Irish produce to France did not exceed £4,863,000, or little more than one-third. While in 1859 their exports of British manufactures and produce to France amounted to £4,740,000, in the same year their exports to other coun tries were as follows :—United States, £22,701,000 ; Nor thern Germany, which had a much smaller population than France, £11,777,000 ; Australia, with a population of one or two millions, £11,255,000; Holland, (£5,379,000; Turkey, £3,762,000 ; Russia, £3,493,000 ; Brazil, £3,386,000 ; Egypt and Arabia, £2,190,000. Therefore the mutually beneficial intercourse between England and Prance was im measurably below what ought to be expected, considering the natural advantages of both countries. Pitt's celebrated treaty with France of 1786-7 worked well until hostilities un happily broke out between the two nations, their trade with each other having in that interval continually and rapidly increased. Since that period we had had two kinds of ex perience ; first, twenty years of desolating war, by which the two countries were greatly affected, and civilisation aid Christianity seriously retarded ; and, next, forty years of commercial reforms, which had now their close in this treaty, which threw open England to the industry of the whole world. (Hear, hear.) It did not throw down all the barriers in France, but, in proportion, the French advance was greater than ours. Did not experience prove that they could take that step in favour of commercial freedom with perfect safety, and did they not by taking it encourage other nations to follow their example ? (Hear.) The various in terests in England which had been deprived of protection had, with some partial and temporary exceptions, been in a much more flourishing condition than they were under pro tection. (Hear, hear.) The rent roll of landlords had in creased, the farmer had more abundant produce and a larger income, the manufacturer a greater extension of his opera tions, and the merchant and tradesman a great increase of prosperity. In fact, every interest had greatly benefitted by the change. There were also social and constitutional results. The population was much more contented than when under protection, and those dangerous cenflicts of class against class, of the bread eater against the bread grower, had entirely ceased. They had also been enabled to enlarge the basis of the constitution, and it was a singular honour and felicity to the noble lord the member for the City of London that he was able to present himself to the house, and to receive the appropriate reward of a long course of consis tent patriotism by holding in one hand the treaty with France, and in th e ot h er the new Reform Bill. (Hear.) The French, it must be admitted, it s t u ed, possessed great advantages, and were pre-eminently ewebrreanycehryeso manufacture. They had grecactenssaftuulrailntassotem, in genious, and were remarkable for industry. enough t English othink conceited manufacturers were ignor an t and ede they could bear away the palm fromtlieFrench, but they were utterly mistaken, they would havetogo to France a that and learn how to improve themselves. Heconfessed he thought our competition with French manufacturers would be of infinite advantage to us, because wead rers enor mous substantial advantages on our side. W e had an immense accumulated capital —we had iron of most excellent quality in abundance ; we had coal, which with ' iron was one of the main agents of manufacturing industry, and in mechanical invention and in the construction of ma chinery we were unapproached by any othercountry. There was also no labourer that excelled the English labourer,who was remarkable for skill, industry, and endurance; and, further, that spirit of self-reliance was evinced on the part of the British manufacturers and their labourers which could not be found in any other country in the world. With perfect freedom of conatnerce and of political institutions, we had an impregnable position in a country open to all the ways of the commerce of the whole world, and protected by an invincible navy. The population among whom he chiefly moved had an earnest and tree wish to cultivate a spirit of harmony and friendship with the great French nation, and to forget old antipathies. He believed that the treaty was entitled to the general and complete approbation of the pee ple of England, and, in conclusion, he would say that the utmost reach of their historical and political experience brought them to appreciate the old doctrine and simple in junction which might be taken for the motto of a treaty of commerce—" Thou halt love thy neighbour as thy self." (Cheers.) Mr. LINDSAY maid that the treaty with France in 1786-7 was in all respects a treaty of recierocity, both as regarded commerce and navigation, and, therefore, it differed from the present treaty. They had been often invited to accept the latter treaty as a guarantee of peace between England and France, but they must not forget that within four years of the ratification of the treaty of 1786-7, which bound the two nations together by a much stronger tie, a most fearful war broke out between the two countries. Nevertheless, he felt bound to accept the treaty now before the house, and he . offeredh his best thanks to the G o ve r nment, and espe c i a lly t o Cobden for the way in which they had negotiated it, Luu tr ea of tY did not contain all he desired—it was very far n it e -- w b in ta it placed England in a better position than short and navoould give larger sources of employment to her people, c rt new markets for her commerce. He therefore felt g e ll e to call their attention totht;leupPort the treaty. But he wished third article, and to refer, more especially, to the maritime b that certain articleseaing of the question. Article one provided imported from the United Kingdom, but hitherto practically a prohibited should hence in no case exceed. forth be admitted on payment °I referencelnteonj ing 30 pericent.,'and taking that artililtey- unction with g_it w o ou t differential the third article, which had against t eern that i" d in irected duties in favour of French sh this third article was especially shipping. The fact , h owever, was, that it did not tTt i er gl t i h sh r . present position of British ships in any way, By the fir st article France allowed cer tain articles to be imported at a duty of not more than 30 per cent., but did not define the country of the importing ships, leaving the importer open to send the goods in any bottoms he pleased. But for this third article of the treaty, therefore, Dutch .or American ships would have been able to conie to our ports and load our produce and manufactures for the ports of France. The article in question was consequently necessary to continue to our shipping in the main points, as regarded the trade in which the ships of either country might load in our ports the manufactures and produce of England for F ance with out being subject to any differential duties. Then there was the French coasting trade, which was confined entirely to French ships There was also the indi ct trade, viz., that between our dependencies and France d the trade be tween those dependencies and the mother country,into which, so far as we were concerned, the ships of France were per mitted to enter freely, as they were permitted also to coin pete in our coasting trade. They might go to Calcutta or Australia and load upon the same terms as English ships to English ports and under their own laws for their own ports , although British ships loading from the same places were prevented by high diffe ential duties from loading for the ports of France. And, next, there was the indirect trade as between foreign countries and France.— Under the recipro city treaties, an American ship might load from any port of America to any port of France; but when a British ship loaded ,a cargo from an American for a French port, the duty charged in France was so high as to be practically a prohibition. This restrictive course of commercial policy was no gain to France, but was was in fact more injurious and unjust to her own people than to us. This was proved by the results, for while the general trade and commerce of France had increased at a greater rate than that of any other coun try in Europe, not excepting even England, her shipping had remained almost at a stand-still. From 1827 to 1836 the trade of France had increased as compared with the previous ten years by 10,000,000,000 f. In the next ten years, from 1837 to 1846, the increase was 15,000,000,000 f., and from 1847 to 1856, the increase had been 22,000,000,000 f. And this was in regard to the special com merce of France only—that was to say, the commerce in articles imported for the use and consumption of her own people, or for their own manufactories for after export. If they turned to the general trade, the increase was still more astonishing. Yet her shipping remained without progress. In 1830 France held 14,852 ships, and in 1857 the number was only 14,845. True, they were of larger tonnage to some extent in the latter years, as compared with the former. (Hear.) But compare the total tonnage of the French mer cantile marine with ours. France did not possess one-sixth of the tonnage of England, or more than two-thirds that of New York. In 1787 France had engaged in the trade with San Domingo alone 527 ships, embracing 167,000 tons, and employing 8,500 seamen; while, in 1830, engaged in the trade of all her colonies she had only 407 ships, comprising 100,000 tons, and employing 6,000 seamen. He was fully justified, then, in saying that the people of France had the greatest right to complain of laws which produced results such as this. But we had also reason to complain that, although we had thrown open our ports to her ships, and had allowed her to share freely with us in our coasting trade, she had not made to us the slightest concession. (Hear, hear.) And it was essential, if the treaty, which he hoped would be confirmed, was to produce the beneficial re sults expected from it, that some change should be made by France in her navigation laws. If those laws remained as they were, and the trad e between the two countries increased, as they hoped it would under this treaty, large quantities of silk and wine would be exported from French ports to Eng land, and of British manufactures to French ports—mostly, he apprehended, in steamers. A French ship might load from any English port, and carry her cargo part to one French port and part to another; but if an English' ship loaded a cargo at Liverpool for France, part of it consigned to Havre and part to Bordeaux, she might go to the one port, but when she attempted to go on to the other and land her goods there, both ship and cargo would be confiscated. Then again the wine and silks of France would not always be paid for in our manufactures, but sometimes by the sugars and coffees of India. But a French merchant, if he sold his wine or silk to a London house—shipped in a British