The Sun. — London, England, 1860-02-21 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack et five o'clock. THE NEW TREATY. Lord EBURY presented a petition from SP italfields against the free importation of French silk. 1: CHURCH RATES. A great number of petitions were presen ted in favour o church rates. • PRIVATE BUSINESS. On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, the following bills were read a second time :—Maidstone Water Great Northern and Western (Ireland) Railway ; Eaubrink Drainage ; Anchterarder Common Muir, Hamilton and Strathaven. Railway ; Maidstone, Rochester, and C Water ; Athenry and Tuam Railway ; Brompton : Chat ham, and Gillingham, &c., Water ; and the Kilkenny Junction Railway N . E DOWED SCHOOLS. The Duke of MARLBOROUGH gave notice that in bringing up the report of the committee on the endowed schools, he should move a clause to the effect that educa tion in those schools be limited to the terms conformable to the Church of England. VOLUNTEER CORPS. Lord VIVIAN, referring to his speech on this subject, delivered a few evenings ago, said it was scarcely judicious of the Government to pay adjutants for volunteer corps, arid not pay drill sergeants. It was of the greatest importance that good drill sergeants should be se cured, and he . ventured to ask his noble friend (the Earl of Ripon) to reconsider his determination on the point. He thought the services of the volunteers would not become permanent without the Government acted in a more liberal manner towards them. The Earl of RIPON said he was unable to give the noble lord any other answer than he had given on the evening in question. It was the intention of the Government to mass the different corps into battalions, but not force them to come together for battaliondrill. In the event of their being called out for active service, it would be necessary to form them into battalions, and for this it was advisable to orga nise them jade battalions, and government intended to ap point a paid adjutant to each battalion, which the Govern ment thought was the best step they could take at the pre sent moment. THE INDIA PRIZE MONEY. Lord BERNERS moved for copy of a despatch, in July, 1858, signifying the approval of the late Board of India Directors to the regulations proposed by the Governor-Ge neral on the subject of the Delhi prize money, and all sub sequent correspondence which may tend to explain tho delay which has taken place in satisfying the just expecta tions of - the army which effected the capture of the city. The noble lord inquired into the cause of delay -in distribut ing the medals and clasps granted by her Majesty for tho caoture of Delhi. the Duke of ARGYLE said there could be no objection on the part of the Government to produce the whole of the despatches moved for by the noble lord. The noble duke assured the noble earl that there was nothing that could be in the slightest degree construed into indifference on the part of the Governor-General with respect to the brilliant services rendered by the army in India. With respect to the medals he had great pleasure in informing him that the medals were being struck off, and would very shortly be distri buted. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said as far as he could learn the Royal assent had not been given for the distribu tion of any part of. the Delhi prize money. Lord BERNERS did not impute blame to the Govern ment, but it was certain blame rested somewhere. The motion was then agreed to. THE TREATY OF . COMMERCE. - - - The Earl of DERBY—My Lords, although I have only given notice that I would ask the intention of her Majes ty's Government with regard to the manner in which they propose to give. effect to the 20th. article of the treaty of commerce, the subject is one of such importance, and in volves such serious constitutional questions, that I am sure your lordships will excuse me if- I preface my inquiry • with a few observations, and if I conclude with a motion, on which, however, it is not my wish to take the sense of the house; but I shall move it merely for the purpose of enabling any of your lordships who may think proper to take part in the discussion without violating the rules of the house. The article in question stipulates that the treaty shall not be valid unless her Britannic Majesty shall be authorised , by her Parliament to execute the engagements entered into in her name. When I first read this article I thought it was for the purpose—certainly a very proper and desirable one —of giving this and the other house the fullest latitude of discussing the treaty without involving that inconvenience and that compromise of the dignity of the_Crown which might arise if Parliament should discuss a treaty her as sent to which her Majesty had personally ratified. That difficulty would of course be altogether avoided if, in the • treaty itself, her Majesty stipulated that it should not be binding unless Parliament also signified its assent. But, my lords, on looking at the correspondence, I find that this article is to be understood not in an English but in a French sense ; because I find it stated in the correspondence