ship, and to be paid for in Calcutta sugar—could not being the return cargo to the port of France in an English ship. It was obviously necessary, therefore, that there should be some change in the law as regarded the indirect trade, more so than in the direct trade, or the commerce between the two nations would be unduly impeded and resti ieted. He had placed on the paper a notice which according to the rules of the house, it being an addition to an address, he believed must be taken as an amendment, though he had not intended it as such. He wished to see the treaty ratified, but was at the same time anxious, in justice to the English shipowner, that some change should be made at the same time in the ' French navigation laws. With that view he desired to pass a resolution expressing the feelings of the House of Commons on the subject of those navigation laws, believ ing as he did that such an expression of opinion would have due weight with the Emperor of the French. He did not ask that English shipping should be placed on the same 1 terms in all respects in France with French shipping, but that the colonial and indirect trade should be placed on the same footing as the direct trade. He was, however, most desirous to avoid going to a division on the question, the result of which might be misunderstood, and he thought he should best consult the interest of the shipowners of Eng land by accepting the offer madnby the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) the other night, of the opportunity on some future occasion to bring forward a question in the shape of a substantive motion, in which he hoped to have the noble lord's support. ~ Mr. PEACOCK was opposed to the treaty because he did not think our commercial relations with foreign coun tries ought to be made the subject of treaties, and that we should not make remissions of duties unless such remis sions could be justified on their own merits. Had such a proposition been brought forward by the Conservatives it would have been denounced by Mr. Bright and his friends as opposed to the principles of political economy, and as throwing back free-trade principles in France by at least twenty years, as he (Mr. Peacock) firmly believed would be the case. He objected to this treaty because it put it out of the power of Parliament to revise this treaty for ten years. He was glad that he had the authority of Mr. Canning to support him in the view of the matter which he took, for when upon a former occasion the Dutch had en deavoured to treat us as we were now treated in the case Of France, that great statesman had humorously embodied his opinions on the subject in the following lines in his well known despatch : " In, matters of commerce the fault of the Dutch Is giving too little and asking too much. With equal advantage the French are content, So we'll clap on, Dutch bottoms a twenty per cent." (Hear.) It was an excellent treaty for France, but there was very little reciprocity in it. The three most powerful interests in France were the priesthood, the army, and the manufacturers. They knew what the feeling of the army was ; the feelings of the priesthood they had all gathered from the articles of M. Veuillot, in the Univers ; and he believed that this treaty alone was wanting to unite the ma nufacturers with the other classes in hostility to thincountry. Mr. CLAY rose to add his approval, however little it might be worth, to this treaty. In Hull, one of the last places in which it might have been expected it would be re ceived with favour, it had been warmly approved. It was the first step which had been taken in France towards free 'trade, which had long been the Englishman's creed, and it was impossible that that step should be taken without pro gress being made in free trade, which might extend to Eu rope generally. Mr. B. COCHRANE did not see how we could have a commercial treaty without a bargain. The authority of Pitt had been quoted in favour of a treaty with France. He would quote the words of Fox, which ought to have more authority with the noble lord opposite. In 1787 Mr. Fox said the object of France was to put us off onr guard, and to prevent our cultivating alliances with other States. He re gretted that the noble lord did not avail himself of the ne gotiations of this commercial treaty to throw greater obsta cles than he had done in the way of the annexation of Savoy to France. There was a greas difference between 18d0 and 1787. In 1787 there was a surplus of a million and a half ; in 1860 there was a deficit of 10 millions. In 1787 Holland occupied the position in reference to the two countries that Savoy did now. It was proposed by France to interfere in Holland, and in 1787 it was proposed that there should be a mutual disarmament of the two countries. In 1860 we had double estimates. It had so happened that all the protesta tions of Napoleon 111. had been falsified by the result. This ,treaty bound us to a certain extent to his policy, and he be lieved the result of it would be that we should be left with out a single ally in Europe. Mr. W. EWART said the hon. gentleman's allusion to Mr. Fox's authority was a very unfortunate one, because, while Mr. Pitt was making that extraordinary voyage into the realms of sound principles, to which reference had so often been made, Mr. Fox had not read a single page of Adam Smith, and was profoundly ignorant of political eco nomy. He (Mr. Evart) should support the treaty both be cause it was a measure of peace, and because it was a mea sure for the extension of commerce. (Hear.) Itwas only just to the Emperor to say that the principles on which he now acted were principles which he had professed when he was President of the Republic. In 1852 a witness who was a large wine grower, told the committee which sat to consider our eommercial relations with France that he had had an interview with the President, and that he (the President) had remarked that the best treaty that could possibly he entered into between France and England would be an ex tended trade. (Hear, hear.) It was said that the English people would never drink French wines, and that might be quite true, so far as regarded yin ordinaire and piquette, but there were extensive districts between. the Rhine and Bayonne, which produced wines peculiarly suited for Eng lish consumption. Besides, it must be remembered that the people of this country used to like French wine, in proof of which he need not cite so well-known a writer as Chaucer. e n is t l a at o u f r m e In the first act of William and Mary, it was declared that th t the a le e e trade wa in French wines w as " a common nu i sance ;" b u t ; in a k nd ind ac w eo o r u d ld.. in a g l l w y a t y h s oy de f t o b und defeat th in e i a n n g o e t n h td or t a y e o t f paf sed the next wino still came in, and that it was not "staved, split, burnt, or destroyed," as had been ordered by the previous enact ment. When the celebrated Methuen treaty was made there were many petitions against Portuguese wines ; and amongst others there was one from the now port-drinking of the well-known round,al , ed by Dr. Aldrich, the composer bells." (Hear, hear. )He ' Hark I the merry Christchurch Exchequer had done well to modify the Chancellor of the for he could not see why a governess, y ss the licensing system ; no' be able to refresh herself with a 9 1 for instance, should con fectioner's. He thought, too, that thegtaraestof wine at a to have a very beneficial effect upon the a taste of be found manufacturers. Much had been done with a e N • of English about that desirable end ; but no plan could be.iejetotbe ring likely to prove efficacious as to bring them under the influ ence ence of free competition. (Hear, hear.) It had been well sai I that there were no persons so interested in the put ting down of monopolies as the landlords, who were the great consumers of the public, and he (the hon. member) hoped, therefore, that they would now come forward and vindicate their rights as English freemen by joining in the attack that was being made upon the monopolies that re mained. (Hear, hear.) As a friend of peace, he rejoiced that the treaty had been signed. A poet of the last century, who was not now so much read as he deserved, told us that— " -- Gaul in times of antique story Was closely linked with this now adverse strand, And Frank and Briton in those ages hoary Trod with unwetted foot from land to land." He trusted that though the two countries were no longer linked together by a physical tie, they would long be bound to each other by mutual feelings, by mutual interests, and he hoped hereafter by mutual freedom. (Cheers.) He con gratulated his hon. friend (Mr. Cobden) on the part he had taken in bringing about so important and gratifying a con summation, and he was sure the hon. gentleman would feel to his last moment that he had done good not merely to France and to England but to mankind. (Cheers.) Mr. MAGUIRE, as an Irish member, should give his most cordial support both to the treaty and to the budget of which it formed a part. (Hear.) He did not apprehend any political inconvenience from the treaty, but, on the con trary, he believed that it would prove highly beneficial to the whole of the United Kingdom. No doubt it was an in consistency to have a war budget and a peace treaty; but it was one for which the Government was not in the least responsible. Th ey h a d d one no more th an ac t i n o b e di ence to the f • eehngs of alarm and suspicion which seemed to per vade all classes in . this country with regard' to the present or the ultimate • ) e policy of the Emperor of the French. (Hear, h ear. or by Whit worth Nevertheless, it was not by improved rifles i . and Anustro ng guns, by now line-of-bat- t ' IKE SUN, LONDON. FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH - 9, 1860. tie ships, or by impregnable fortresses, that we could obtain the security we sought—we could only do so by endeavour ing to enlist the sympathies of the French people in favour of kindly relations between the two countries. He did not believe that we were nearer the end we had in view now that we were spending £30,000,000 on our armaments than when our expenditure was only £20,000,000 ; nor did he think that, by the gallant display thathad been made in the streets of London on the previous afternoon, we wei e likely to enlist the sympathies of the French people so as , to influence the policy of the Emperor ix the direction of peace. He placed himself no trust in the Emperor, but that was not the question with which he had now to deal. What the house had now to consider was, how they could lead the people of France to see that their interests were so much in favour of friendly relations with this country that it would not be in the power of the French Government to cause a rupture with us P (Hear, hear.) It was not right to blame the Emperor for not going further than he did in the treaty, for he had to deal with the most obstinate and impracticable people in the world—the