that as an arrangement would probably be made that the pro posal should be submitted at the same time to the English Parliament and to the French Legislathe Assembly, the article should apply to both sides. However, the article has been introduced, and it not only gives to Parliament an opportunity, but it imposes upon it an absolute duty, to discuss fully and to give a specific assent to the treaty. Now, my lords, it is not my intention on the present occasion to enter on the merits of the document. On the contrary, my only object in rising is to ask her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention that the fullest and amplest opportunity shall be given, in conformity with thr 20th article, for the consideration of this treaty in all its details on a future occasion. (Cheers.) lam not now at all con cerned in discussing whether it is in accordance with the theoretical principles of free trade. That question was very ably discussed on the first night of the session by a noble earl whom I see opposite (Earl Grey), who stated what, according to his views, were the legitimate principles of free trade, and showed that the treaty was entirely at variance with those principles. (Loud cheers.) Be that as it may, there can, at all events, be no question that it is at variance with the principles laid down by her Majesty's Government three or four years since. (Cheers.) Nay, my lords, it is no longer ago than the 21st of July in last year that Mr. Bright, a very distinguished member of the other house, suggested in that house a course of policy which he recom mended should be adopted with regard to France, not with reference, however, to any commercial advantage, but with reference to the preservation of peace, and with a view to obviate the necessity of continuing our great armaments. Mr. Bright said he would not commission Lord Cowley to make any great demonstration on the subject, but he would have the proposal made to the Emperor of the French with a frankness that could not be misunderstood in France, while on our side it would be hailed with enthu siasm as the beginning of a new era. Then he goes on to suggest the remission of a considerable amount of the duties now levied on articles of French origin, and he particularises the " extraordinarily heavy imposts upon one of the greatest productions of the soil of France—her light wines." (Hear hear.) Then he says that when the French people saw the great advantage they would possess, from obtain ing 30,000,000 new customers in England, the French Emperor would acquire an irresistible power, and he would be enabled to make changes in the French tariff which would be as advantageous to us as it would be to them. (Hear, hear.) I will do Mr. Bright the justice , therefore to say that he does no t propose a com mercialtreaty, but he recommends th a t we should ta ke off our own duties. But what did the noble viscount the Prime Minister and the noble lord the Foreign Secretary say to all this ? The noble l or d (Lord J. o Russell) n n a t t l the said,du ty " My hon. friend has made some pr o p os i t i ons of her Majesty's Government to the French ) s h o uld be very loth to enter upon any corresponden n e e or i discussion with the French Government whichwould induce a party, not very numerous in this country, but still very numerous and powerful in France—the Protectionists—t o say that their Government had been bargaining away the interests of France in order to obtain some advantage from us. (Cheers.) The benefits conferred by free trade as be. tween country ani country are mutual ; both parties are gainers by it; and, therefore, I should be sorry if this question-were.made the subject of diplomatic correspon dence." (Hear, hear.) With regard to this last observation of the noble lord, I wish here correct a misapprehension into wnich the noble earl opposite fell as to what I said en the first night of the session. The noble lord said that I had committed the fallacy of supposing that the advantages to be derived from free trade were limited to exports, and not considering that there was a corresponding benefit to be also derived from imports. Now, my lords, I did not at all overlook the fact that the country which makes a concession may also obtain a considerable benefit from the articles imported ; but why I dealt with exports only was because any advantage to be derived from the reduc tion of duties and the consequent increase of consumption was a matter entirely within our own power —a matter con cerning which we might act as we pleased, without making any bargain about it whatever. (Hear, hear.) Whereas, when you go into the question of exports, you will find that the amount of the articles you send away will depend upon the act of the country to which you send them. That, I take it, is the distinction between imports and exports— the one are entirely within your own power; the other will entirely depend - upon the acts of other Governments. (Hear, hear.) But to return to what 1 was saying. How did the First Lord of the Treasury meet theproposal o o w f M tha rl 1 1 6, 1 11 1:I t ! , He s aid, _ " I agree with my noble friend a treaty of