monopolists and protectionists. (A laugh) It had been said that Ireland would not benefit by the budget, but he (the hon. member) denied the justice of that remark, Ireland had already benefited enormously by free trade—not so much indeed from the advantage she had reaped to her manufactures, but from the higher prices she had obtained for the produce of her soil. (Hear, hear.) Take the important article of butter, of which a million and a half pounds' worth passed every year through Cork market. Well, the prices obtained at Cork on the sth inst. were £6 10s. per ton for the first, and £5 15s. for the third quality—higher prices, in fact, than it had fetched during the war. (Hear.) Wheat, toe, was selling at more than 505. per quarter, which was a far larger sum than the protectionists had ever expected to get. Free trade had saved thousands—he might say hundreds of thousands—of human lives. In 1848 the coarsest India meal fetched £2l per ton. He knew a parish in Kerry where, till a supply of it was received, there had been no food whatever for 24 hours. In that case it had cost 134 per ton, whereas it had since been imported at from £6 to £7 10s. If they had not had open ports, it was hardly an exaggeration t) say that the people must have perished by millions. (Hear, hear.) To show how things had changed, he would mention a district in Cork from which, in 1856, £70,000 worth of produce was sent to England ; whereas now, not only was nothing exported to Eng land, but £lOO,OOO of articles were actually imported from England. (Hear, hear.) The farmers and the gentry of 1 Ireland were never so flourishing; nor were rents ever bet ter paid than at this moment; and the reason was Irish in dustry was remunerated. (Hear, hear.) An hon. friend of his had unwittingly endeavoured the other evening to im pose upon the house the notion that Ireland would have a very small share in the contemplated remission of duties. He - (Mr. Maguire) held in his hand an able article in the Irish Review, in which it was shown that Ireland did not get credit for the whole of the amount which she contributed to the imperial exchequer. In fact, it was proved that she paid a million a year more than she was supposed to do. The hon. member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy) said that out of £300,000 charged on the article of currants only £720 was paid in the Irish custom-houses ; and then he argued that the gain to Ireland by the reduction of the duty would be infinitesimal. But was it reasonable that Ireland, which contained a population of six millions and ahalf, con sumed less than a four-hundredth part of the currants im - ported into the United Kingdom ? (Hear, hear.) The ex planation was that the wholesale grocers of Dublin, Cork, Belfast, and other towns in Ireland, traded with the mer chants of Liverpool. and thus Liverpool got the credit of all the duties on those trades. In the article of refined sugar, £150,000 worth of it was imported into Ireland, for which all the customs duty was paid in Plymouth and Liverpool. (Hear, hear.) 'I hen, again, with regard to ladies' wearing apparel and artificial flowers, for which Ireland was set down at an infinitesimal portion, he could state that the ladies of Ireland were even fonder of dress than English ladies, yet while England got credit for paying a duty . of £20,452 upon those articles, Ireland was set down as paying only £2 duty. (A laugh.) Pis assertion was that those articles paid duty through the great houses in London, and were Afterwards sent into Cork and other towns in Ireland. Therefore he said that the people of Ireland would have their fair share in the advantages of the remission or total abolition of duties. Neither was he afraid of any injury arising to Irish butter from this measure. He believed that Irish honesty would more than counterbalance the cheaper roguery of the foreign makers. Mr. DISRAELI—That is a part of the budget ; we are speaking now of the treaty. Mr. MAGUIRE—It was a provisional part of the treaty. There was great apprehension expressed about coal, and again about Irish linens. He believed that under the clauses of m t agu his ir tr e e ) at a y s Irishinlidinceantsioncoulthdamt o t r h e ey tha sh n oui co d m h pe a t v e e in n France with Belgium,, and he was informed tha t a steam an c u om na p ei an m y e w as as as a s l e r n ea t already the be addressinggot f u r p ere fo th r ethreeperoensveneytaatnivceesof of Irish linens from Belfast to France. (Hear.) He believed the advantages of this treaty to France would be great, and those to England would be no less. (Hear, hear.) He hoped to see the day when they would not have war esti mates in a time of peace. (Hear, hear.) If the benefits of this treaty were realised, no minister would have the cou rage to stand at that table , and ask for the same amount of money which was demanded this year. (Hear, hear.) Why was there such a close connexion between this country and the United States ? Was it because they were of the same religion and the same race ? No—it was because the two countries were bound up by the ties of commerce. He be lieved this country would yet bless the man — would yet bless Mrs' Cobd - m—for the promotion of this scheme, which was calculated to effect vast good for ,France and for Eng land. He denied the truth of the assertion of the hon. member for Malden (Mr. Peacock) that there existed any antipathy to this country among the two great classes in France—the clergy and the manufacturers. The French; soldiers might want war ; but he maintained that the clergy if the great church of France, though they might and did feel the insults which diplomacy cast at their religion, were nevertheless anxious for peace. He did therefore firmly be lieve that this treaty would confer immense advantages on both countries. Mr. RIDLEY rose for the purpose of giving his hearty support to this treaty, and to the financial measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believed that in doing so he was acting in accordance with the wishes of the vast ma jority of his constituents. He thought the house might look upon the speech of the hon. member for Dungarvan (Mr , the United Kingdom of England and Ireland. (Hear, hear.) He was one of those who did not look for reciprocity in this or any other treaty, but he looked at it as a great step on the part of France in favour of free trade, which we so much wished to extend. He had received a vast number of letters from persons engaged in manufactures, who stated that though they did not see any immediate or large advantage to their own particular trades, nevertheless they gave their assent to this treaty and the principles upon which it was founded. Besides the iron and coal trades, there were other trades in the north which would derive advantages from this treaty. There were large proprietors of chemical manufactures who were ,of opinion that this treaty was only wanting to complete the perfect following out of their manufactures, by admitting them at a low rate of duty into the French markets. With respect to coal, he believed there was considerable misapprehension existing as to the effect of this treaty upon that trade. As regarded the extent of the coal fields of England, a well-informed authority had as sured him that at the rate of 80,000,000 tons a year, there would be a duration of 1,975 years. Perhaps the house was not aware that the waste in. the coal fields of Durham and Northumberland alone was no less than 500 or 600 tons per day, a waste which would be to a great extent saved if France took our coal in the manner proposed by the treaty. It was said France wanted coal for purposes of war, but the truth was she wanted them much more for the purposes of commerce. Coal, some held, ought to be considered contra band of war, but by the same rule so ought the cloth and ' leather with which the soldiers were clad. (Hear, hear) He ' agreed with the hon. gentleman the member for Sunderland `• that the shipping advantages between the two countries ought to be mutual, and that our Government ought to im press upon the Government of France the negessity of alter ing their navigation laws. At the same time he did not think it I ight to resort to the sy stem of reciprocity treaties. Per ' haps he was too sanguine in his estimate of the treaty, yet be could not help expressing a firm conviction that it ' would tend to the permanent interests of peace. (Hear.) They had a habit of thinking that if a revolution broke out ' in Paris revolution must also break out in Berlin, Vienna, Naples, and Rome. Then, he asked, why should not the reverse be the case when France set so good an example ? Why should not other states pursue a free trade policy, and the advantages be made general throughout Europe ? Foreigners painted to our numberless statutes and asked us ' why we did not adopt the Code Napoleon. He thought it would bo well for us if wo did, but when we consented to this treaty we could return a triumphant answer by pointing to the simplicity of our tariff. Lord A, V. TEMPEST had waited to hear an enuncia tion of the policy of thosewho sat on the oppositionbenches. He had felt it his duty to support the proposal of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, and did so because it was a con tinuance of that wise course of policy inaugurated by the late Sir R. Peal, which had contributed so much to the prosperity of the country. He coincided entirely in the re marks of the hon. gentleman the member for Newcastle as to the benefits which the treaty would confer in developing our coal trade. He wished as much as anybody to see the commercial alliance between England and France esta blished to promote the prosperity of both countries, and knitting together their sympathies of peace ' and goodwill. (Hear.) He would that his thoughts were equal to his hopes, but frankly confessed upon this head he could not speak so sanguinely. It was very likely ho would be charged with inconsistency in voting against this motion, having on a previous occasion voted with the Government in reference to the financial propositions of the Chancellor ' of the Exchequer; but he thought it was quite possible for the Government to enter into commercial arrangements with France which did not necessitate the conclusion of a state treaty. He had been in doubt whether the House of Commons ought to consider the treaty or the budget first, but considered he was now fully justified in the vote he was about to give, and that the British House of Commons was entitled to say to the Emperor Napoleon —" Thus far shalt thou go and no farther." The only two speeches he had heard which seemed to express the feelings of the English people were the speeches of the hon. members for Sheffield and Horsham. He had heard them called indiscreet, but believed they were true. His reasons for voting against the motion of the hon. gentleman the member for Middle sntooeifxoentxwhpoe E erfreteshs its Emperor English to be found in the despatches of the noble lord at the liead o f th e F ore i gn - o ffi ce . Th e noble lord then quoted from the despatch of Lord John Russell, Jan. 28, 1860, in which he said th e F ore i gn S ecre t ar y ex p re ssed the opi po g ri li ni s o h ofn p t e oh o i.e p t l }h e ,er . ee W nocnh a t s i?e t h u i ec s do t ue ff h l e de t e ir ieo e n afpoerpnrtdehegaiotaoht goodwill the high-sounding phrase of the Emperor about "barren con quests," and n moral influence,' when they saw he cared neither for th e i r protests nor their remonstrances, nor their despatches, but threw )ff the Walewski mas k an d d ec l are d his real cleswigns. Theaatt Emperor of France might be on visit ing terms was no reason why we should avow ourselves his affection e friends or throw ourselves into his arms. He wish e d t o s France ands England —a realee treaty of amity between treaty of amity—he had no objection to shako hands with a mail who had a glove on, but (Hear.) o He begged to o e p d r i o d p n o soet the wish followingit t o be aerimier amendment e n v t e u . then o) motion of the d be glad hon. gentleman the member for Middlesex to withdraw it if the hon. gentleman the member for l' Hors ham, or the hon. gentleman the member for Sheffierlaraad propos xl anything to a similar effect—after the word "that" to add these words : this house approaches her Majesty with great devotion and respect; whilst fully appreciating the advantageous results to be obtained by increased commercial intercourse bet ween this country and France, and estimating the present friendly connexion between Great Britain and France, this house yet declines to express any opinion on the treaty until such time as the Emperor of the French makes known his final decision as to the annexation of Savoy." Mr. BOVILL seconded the amendment. Mr. SLANEY hoped the noble lord would forgive him if he did not enter into a discussion of the amendment which he had proposed to the house, but he would simply say that he should vote for the motion of the hon. member for Mid- dlesex. He thought the treaty would be the means of giv ing great advantages to this country and the country oppo site to them, and he thought it would by degrees bind * too•ether in bonds of amity and friendship the two peoples, so that in the course of time they might be as one nation. Sir H. CAIRNS said he did not rise im express dissent to the motion of the hon. member for Middlesex. He should regret very much if the motion were not carried. (Hear, hear.) The rejection of the motion would be the overthrow of this treaty. He did not desire it to be overthrown. Fearing his assent to the motion of the honourable member might lead to the supposition that he approved of the treaty, he would say of it that it was unwise in its details and ill-considered in its provisions, and that it was not such a treaty as the trade of the country had a right to expect. He objected to it because it was acom mercial treaty, for he knew that commercial treaties were likely to lead to difficulties and embarrassments, and no one could have pointed that out better than the two noble lords opposite. (Hear, hear.) To say that a commercial treaty could not be justified would be to apply in an extreme and violent manner a perfectly good and abstract rule. Commer cial treaties must depend upon their special circumstances, and he would confess that any arrangement which would tend to draw closer the commerce between the two countries was desirable, and everything which had been said of the relative positions of France and England for the interchange of their products and the little trade which had hitherto been carried onbetween the two countries, they all knew and felt to be true. He could recollect when in 1840-41 they tried to bring about a better state of things, and he knew that efforts were again made in 1853, which only terminated by a re msval of the Government from office by which those efforts were being made. In this respect he was entirely ready to go the full length of giving credit to the Government for their desire to increase the commercebetween the two coun tries. But he did not admire the bargain which the Go vernment had made for this country. It was said there had been no bargain; but he would ask, if no bargain was made, what was the use of a treaty at all ? What was the mean ing of the instructions given to the negotiators, which said that, provided they could obtain certain reductions, they might take off certain duties. Was not that a bargain ? His objection to the treaty was not that it WAS a bargain, but that it was a-very bad bargain for England. No doubt ar rangements had been made which would be beneficial for certain branches of trade, but other branches were left out of consideration. The house expected to hear from the hon. member for Sunderland the ground. upon w Lida ha . wag Prepared to move an amendment to the address, but the hon. gentleman had deferred them to a future day, and therefore be might perhaps be allowed to mention one fact upon this subject. He had been shown the rates of freight on ships loading at the Mauritius. English ships there loading, to discharge at English ports, obtained freights at from 10s. to 20s. per ton; and side by side were French ships, which would ly, at liberty to discharge at any English ports, or French ports, and which were obtaining freights at 455. per ton, or about 150 per cent. higher than English ships. If this treaty came into operation, French ships would be greatly engaged in the cotton carrying trade between the United States and Liverpool. The Government said this was not a treaty of navigation but of commerce. Then how came it that there had been inserted in itan article of navi gation and not of commerce ? What right had their pleni potentiary in negotiating a treaty of commerce to insert an article of navigation ? If the Government said he had that right, had he not also a right to ask for a reduction of these differe .tial duties? Well, did he ask for and press for the abolition of these duties ? (Hear, hear.) What he com plained of was that those who negotiated the treaty had not shown that they made any suggestion on this subject, or that they had that object in view. No effort had been made to obtain any alteration of these duties, and apparently with out remonstrance and without a struggle, French shipping obtained an indirect and tacit assent in an English treaty to these obnoxious and excessive privileges. (Hear, hear. ) He would next refer to the way in which a very important staple manufacture—the all-important staple of Ireland— was dealt with in this treaty. The Chancellor of tke Ex chequer on the financial night described the importance of this manufacture, and they might have expected that the negotiators would have exhibited some proof that the cir cumstances of the trade were understood and appreciated by them. (Hear, hear.) But this was what has happened with regard to the linen duties, and it was a matter of a most singularkind. In the firstdespatch from Lord Cowley which referred to the subject, he said there had been a proposal to establish a treaty of commerce, and that the proposal was favourably entertained by the French Government, and he desired to know whether the gentleman who had made the proposal was to carry it out. (Hear, hear.) He said further that the duties on British manufactures would be at a maximum of 30 per cent., but that the duties upon linen would be reduced from 30 to 15 per cent. That was the proposal entertained by the French Government, and subsequently the treaty appeared, and the maximum duty was 30 per cent., and not 15 per cent. ; and he did not find from the correspondence that the government had drawn attention to what had taken place on the subject. (Hear, hear.) He would ask whether they were aware of the amount of duty, and did they think it would be such as to lead to an extension of trade. He was assured that before the treaty the duty on fine qualities of linen was not more than 20per cent., and that in the case of linen yarns it was still lower, and in some cases as low as four, three, and two per cent. He was also assured that in future the French manufacturer would compete with the British, and in this way, take the linen manufactures of ordinary kinds, two thirds of the price of the article represented the raw mate rial, and one-third represented the capital, the cost of pro duction and profit. The raw material France could supply and consequently the field of competition remained on the one-third, which represented capital, &c. He was assured that the duty of 30 per cent. would bo virtually a duty upon the one-third part of the value of the article, and conse quently that would be a duty not of 30 but of 90 per cent. (Hear, hear.) He should like to know whether the Board of Trade was consulted on this subject. In 1840 when the Board was engaged in negotiating a _reduction of duties en our linen manufactures, what not merely the French Go vernment, but even the French manufacturers, said at that time was, that they would be perfectly satisfied with an int port duty of 10 per cent. provided England would allow the free exportation of machinery. The exportation of machi nery was now free, and yet the duty on linens imported into France was to be 30 per cent. The Board of Trade, which ever since 1840 had been in constant communication with the linen manufacturers, ought to have laid before the negotia tors of the treaty the circumstances of the case, and pointed out to them that a stipulation for a maximum duty of 30 per cent. would be nugatory. The dates of the despatches af forded no explanation of the matter. The first communi cation to the Government on the subject took place on the 17th of January ; the treaty was concluded at Paris on the 23d of the same month, and consequently no time was allowed for the Board of Trade to interpose, or for the right hon. gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) to apply his mind to the question whether the proposed arrangement with re regard to the linen manufacture was a suitable one. (Hear.) Tao manufacturers regarded 4t as mockery to tell them they had obtained a bof.n, when all that was done was to secure that the import duty should not exceed 30 per cent. The other night the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Government entertained strong hopes that the Emperor of the French would soon take measures for a return to the moderate duties which prevailed some years ago. He should be very glad to hear now from the right hon. gentle man that there was a prospect of those hopes being realised. [Tbe CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here made an ob servation which VMS inaudible in the gallery. He was very glad to hear t hat remark. If, however, a few weeks after the negotiation was closed the French Government had inti mated that they were prepared to reduce the duty on linen manufactures, and to return to the low rates which for merly prevailed, why, he asked, was not that reduction in serted