of expe dient that England should enter into Open mutual a _merce w ith a foreign State founded which the rrangements. (Cheers.) The country to ibt made pro posalwould ry that we should enter into such a treaty is tOtti,ght by the Govern m ent suppose that some advantage ernpent from which the offer ema nates. (Hear, hear. )v wise course is to make for our oWn ad va:rtage s u m eh l a ai d e ip t i o nut ion in our customs' duties as I we think M.ast cal StAtes are satisfied that we ar i'Ve ' us ; then, when foreign : i t i ttnag upon a simple conic- I lion of what if+ g°°d fo a r n u i g i , lore, when they see that our I more . e id c r , e f l our prosperity, they policy is attonded by w ithmit any treaty be ossYusrterd°e.Ver a van • ample than ifwe had asked thyempotsso imititoudr Lord o ll i oud cheers.) I tage which tuey imagined the Such wag th. language of the First e. , n Secretary on the 21st of Jul t y te lr a ; s 7d and the Fo-"ei yet, in the ecru. se of . the following December, it 9 transpired 'auspices of these two noble lords, a that, under tl'e sits .me mber e mber of the other house had b een ver y enga ge d wiome time _ —I presume not unauthoris ed —upon negeti, - tto.lg for a trea b as ed upon the very pr inc iples t which had mLe ex) enapha tically repudiat ed by artith9two noble lords with r.Verence to the very same c,e, the very same eceintry w ith regard to which the repudiation had been given,(j,ou d cheers.) The treaty in question i s 'intended by her oll.tjasty's Government to be a treaty of re .cipfecity ; tivit it is, Is,inde ed, a treaty of recip rocit y in its Wriktest senae— t:or then i t would be a treaty where each esrty gave anti received an exact equivalent for what he g vve at the some time—r am not prepared. to contend. w..ch (L Tear, hear,) That it proceeds upon the pr i ncip le hi i s Bo" emphatic Ally condemned by the two noble lords— nan that 1‘ 'e are not to say to a foreign State, "If yo u will - e suetz,„a44 such changes In your tariff we "1 make such and such In ours," I think the noble lords op • posite will scarcely deny ; but, as I said before, I am not now about to enter upon a discussion of its merits. What I wish to know is the course which her Majestp's Govern ment intend to pursue in order to give Parliament an op- i portunitY of exercising the right which they possess under the treaty itself of deliberating upon its provisions. I must say, however, that there is a feeling abroad in the country that there has been a great deal of mystery and secrecy unnecessarily employed about the negotiations, and • that an attempt has been made to surprise the house into a hasty decision. (Loud cheers.) For my own part I know not why there has been such a mystery with regard to Mr. . Cobdep's share in the negotiations ; for it was not until the very last moment that Mr. Cobden was announced as having bad anything to do with them. As for the correspondence which has been published, I must say that it is of the most meagre character ever submitted to Parliament ; it indi cates an amount of haste in the framing and the execution of the treaty that is not creditable. (Cheers.) It is not until Dec. 23, 1859, that Lord Cowley sends a confidential com munication to Mr. Cobden on the subject. Then he writes home, and wishes to know whether the English Government would be disposed to enter into any negotiations on the sub ject. On the 17th of January, Lord John Russell writes a letter to Lord Cowley and Mr. Cobden, which in point of form is certainly not a little singular, for it begins, "My Lord and Sir—(a laugh),—Having received from Lord Cow ley"—the noble lord being one of the parties addressed— " having received from Lord Cowley, &c., I have to ac quaint you that her Majesty has been graciously pleased to confer on you the necessary powers as Plenipotentiaries." On Jan. 23, six days after they had thus received their powers, Lord Cowley states that the treaty had that day been signed, and transmits to his Government the result of the negotiations, but in his letter he washes his hands of the treaty as much as ever man did in this world. He in timates that he had signed the treaty as her Majeety's Am bassador at Paris ; but that it ha d all been Mr. Co bd en's doing—that it was Mr. Co bden's treaty, not his, and that he had merely been the sleeping partner. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) On the 31st of January the treaty was ratified. I say there has been undue haste in the construction of the treaty, and in the next place a desire to take the House of Commons by surprise as to the conditions of the treaty; and I shall be pleased to hear from the noble lord such ex planatior-s as will satisfy me that such was not the case. Now, I think it may be useful that we should compare the course taken by her Majesty's Government on this occasion with the course which was taken by a former Government under nearly similar eircuirditances, namely, the course pursued by Mr. Pitt in the year 1787, on the occasion of a treaty of commerce and navigation with France. The ob jects which the Government'had in view at that day were precisely similar to the