in the treaty ? (Hear.) Surely a slight remonstrance on the part of the English Government would have ob viated the necessity for now giving assurances that might never be realised. There were too reasons why he could not feel sanguine on that point. In the first place he was struck by the manner in which the 13 per cent. ori g inally pro posed was exchanged for 30 per cent. That must, he thought, have been done through the instrumentality of some of the French manufacturers, and if so short a time ago they had the power of getting 15 per cent. turned into 30 per cent., it appeared very doubtful whether the 30 per cent. would be at all reduced now. (Hear, hear.) Secondly, he saw the other day a memorial addressed by French manufac turers to the Minister of Commerce, in which not only was the French Government urged not to consent to any reduc tion below 30 per cent., but it was suggested that as there was going to be a commutation of duties by a supplemental treaty, the English Government should, if possible, be over-reached and the duty on linen made somewhat higher than 30 per cent. The reply of the Minister of Commerce was by no means indicative of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer now - anticipated. He said in effect,—Gentle men, your minds may be perfectly tranquil ; France will always take care that the manufactures upon whom she re lies shall have full and ample protection. But the case with regard to the linen manufacture did not rest there. France was no doubt the greatest linen consumer in the world. But the next greatest was Spain, and there was no part of the world in which a Spanish settlement or colony was founded where there did not immediately spring up a demand for linen. How was it that the Government did not offer Spain the same boon that it had offered to France, stipulating for a reduction of the duty on linen? It might be that Spain would have refused to assent to the terms, but at all events the thing was worth a trial. As regarded future negotiations—and this led him to another part of the treaty—very great obstacles ware placed in the way of suc cess. It had been pointed out, and the objection had not been answered, that in the arrangements with regard to the duties on wine, the Govermment had virtually con stituted a differential duty against Spain. A certain duty was to be applied to wines of low strength. Spain had no wines of that class to send to this country, and the conse quence was that the reduction of duty was more favourable to France than to Spain. Indeed, in a despatch of the Se cretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Lord Cowley, dated the 17th of January, the noble lord took credit for that pre ference for France. He said, " A scale thus adjusted would, it is hardty needful to observe, be eminently favourable to the introduction of wines from France, as the lower wines from that country would enter at a duty of ls." (Hear.) A still more singular portion of the treaty was that part of it which related to the duty on French spirits. The house would recollect that the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) first proposed a duty of 10s. and afterwards reduced it to Bs. 2d. But what were the grounds on which the noble lord thought that 10s. was the proper amount ? In his instructions to the negotiators of the treaty he began by saying that the object of the Government was to make an equitable adjustment of burdens as between commodities which more or less directly competed with one another in the general market. Having set out with that principle, he said, " The feeling of her Majesty's Government is that 10s. for any British purpose would be the proper duty upon brandy." " But," he added, " if you see, that is, if you should find that by making any concession beyond what I have named you can obtain from the Government an early reduction of duties on some im portant commodity, you are authorised to reduce the duty on brandy to Bs. 2d." This was, he must say, a most sin gular instruction. They had all heard, no doubt, of rob bing one interest in order to pay another, but he, at all events, never before saw so open and unblushing an in stance of that kind of robbery as this. (Hear.) The noble lord admitted that the manufacturers of British spirits were entitled to a duty of 10s., but if the negotiators could ob tain some concession, not in favour of that trade, but of some other trade ' they were to sacrifice the manufacturer of British spi r it s and to reduce the duty, which, he said, should be 108., to Bs. 2d. Accordingly, without any further consultation with the noble lord, the negotiators consented to a reduction of the duty on.. French brandy to Bs. 2d. The question arose, what early reduction en an important commodity did they obtain in return ? He had looked in vain for any case of that kind except coal, and with regard to that the noble lord remarked' in. one of his des patches that such was the extent of the market for it both in this country and abroad that 119 public interest would be ) excited by the amount of duty charged upon it in France or by the postponement of a reduction of the duty. And now let him see what equivalents r we had got in this treaty. There had been an observation of some weight with regard to our national staple, beer. It had been said that, whilst tipulating: for a reduction on various beverages, why not have stipulated for a reduction on the national beverage of this country. (Hear, hear.) He knew it was said that hopes were entertained on this subject, but he must add that he never had heard of a negotiation so supported by hopes as that of this commercial treaty. (A laugh.) When any point was started tho answer of the Government was, "We have the greatest hopes that something may be done." He did not blame the Government so mnch for want of success as for not baying exerted themselves to procure as fair an equivalent as possible. Neat let him '0 )k at the way in which raw mate rial, upon the supply of which this country was dependent for its manufactures, was dealt with. The noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had laid down an ad mirable principle in his despatch, when he said that the duty of the negotiators was to make an equitable adjustment of burdens upon articles in which the two nations competed in the general market. There was no burden so difficult to be dealt with as that which affected the supply of the raw ma terial to three cases of which he should allude. With respect to the first (silk), the hon. member for Shrewsbury had told them of the picturesque zones in which France was divided, and which supplied the mulberry trees upon the leaves of which silk wor m s were f e d. N ow we admitted the manufactured silk of France free of duty, whilst the Government knew that we had a manufacture of silk in England which depended for the supply of its raw material upon France. He wished to know if any question had been asked the French Government respecting the raw material. He saw no traces of it in the instructions given to the plenipotentiaries. (Hear.) He took another raw material respecting which there had been a very inte resting conversation in committee—he meant the article of cork. He did not mean to say that we depended upon France for cork, but at the same time we were negotiating the treaty, one of the results of which was to be the admission of corks free of duty, we were bound to have obtained some conces sion from the country from which corks were obtained—he meant Spain—in return for our remission of duties on Spa nish wines. The third and last of the raw materials to which he should allude was that from which paper was made, and of course he assumed that when Government commenced negotiating the treaty they had made up their minds on the reduction of the excise and import duties. They were now told that the French Government meant to remit the import duty; ha was glad to hear it, but he said if France was so willing, why not have introduced the re laxation into the treaty as a matter of right, and not have subsequently asked for it as a matter of favour ? (Hear, hear.) How different had been the conduct of the French Government with respect to the article coal, about which there had been so much discussion. They had not trusted to assurance but had asked our Government to come under an undertaking not to prohibit exportation during the whole period of the treaty. Why not have asked for similar stipulations from France ? This brought him to coal, of which he should merely say, in addition to what he had before said, that up to the present moment they had not had from Government any explanation of their views with respect to the object or effect of the coal article. The Attorney-General had certainly favoured them with his view of the law of the question, but as he (Sir H. Cairns) did not expect to hear the Government endorse that view, especially as, iu another place, a view directly opposite to that of the learned gentleman had been pronounced, he presumed that the learned gentleman had only been treating them with ohe of his usual interesting disquisitions. He did not know whether the Government were of opinion that the 11th article of the treaty permitted the exportation of coal to France generally, but the differ. ence was not material to his purpose, because he knew that we could not permit the exportation of coal at all unless we permitted it totally, and that any permission given now amounted to a surrender of the whole restrictive power we possessed. Now he said that the Sovereign had no commer cial power in the matter, but that house had entrusted to her Majesty a high political power to prohibit the exportation of coal whenever it was likely to become stores or munitions of war. What right had commercial negotiators thus to surrender a political power which had been solemnly depo sited with the Crown ? (Opposition cheers.) Had it ever occurred to our Government to ask what was the object of this 11th article ? A recent answer to this question had made a material change in the situation. They had been under the impression that the article was one to which some importance was attached by the French Government, but now they were told that that Government attached no im portance to it at all, but were ready to give it up. On the other hand, they learned that her Majesty's Government desired no alteration. He did not wish to pre-occupy the ground which was to be taken by the right hon. member for Stroud, but he said that now this was simply a domestic question. The French Government were willing to modify, whilst her Majesty's Government were unwilling; and therefore it remained for them to hear why the latter per sisted against the concessions of France. (Hear, hear.) One more observation on this point, and that was that he hoped the House of Commons would express an opinion that this article ought not to be inserted. (Hear, hear.) He did protest against the doctrine that a power of this kind could be sur rendered without the consentof Parliament, and he protested, on the other hand, against the supposition that if the sanc tion of Parliament were required it could be got in any other way than by Act of Parliament. He had now gone through those parts of the treaty on which he had been de sirous of making a few observations. He found in the case of Mr. Pitt's treaty, that - statesman saying, with very natural pride, "Here is my treaty, which was published in September—(he was speaking in February)—it has been in everyone's hands, and has been canvassed throughout the country, and there has not been a single remonstrance against it from any trade " He asked, could her Majesty's present Government make a similar remark with respect to their treaty ? Had the linen trade, the beer or spirit trades, had the silk, or cork, or paper trades made no remon strance ? He must say that although the right hon. gen tleman opposite had spoken of the glory of his negotiators, he (Sir H. Cairns) doubted very much whether it would meet with the same success which had attended the treaty of Mr. Pitt. The cases were not exactly parallel. Per haps a nearer resemblance might be found in one of those Homeric legends of which the right hon. gentleman was so great an expositor. It was, in fact, the treaty of Glaucus and Diomed, it was gold for brass, a hundred oxen for ten. At the same time, he believed that much greater risk would be incurred by rejecting this treaty than by ac cepting it, and he, for one, should not advocate its rejec tion. (Loud cheers.) He hoped that they would never again have to consider a treaty under the circumstances in which the present treaty had been considered. There was not merely a responsibility attaching to those who would impede or thwart a treaty of that kind, but also to those who entered into it, and who proposed its considera tion to the house in a way in which there could be no free or unbiassed discussion of its terms. (Hear, hear.) Whenever any member took an objection to any provision of the treaty, however small, the answer invariably was—" If you touch that clause you defeat the treaty entirely, and we cannot answer for the consequences." The same line had been taken by the French newspapers. In a letter of M. Chevalier, he said :—" The rejection of the 11th article (re lating to coal) would be an unfriendly act, and it would be taken as tuch by France. The cry would be raised of ' Per fidious Albion ; and this would be the case even were the article struck out with the consent of the French Govern ment." (Hear, hear.) They had been called on to discuss all the arrangements of the Chanceller of the Exchequer under the same pressure. The right hon. gentleman had told them that if they carried Mr. Du Cane's motion it would be incompatible with the treaty with France. He (Sir H. Cairns) had felt the force of that argument so much that he had not voted for that resolution though approving much that it contained. Formerly a budget was a measure most domestic in its character. In the present year they had literally been discussing the budget with the treaty round their necks. (Hear, hear.) He was disposed to augur every thing favourable from the adoption of this treaty, but if its benefits should prove unsubstantial and illusory—if the price we were paying to draw closer the bonds of amity with France did not produce the desired effect—if it should turn out that this treaty, concluied with equal rapidity with the treaty of Villafranca, should be equally rapidly forgotten— if the measures of the right hon. gentleman should leave behind them only regret for the revenue we had lost, and irksomeness at the burdens we had to bear, it would then be remembered, and remembered to the disadvantage of their authors, that these measures were presented to the house under circumstances which thwarted and checked all free and unrestrained discussion. (Hear, hear.) Mr. M. G IBSON—I am glad to hear from the hon. and learned gentleman that, satisfied with criticising the treaty, he intends to vote in favour of the address which has been moved by my hon. friend the member for Middlesex. He says he will throw no impediment in the way of this treaty; he is a friend to commercial treaties ; he does not ob ject to a bargain in the abstract; he only objects to a bargain which is not so good as it might have been. I agree with the hon. and learned gentleman there are many things in reference to our commercial relations with France which it would be very desirable to obtain; but, at the same time, I think what we have obtained is good in itself, is worth re ceiving, and will confer great benefits on the people both of England and France. (Cheers.) The hon. and learned gen tleman is friendly to commercial treaties on principle. I don't quite go that length myself, but I will not reject an opportunity of encouraging our commercial intercourse with France simply because the attainment of that object is sought through the medium of a commercial treaty. He is friendly to commercial treaties, but I cannot help thinking he would never be successful in negotiating such a treaty with any foreign country if he proceeded in the way he thinks her Majesty's Government ought to have proceeded with reference to the one now under consideration. The hon. and learned gentleman would have had us enter into minute adjustments of every particular duty ; he thinks we should have gone into all the different classes of yarn and linen, and attached to each the particular duty to be charged on its import into France. I think if any person were to at tempt to negotiate a commercial treaty on the principle of settling such minute adjustments of duty in every instance, he would probably fail altogether. If the hon. and learned gentleman had acted as the negotiator of the treaty.now be fore the house I don't think he would by this time have got through the linen duty. (A. laugh.) He says the Board of Trade made no representations on the subject of the linen manufacture; that it could not have considered the import ance of that manufacture, or it would have used its influ ence to obtain a better arrangement in respect to it with the French Government. I had the honour, not long ago, of receiving a deputation from Belfast in reference to the linen trade, which was introduced by the hon. and learned gen tleman ; and what did those gentlemen say ? They said, if the Government would only put them on the same foot ing as the Belgians they would be satisfied. (Hear, hear.) I say they are put on the same footing as the Belgians-- (hear)—from June, 1861. (An ironical laugh.) Until that time the treaty obligations existing between France and Belgium prevent the arrangement taking effect earlier— (hear)—but the first moment it can take effect the linen manufacturers of Belfast are to have an arrangement which they state will be satisfactory to them. (Hear, hear.) It is not to be assumed that because the maximum of duty is mentioned in the treaty, every duty now below that maxi mum is to be raised to the maximum. (Hear, hear.) It is unfair to tell the linen manufacturers of Ireland that, with respect to some classes of linen now paying 2 per cent. on being imported into France, theduty may be actually raised to 30 per cent. (Hear, hear.) I think I may say nothing of that kind will take place ; I am sure that all the correspon dence in reference to future arrangements breathes an en. tirely different spirit. With regard to coal, that being a legal question,..l don't profess to offer any opinion upon it. I think it had better be left to be discussed by itself on the amendment of the right hon. gmtleman the member for Stroud. But I have been told that anything that could be done in England, before this treaty, according to interna tional law, in reference to prohibiting the export of coal, may still be done; and that no other surrender has been made except the surrender of the right to prohibit the ex. port of coal in a commercial sense. On the question of spirits the hon. and learned gentleman quoted a passage in the correspondence between my noble friend the Secre tary of State for Foreign Affairs and Lord Cowley, in which it ie stated that 10s. on foreign spirits would be the most desirable duty for the English revenue; but that the nego tiators would agree to Bs. 2d. if some early reduction could be obtained on some article to be introduced into France. And then, asks the hon. and learned gentleman, what early reduction did we obtain ? I can tell him that me of the early reductions obtained was on this very article of linen. The reduction of the duties on British linen going into France was brought nearer by a considerable period, viz., to June, 1861, and it was one of the early reductions ob tained by the concession in regard to spirits. (Hear, hear.) Sir H. CAIRNS said in the first letter:from Lord Cowley to Lord John Russell the Ist of July, 1861, was stated as the date. Mr. M. GIBSON (resuming)—l have not the despatch by me at this moment, but I think I am correct ; at all events the reduction of the import duty on linens going into France would have taken effect at a more distant period but for the concession made with regard to the duty on spirits. Again, iron and machinery yvere also to be admitted at an earlier period in consequence of that concession. The hon. and learned gentleman used the expression that this agree ment for a smaller import duty on French spirits was a sacrifice of English manufacturers of spirits for some poli tical object. The hon. gentleman, lam sure, has uninten tionally misrepresented the case, because it was always in tended and always understood by the French Government that a sufficient difference should be maintained between the duty on foreign spirits and that on British manufactured s pirits to cover the disadvantage under which the British manufacturer was placed by being under Excise survey. No intention therefore could exist of sacrificing his interest. No doubt he was to lose a protective duty, but under no conceiv able circumstances was he to be put on any terms of inequa lity with the French manufacturer. With regard to the question of wine, the hon. and learned gentleman has given utterance to substantially the same sentiments which were expressed by the hon. baronet the member for Stamford. He seemed to think this treaty placed a differential duty on Spanish wines, and gave those of France an advantage, and that we had placed ourselves in a very difficult posi tion, if we were hereafter inclined to propose a commercial treaty for the admission of British manufactures into that country. It must be remembered that tins arreisi s es...i is one which does not in the least arise out of the treaty, but is made solely in reference to our own laws relating to spirits ; and, as I am informed, it will be found much easier to get into consumptiona greater quantity of spirits through the importation of Spanish wines at these duties than to attempt the same operation through the importation of French wines. Therefore, in that