objectswhich the Government have in view at the present day; and, in the Speech from the Throne in 1787 that treaty was referred to in the following words :—" I have concluded a treaty of navigation and commerce with the most Christian king, a copy of which shall be laid before you. I recommend you to take such measures as you shall judge proper:to carry it into effect ; and I trust that you will find the provisions contained in it are calculated for the encouragement of industry, the ex tension of lawful commerce ; and, by promoting intercourse with our respective subjects, will be an additional security for the maintenance of peace." Now, I apprehend the ob jects of the present Government were precisely the same. But what course did the Governments pursue ? In 1787 Parliament met on Tuesday. the 23d of January ; in 1860 Parliament met on Tuesday, the 24th of January. On the 26th of January, 1787, Mr. Pitt, as soon as the Address was disposed of, laid on the table of the two houses of Par liament the treaty he had concluded with France. He did not think it necessary to wait till the treaty had been heralded in and apologised for by an able speech, mixing up the treaty with the budget and the financesof the coun try. He trusted to the conditions of the treaty themselves, and, without requiring explanation or delaying the presen tation for a considerable period, ho at once, on the opening of Parliament, laid the treaty before the two houses. That treaty, like the present one, was accompanied by . a con vention which was to carry out in detail the provisions of the treaty itself. Now Mr. Pitt, before he called on the house to enter into a discussion on the treaty, laid be fore them not only the treaty itself, but the conven tion which specified in detail what was to be the precise amount of the duty on British goods. We are called upon to take a very different course. In the first place, there was a delay from the 31st January to the 10th February before Government ventured to lay the conditions of the treaty before Parliament. That delay took place in order that the treaty might be explained at the same time that it was laid before Parliament, that the country should have no time for the consideration of the treaty before it came on for discussion. But where is the convention in which the present amount of the duties is stated ? I say nothing of the period when the duties are to come into operation. but the duties themselves, it is stated, are in no case to exceed, 30 per cent. There is this difference between the two treaties, that whereas this treaty provides for the in troduction of French goods into this country without duties, immediately, English goods are not to be introduced into France until the expiration of eighteen months at duties not exceeding 30 per cent. But the principle of Mr. Pitt's treaty was this, that goods should be introduced recipro cally into the two countries at the same rates of duty— into the one country and into the other simultaneously— and the rates of duty specified and defined in no case ex ceeded 15 per cent., and in some cases were so low as 5 per cent. I can easily imagine that it would have been convenient for her Majesty's Government to lay this treaty and Mr. Pitt's treaty side by side on the table of the house without all the explanations that could be given on the subject; but Mr. Pitt, when the treaty had been laid on the table from the 26th of January to the 2a of February, gave notice that, on the following Monday, he should move that the treaty should be taken into consideration that day se'nnight—thus a period of seventeen days elapsed after the treaty was laid on the table before it was dis cussed. 'Now, I find that Mr. Fox, among others, vehemently protested against the unparalleled short time given. The present Government took care that we should know nothing of this treaty till the Chancellor of the Ex chequer had an opportunity of making the financial state ment, and accordingly the treaty was laid on the table be fore he made his statement, and notice was given that, on the following Thursday, it would be taken into considera tion, or rather that the house should proceed with regard to those duties which wane involved in it. Well, by dint of pressure the House of Commons did obtain an extension of time equivalent to that very short period of which Mr. Fox so bitterly complained in liB7. Now I beg your lordships to recollect that there was no 20th article in existence in the treaty of 1787. There was nothing that specifically re quired that the consent of Parliament should be given, ex cept in so far as that consent was necessarily to be given to the financial portion of the treaty. But Mr. Pitt thought the better course to take was this :—He in the first place moved three resolutions affirming the main regulations of the treaty ; and having had those r esolutions separately discussed in the House of Commons—and they led to many lengthened discussions—a motion was made on the 12th of February, and the first resolution was adopted on that day : the second resolution was adopted on the 15th, and a third on the 16th. The resolutions were reported on the 19th, and then Mr. Pitt thought it necessary to move an address approving the treaty, and thanking the Crown for having entered into it. Those resolutions and the address having passed the House of Coramons, were then communicated to your lordships' house. I beg your lordships to consider the great importance in a matter of this kind of your being en abled to exercise your deliberate judgment in questions of this nature, without being told that you have no power, practically, to deal with these questions, because they in volve money considerations, and you have no power of mak ing any amendment in a money bill sent up from the House of Commons. It is most important that your lordships should have as ample an opportunity of considering this treaty in its financial and political bearings as the-House of Commons itself. t When those resolutions were brought up from the House of Commons a species of protest was entered by Lord Stourmont to the motion made, that the assent to those resolutions would not bind the house in its legislative capacity, even in regard to measures that were founded on the resolutions, and that, after having agreed to the re solutions and the address, they were to be equally at liberty to discuss every portion of the treaty as mach as if those resolutions and address had not been agreed to. Now, let me remind you who were the men who took part in these great debates, for they were great and protracted debates, though some of the opinions expressed may appear to us un reasonable, and more especially the language that was used by Mr. Fox—(a laugh)—with regard to the necessarily in herent hostility between this country and France, and the impossibility of our ever being on good terms: Mr. Fox held this doctrine, and I think he was entirely wrong. I think that Mr. Pitt's account of the treaty itself, and the policy on which it was founded, had greatly the advantage. But these discussions are well worth the attention of your lord shie s who have the leieura to read them; and, with regard to many of them, they would appear to be not discussions having regard to the events taking place in 1787, but to what is taking place in 1860. Now, the men who took part in those discussions, and among whom there was no differ ence whatever as to the propriety of the course adopted, ..es_etsianraey—coisPithi and tt e ,F ellas o o x, ltu, not ß en u c r e ke aniedastht,ep Windham, Grenville, Wilberforce, one ow w er h y o i t th he w n hich made hs so the o fi ft r e s n t who on instructed and delighted yourthat occasion, lordships, as mr my late. Grey, telamentresdt friend Ea r l G rey, made onearance in Parliament. Now, the course which fi Mr. his Pitt and the Gove rnment of that day pursued was, after having gi ven du e t im e to enter into the consideration of the different portions'• the treaty—to move resolutions —to send these resolutions to the House of Lords—to move an address to the Cro wn , gproviniof the treaty, and to obtain i t n he t n he th a s sa t e w n o t ongfo. Horses of of s Parliam en t or Lords s t o t o o k t n h p a t t hetheir address— and joi n t course Mr. t here Pitt were pnrs considerablesd b ecause, address to the Kin He e m in m t e ro rc d ial legislation, objections taken to the e when he came to deal with the rli n ost of the course he pursued was this :—. and extensive measure, called Duties of Customs and Excise," existing duties, and re-enacting repealing A of large thetb e solidated form. This consolidation required, if I mistaken, the passing of some 3,000 resolutions. 4,tatiecnonoi re sult of these 3 , 000 resolutions was then c onsolidated into one single act; and it was com p lained, and m ore especially in the House of Lords, that the duties affected by the treaty and the duties not affected by it, were mixed together, and that it was impossible therefore to discuss them as bearing on the treaty. Now, I might have spared your lordships' time if her Majesty's Government had been a little earlier in their intimation of the course they intended to take; but i a is v not m e e itshetosibieghctseislotdinotinmato tuipo on oft to o f t h t e h o p r in e s o e d n o t bmyo which w p e a h r express its opinion. On the contrary, so far from dealing with the political portion of the treaty, when the speeeh on the budget was made, a motion was made that the House of Commons should go into committee of the whole house, with a view to deal with the financial portion of the guess lion. lam not going now to discuss a question which 1 believe the House of Commons is discussing at this moment —whether the political part of the treaty ought to have pre ceded the commercial question ; but of this I am quite clear, that the course which her Majesty's Government ought to have pursued would have been to have dealt with those ar ticles of the revenue which were necessarily affected by the treaty, and to have taken them into consideration in con nection with the general bearing and scope of the treaty; and that the proper course would be, not to go into con sidera tioa of the customs duties, but to go into committee of the whole house to take into consideration every provision of the treaty. By that course attention would have been directed suiatiin to the commercial and political considera tions, and then there would have been an opportunity, as was given in 1787, of expressing an opinion on each part of the treaty befere you proceeded to adjust your finances, as it rially a ff ected by the treaty. I would ask, then, whether c 't .ona s dr i st h he e en in t te o n , ti o n of her Majesty's Government to pursue the intention to c i l sc r ot as adopted by Mr. Pitt—whether it is their BLeangictßiloagltqsthneo intention topr o pose .