sense, with a view to the consumption of alcohol, you are to some extent favouring Spain at the expense of France. I cannot see any ground of complaint whatever in this arrangement with regard to wines. I think the case is not a Spanish question me rel y , because the greater portion of the German w ines, I am in formed, will have the advantage of this lower rate of du t y , as containing less than 18 degrees of alcohol. The hon. an d learned gentleman has really gone into so many minute details that it is extremely difficult to follow him ; but on the _question of shipping I will tak cleave to make a few observations. Those who have sent memorials to the Board of Trade on the subject of the third article and of the dif ferential duty have all, without exception, suggested that, unless something could be done for the shipping interest, this treaty ought to be rejected altogether. My hon. friend the member for Sunderland and the hon. and learned gen tleman opposite have not taken that view of the question ; and the petitioners seem to be under a misapprehension on the subject of the treaty. I have read their memorials, and I find an idea prevailing that in some way or other British shipping will be placed in a worse position than before, and that the ti eaty will g i ve some ki n d o f sanc ti on f or a period of ten years to restrictions which might otherwise have been removed. I contend that this treaty does nothing of the kind s but that, so far as it affects British shipping, it will place it in a better position than it occupied before. In the trade between England and France ships of both na tions are on a footing of perfect equality, and if by increas ing that trade British ships have no corresponding restric - tions to contend with, it follows that you must confer an important benefit upon them. What is the state of the case at present? Of the French direot trade with the United Kingdom 69 per cent. is performed by the British fleet ; '2B per cent. is carried by the French fleet ; and 3 per cent. by the fleets of other nations This is the trade to which the treaty relates, and to no other, and it is this trade which may be expected so largely to increase by the mutual in • terchange of products and manufactures. It is clear that if British ships enjoy 69 per cent. of the carrying trade there is nothing in any French regulation which prevents them from deriving full advantage from it, and any increase of that traffic arising from the treaty must obviously confer an important advantage on British shipping. (Hear.) I find that the trade between England and France forms something between one-third and a-halfof the whole foreign trade of that country; ofthis, English vessels enjoy 70 per cent., or in other words between one-third and one-quarter of the whole foreign trade of France. To raise the general question of differential duties bearing on the indirect trade with France is to enter into something quite apart from this treaty. The hon. and learned gentleman, I think, has talked of imports from America into France. No doubt, it would be very desirable if British ships could carry goods to that country on the - same terms as American vessels ; but this treaty has nothing to do with creating facilities Of that kind—it is simply to facilitate the carrying of British produce into France. The same argument ap plies with regard to the Mauritius ; I respect fully submit that when you introduce these topics into a discussion on the address on this particular treaty you are really travelling from the question before the house. But, as this subject has been mentioned, let rile see the extent of this great grievance. I should be glad if, the navigation laws of all countries were entirely abolished. In this country we have removed all restrictions ; and there are very few nations, with the exception of France, Spain, Portugal, and to some extent America, which have not reci procated our liberality, and given us advantages in reference to navigation which we did not before possess. It is said that at the Mauritius we are kept out of something very well worth having by these differential duties. I presume that a certain quantity of sugars are consigned to this country, which for the most part find their way in English bottoms, which I presume cannot be regarded as disad vantageous to British shipping. But I have a return before me showing the extent of the colonial trade of France ; and let us see how much we should acquire if every French ship were prevented from carrying produce from any of our co lonies to France—a consummation that the hon. and learned gentleman, I think, will scarcely hope for. I find that the trade between France and the British colonies in Asia, Africa, and America amounted to 108,000 tons of :shipping in the year. - (Hear.) The trade of Great Britain with foreign countries was 1-1,438,000 tons; and between the United Kingdom add her colonies was 4,306,426 tons. (Hear.) So that all you would gain would be the employ ment of 100,000 tons of shipping in addition to the amount of over 18,000,000 which you already possess I venture to say if British shipowners had all this trade, of which they say they are now deprived, they would feel it to be an ad dition of comparatively trifling importance. Ido not say it is not worth having ; but I think shore importance is at tached to these restrictions than they deserve. The whole French trade with the British possessions in India and the Mauritius only employs 81,000 tons of shipping; it really appears to me you are attaching great importance to small matters, and, by continually pleading small restrictions, are attempting to raise a prejudice against a great and comprehensive measure of commercial freedom, with which I am quite certain the country and the constituents of the hon. and learned gentleman are satisfied. There is one re markable fact with regard to English and French shipping which I cannot help mentioning. In 1858 of all the ships in the ports of France engaged in the foreign carrying trade—l do not speak of the coasting trade—British ships formed two- thitds of the tonnage. (Hear, hear.) That is, out of every nine ships in the ports of Fiance en gaged in the foreign trade six were British. (Hear, hear.) All these ships must have obtained employment, notwith standing the restrictions that remain. The hon. member for Sunderland was anxious to propose his resolution as an amendment to the address. I was one of those who en deavoured to dissuade the hon. gentleman from doing so. I imagine he did not attach much importance to the advice, because, being a member of the Government, he thought I was not quiteto be believed on such a subject. (Laughter.) He rather listened to me with a degree of distrust I have not been accustomed to see. But I really advised the hon. gentleman to take the course wh I s houl n d o h hl a e v l e o t r h d o a u t g t h h t e b h e e s a t d ha o d f I been in his position. en the the Government offered him an opportunity of bringing for• ward his resolution as a substantive motion, and told him he would support it, I could not conceive the hon. gentleman would have a moment's hesitation. And I, am quite con. vinced he has now taken the most judicious course for the promotion of the cause he has so ably advocated. I have no doubt when he brings forward his resolution again —I do not say in' the exact words in which it now stands—that it will obtain the general support of the house. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned member for Belfast concluded his speech with some observations about th e F rench export duty on rags. He said the negotiators of this treaty had paid no attention to the question of export duties levied by foreign countries on the raw materials of manufactures. I dare say they did not ; I am not aware that it has been the custom to enter into such considerations when dealing with the import duties of this country. There is scarcely a single article the, duty on which you have reduced or repealed that does not contain some ingredient that is liable to some re striction as to its export from other countries. What would be said ifany one objected to the importation of corn and grain exportation Francetation o bfecgaunsaanoth?e F yu r o enc r h ep G ea o l v ed th ernm e e d n u t t l y wo o h n lth ib e i a tst ‘ h r e , though the French Government prohibits the exportation of raw hides. If you were to act on the principle of repealing Customs'duties only with regard to foreign export duties, you would be in a difficulty every time you dealt with a manufactured article. ot a or r nt u ha m ek e re ne your oar h oned a vmr s at ooli a n Iv n oheip y :o f r o t r d c e n t ; (Hear, hear.) do not think the i l es b d e e li p e e v n e d it ei w th il e l r be on fou th n e d e i xmi Politi s e e h ul d b glad s eou o ntries. It is most desirable that the export duty on rags daerbly allpthoernfoobrleei duties on raw materials a u n n n tr o i n e n s, an ce d I to thew was ex tremelyonsothat the Fren c h Government in glo t n e r n de d o ecl to remove the duty now existtng on rags exported from France. (Hear, hear ) But the negotiators of this commercial treaty would have been to blame if they had gone into the consideiation of such export d u ti es i n reference to every article with which they were going to deal. In fact, we must look to the gene ral principl e o f t h ose measures; the negotiators were about to deal with a great measure of principle, much of the de tails of which has yet to be completed. Had they allowed themselves to travel into considerations beyond the broad principles of the treaty, they would have failed altogether, and the house would not have had the treaty before it for discussion. I hope the house will give its unanimous vote in support of the address the hon. member for Middlesex has submitted to us. I cannot conceive that the noble lord who has moved the resolution relating to Savoy will.obtaiu any support. I cannot believe that he will go to a division. Why we should refuse to increase our commercial inter course with France because some territorial question is under discussion I cannot understand. (Hear, hear.) There is nothing in the words of the address to which any mem ber can have any objection. I can scarcely csnceive even the hon. member for West Norfolk objecting to it. Even if the treaty be as bad as he says it is, at any rate our in. tention is good. The existence of the treaty is a proof of a desire on the part of the Crown to promote the we'fare of the people. No one will deny that such a treaty must promote a beneficial intercourse between Great Britain and France, and tend to the extension of our trade and manufactures. We all hope and trust that such will be its result. We do not ask you to say it is mathematically demonstrated; we ask the house simply to congratulate the Crown on thus proving its desire to pro mote the well-being and happiness of the people of this country, told to? express a hope that the measures proposed . will increase our commercial intercourse with France, to the advantage of both nations. Sir S. NORTHCOTE sincerely agreed with the right hon. gentleman in one respect, namely, in hoping that the question raiseny the motion of the noble lord wouldnotbe mixed up with that of the commercial treaty. (Hear, hear.) He had scrupulously abstained from throwing any undue impediment in the way of the treaty ; but when they were invited to receive it not only with approbation but with applause, he thought that hon. members were entitled to look closely at its provisions. With regard to coal, the right hon. gentleman said it was a legal question, and yet that it was to be interpreted in a commercial sense. He (Sir S. Northcote) confessed he could not see the force of this distinction. It must have been inserted with some object, and he wished to inquire what the Emperer's motive was Now, he did happen to remember the controversy which arose last year as to the proclamation which was issued re • specting goods contraband of war, as he was at that time Secretary of the Treasury. By that proclamation it was announced that persons who exported goods of that cha racter would be liable to the penalties of maritime law. He thought it very evident that the meaning and intention of the article was to prevent us taking any step to prohibit the exportation of coal to France in case of war. That might ba said to be all nonsense, as France could in such a case have supplies of coal from Belgium and other countries ; but supposing it was a war in which Belgium was also inte rested, so as to desire to prohibit the exportation of her coal—supposing she trembled for her security and wished to cripple Fiance? There might be many cases in which it might obviously be desirable for this country to exercise that right to prohibit the exportation of coal which the Government had gratuitously and for no pur pose whatever surrendered. If he had not rightly de scribed the real object of the treaty, what was its object ? An hon. member had said that this article was superfluous because the English Government was no t likely to prohibit the exportation of coal. : No doubt they would never pro hibit its exportation for commercial purposes, and if they looked at the article in the treaty in acommercial sense, the article was entirely useless, as the Emperor of the French must know perfectly well. The French Government has suggested that article for no other but a political design, as her Majesty's Government had—he would not say been en trapped—but induced to insert it, thus placing themselves in a position which it was undesirable they should hold, because it interfered with the free exercise of their judg ment. The treaty had many good points about it, but it fettered their hands for ten years and took away their liberty of action to regulate their affairs for their own good • daring that period Mr. HORSMAN moved the adjournment of the debate. Lord PALMERSTON hoped the house would divide upon the amendment, and then allow the debate to be ad journed upon the original motion. Mr_ HOP SMAN withdrew his motion. Mr. WALPOLE suggested that as the word "system" in the original motion was an analogous term which must mean free trade, reciprocity, or something else, the words "the treaty " should be substituted. Lord PALME RSTON considered the word system a proper one, but if greater preference was expressed in favour of the word treaty he did not know that there would be any objection. But, to do that, it would be necessary that the noble lord should withdraw his amendment, as the motion stood that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. Mr. BOUVERIE offered a suggestion on the points of form. Lord A. V. TEMPEST withdrew his amendment, and on the motion of Mr. Horsman the debate was ad journed. The Isle of Man Harbour Bill was read a second time. The Spirits (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed. The Oxford University Bill was considered as amended, and agreed to. The house rose at a quarter past 12. COUNTRY IkrARIBTS MANCHESTER—MaRcH 8. Wheat in slow request, at the sztreme rates of Thursday last. Flour at former rates, and dull of sale. Oats and oatmeal a steady sale - . Beans and Indian corn were in fair request, BIRMINGHAM-MARCH 8. At to-day's market there was a less quantity of wheat offering ; the trade ruled dull, but we make no alteration in our quotations of last week. Fine barley sold' rather cheaper. Oats were at late rates, but very little doing. Beans held firmly. BOSTON-MARCH 7. We had a small supply of wheat from the growers to day, the demand for which was brisk, and at is to 2s ad vance on late prices. All other kinds of grain sold readily, except barley. Wheat, red .38s to 45s Oats.... l7B to Us White do .47s to 49s Beans 38s to 434 Barley .29s to 39s Peas ....351 to 411 s MARKET HARBOROUGH—MA.nert 7. There was a tolerable supply of wheat, which met a dull demand, at about former rates. White wheat, 41a to 47s ; red, 40s to 44s per 36 stone. Barley, old, 288 to 40s ; new, 26s to 325. Oats were a fair inquiry,from 245 to 34a per 24 stone. Beans (old), at 36s to 40s ; new, 34s to 40e per 38 stone. EDINBURGH GRAIN-MA=li 7. Wheat on the top is Od up average Os 6d up. Barley on the top 5s Od up average Os 9d up. Oats on the top 3s Od down. average Os 8d up. Beans on the top Os 6d down average is 7d up. Averages per Imperial quarter. Wheat . £2 7 2 0-12ths ' Barley 2 0 4 0-12ths Oats 1 8 5 0-12tha Beans Total Supply and Sales. Wheat .lO 11 qrs Sold 691 qrs 8ar1ey........ 672 qrs Oats .2769 qrs Sold 1659 qrs Beans 306 qrs Sold 231 qrs CORK-MA.)ICH 7. The following were the quotations this morning wheat, 26s Od to 20s 0.1; white. 26s 6d to 27s 6d; barley 163 Od to 20s Od ; oats, 12s 4d to 14s Od. DUBLIN-MARCH 7. Farmers' produce of every description in limited supply. The stands were cleared of wheat at full prices. blarkst generally dull. s. d. s. d. Wheat, white.. 28 6 to 30 6 Do., red .. 27 0 to 28 6 Do., new .... 0 to 0 Barley Oats ' 12 6 to l 3 9 Do., black ll 6 to 12 6 s. d. s. d. Do., new . 0 t• Berg . l3 I to 14 • Rapeseed .... 20 • to 23 6 Oatmeal l3 6 t• 15 0 Bakers' flour Indian corn DERBY SMITHFIELD-111Auca 6. There was a shorter supply of fat beasts to-day, with a fair attendance of buyers; the best quality in demand, and late prices maintained. Sheep again in very small supply, and better sold. Fat pigs in good supply. Fat and store calves not so plentiful. Beef 6l-d to 7d Veal 7l to 7/ Mutton Lamb ... Od to Od Rough fat, 5s 9d per stone. Hides, 3d to 51d; ;alf skins, 6el to Gicl: DAIRY PRODUCE AND FRUIT FROM FRANCE.- There are now five vessels running between St. Melo and Jersey employed chiefly in conveying dairy produce and fruit from France to Jersey. From the latter place the produce and fruit are shipped on board the mail p ac k e ts and landed at South a mpton,_ reaching the Lond on mar k e ts by the South-Western Railway. FATAL ACCIDENT TO A CHILD.—On Friday, the 17th ult., a little boy, three years of age, named George Luker, was at pley .r with other child ren i n hi s f at h er ' s house in Charles-street, ewport, when he accidentally f e ll w h t la holding a pointed stick in his hand, which penetrated be tween the nose and the eye ' causing a small wound, which bled slightly. The blood having been wiped off the face of the little fellow, he resumed his play - but on Sunday fits re sulted, and on W ednesday the play; died.—Bristol Mercury. [ADVE RTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills and Ointment. Indi gestion—Diseases of the Skin—lndigestion in the vari able temperature of winter is apt to produce cutaneous com plaints, with fever, restlessness, tainted breath, and great depression of spirits. The cause and the consequences of these disorders can be speedily and radically removed by the nse of Holloway's medicaments. The Pills should be taken in doses sufficient to act on the system without distressing it; while the Ointment should be freely applied to the parts of the skin affected, and also rubbed over the stomach and liver. The Ointment not only cleanses the skin, but acts beneficially on all subjacent organs, whether superficial or deep. Hollo way's Pills purify the blood, and regulate the liver and kid neys. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—The great injury inflicted on many invalids by drugs increases the interest the public take in Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food, which cures without medicine indigestion (dyspepsia), flatulency, constipation, nervous, bilious, and liver complaints, cough, asthma, con sumption, and debility. We quote a few out of many thou sand cases of cures by this delicious food :—Cure No. 180. —" Twenty five years' nervousness, constipation, indiges tion, and debility from which I have suffered great misery, and which no medicine could remove or relieve, have been effectually cured by Du Barry's Food in a very short time. W. B. Reeves, 181, Fleet street, London." Cure 4,208. " Eight years' lyspepsia, nervousness, debility, with cramps, spasms, and nausea, for which my servant had consulted the advice of many, have been effectually cured by Du Barry' s Health -restoring Food. I shall be happy to answer any In quiries. Rev. J. W. Flavell, Ridlington Rectory, Norfolk." En tins, at is. 6d. ; 11b., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; 51b., 125.; 121 b., 20s. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of post office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, London Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly; Alibis, 60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63, and 150, Oxford street; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopsgate street ; 85, Tottenham-court-road. Also at Dublin. Bewley and Draper ; at Edinburgh, Raimes and Co. at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; at Manchester, Sharp and Scott ; at York, Raines, Blanchard, and Co. ; at Small. ampton. Randall and Son BIRTHS. JONES.—On the Bth inst., at 33, Chester-square, the wife of Henry Jones, Esq., of a daughter. WILLIAMS.—On the Bth inst., at 10, Upper Brook-street, Grosvenor-square, the wife of Robert Wynne Williams, Esq., of a son. MARRIAGES. GOODLIKE - WROTTESLEY.-At St. Bride's Church, Tera ple, Edward Wallace Goodlake, Esq., of the Inner Tem ple, to the Hon. Caroline Wrotte.ley, only daughter of Lord and Lady Wrottesley. DEATHS. GREIG.—On the 6th inst., at Walthamstow Howe, John Glennie Greig, Esq., LL.D., aged 68. MURRAY.—On the 6th inst., Vice-Admiral James Arthur Murray, of Reading, Berks, only son of the late Lord - We • Murray, aged 70. Ross.—On the 3d inst., at St. Helier's, Jersey, Mrs. R OBOl of Cromarty, aged 31. STIEPEL.—On the sth inst., at St. George's-place, Hyde* park, George Stiepel, Esq., aged 63. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG , of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 1129 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the cowitY °f Niddloeex, Friday, March 9, 1860.