• resolutions with regard to this treaty, inunicate their resolutions to this house— should u eir te n n it t e ion in t a ha j t oin th t e a t d w dr o es b s r , an gi c vf he n s g o t f h t e h i e r termssio.n of the treaty ? My noble friend op panosviteernment are yet.c Perhaps the views of her Majesty's I may be permitted to say of some little alteration. But it will not meet t1:17 that if that course should be pur sued,=ements of the present day. I believe it will not be di: but one mode by which the assbeytany this treaty, and that is assent o f lawyer that can be there is given t 9 hPaarnlizetenpft THE STJN,_LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 21, 1860. ment. In this treaty, even with regard to those articles which are simply financial and commercial, it does not at all follow that because the House of Commons sanctions a reduction of the wine duties, or that your lordships' sanc tion that reduction, that therefore the reduction will be made when it is a matter of stipulation in a treaty. The re duction of duties is one thing; the reduction of duties by virtue of a Treaty is another and entirely different question. But there is one article in this treaty, the provision with regard to which I should be loth to agree to. In a treaty . . . of reciprocity you ought to require for your commerce cor responding advantages to those that you give. The very first object which the Government ought to have set before them was the equalisation of duties, and thereby giving fair play to the most important industry of this and the other country. But by the third article you assent to the con tinuance of those differential duties which it is impossible to maintain with any pretest of dealing with this country on fair and equitable terms as affecting its commercial rela • tions. Then again, there is the 11th article, by which you , stipulate that under no circumstances will yon - prohibit the export, or impose any duty on the exportation of one of the most important articles, namely, the produce of your coal mines. Why, it is a mockery to say that there is any reciprocity in that. The article states that both coun tries engage that they will not prohibit the ex portation of coal. Why, it is notorious that France has no coal to export, and that in time of war she would be mainly dependent on this country for coal. lam not speak ing of a case in which we might be at war with France. Of course a war with France would break through the treaty ; but I am speaking of an article with regard to which it is doubtful at this moment whether it is contraband of war. My noble friend behind me reminds me that in the Italian war coal was declared contraband of war. Well, then, we aro bound, as neutrals, not to permit the exportation of coal, and yet by this treaty we engage not to prohibit its exporta tion. Ono of the belligerents might seize one of our Teasels laden with coal, and we must submit to the loss of the vessel, or, if we revenge ourselves, we may be led into hostilities, and,i instead of being neutrals, become principals in the war. I contend that we ought not to agree to such a condition with regard to an article of such vital importance as coal. In his letter of Dec. 23d Lord Cowley states that British coal imported overland shall be admitted at the same rate of duty as Belgian coal, there being now a differential duty on sea-borne coal, Now, what does the noble lord the Sec retary of State for Foreign Affairs say on the subject of coal —":An allusion has been made by Count Walowski to sea coal; but such is the demand for that commodity, both in other countries and our own, that no public interest would be excited by the question whether the duty charged on it is high or low, or whether a reduction would be made or not. Indeed, there still remains, more or less a disposition to view the export of coal with jealousy, and even to subject it to restrictions." Now the offer of France is, to take the coal at low duties, but the answer of the Secretary for Fo reign Affairs is, that it matters but little to this country whether our Goal is taken into France at a high or at a low duty, but that there Is a strong feeling of jealousy in this country with regard to facilitating the export denial to France. (Hear.) That being so—it being, as we are told, for France a matter of comparative insignificance, but looked on here with jealousy—it is stipulated by her Majesty's Government • that we shall on no account Impose a duty on the export of coal. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) I have no desire to depreciate or undervalue the details of the treaty, in so far as they are calculated to extend our commercial rela tions with France; on the contrary, I highly value them ; but I say, if you do this by treaty, let it be a treaty that carries with it something of the principle of reciprocity. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs gives a somewhat remark able explanation of his views on the question of reciprocity, when he says the proper basis for the operation on the side of France would be the gradual reduction of duties to a mo derate rate, and on the side of England total abolition. (Hear, hear.) That is to say, we are to give France, imme diately, great advantages in our tariff, while France is gra dually to lower her tariff to the condition of reciprocity. (Hear, hear.) Then the Secretary for Foreign Affairs laid down, and with very great truth, as the result had proved, the danger that the French people would be apt to consider, if this treaty were entered into, that their interests were being sacrificed for those of England ; and it has been pressed upon us that the great object of the treaty is not to promote harmony and good understanding between the two Governments, but t 3 promote such a union of interests be-, tween the two peoples as should prevent future quarrels. It appears a strange mode of accomplishing that object, to enact a treaty which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs tolls us may lead the French people to believe that their interests are being sacrificed to ours. (Olean) And what is the ground put forward for making this a matter of treaty ? It is admitted that the treaty will be most unpopu lar in France—that large classes of the French people are opposed to it as detrimental to their interests, and that so to the ordinary mode of legislatio n in France, the serious is the objection and so great the difficulty', that, ac cording Emperor, with all his power and all his appliances, would be unable to pass the proposed reduction of duties through the French Legislature. (Hear, hear.) But it is said, if we will assist him in this difficulty and make it a matter of treaty—if we will lay down the principle of so dealing with it, then, in spite of the opposition, tho Emperor of the French will be enabled to give .to those acts the power of law by a special enactment which ho could not • pass through the Legislature in tho ordinary way. If there were any truth in this statement of the Secretary of • State for Foreign Affairs, I must say that it appears to me a very singular mode of consulting the interests of the people of France, or of securing for ourselves a feeling of general compliance. (Hear, hear.) Now, the question which I wish to have answered by the noble earl (Earl Granville) is, what steps her Majesty's Government propose to take in order to give effect to the 20th article of this treaty. I believe I have succeeded in showing that it will be necessary that the as sent of Parliament should be given in a positive and formal manner, not that it should be merely implied ; and the only mode by which this assent of Parliament can be constitu tionally given is by legislative enactment ; not dealing with particular parts of the treaty only, but deciding the treaty generally both in principle and details, and inviting the as sent of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) In that way only can it be applied. I shall be glad to hear from my noble friend that the Government has made up its mind to take that course, because if that oourse be adopted there will be ample opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to consider the treaty in all its bearings ' • and in that case I *an assure him r that on my part, and on the part of those with whom I act, there will be no desire to enter upon the consideration in any factious spirit, or with any desire to interpose difficulty I or delay. The questions of the gravest doubt in my mind • are, in the first place, whether it is wise in regard to any financial regulations of this nature to bind ourselves hand and foot for 10 years—(hear, hear)—and in the next place, whether, however desirablcA may be to extend—as I hope to see extended—our commercial relations with France, this is the time to do it, when we have an enormous deficit of revenue, and when, to obtain the anticipated advantages of the treaty, we must largely increase, and, as I believe, make permanent, a system of taxation which the Legisla ture has hitherto reserved for periods of emergency and ac • tual war; but if we introduce this led. in the pound on all incomes in a time of peace, it will be henceforth esta blished as a portion of our ordinary revenue, which you never afterwards can get rid of—thus depriving yourselves of the readiest and most powerful means of meeting any great and sudden emergency. (Hoar.) I object to some of the articles of the treaty on their own merits, and to others, not upon their merits, but because, even if the agree able calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be borne out, I consider this is not the moment to enter into each stipulations; when the means by which it is proposed to provide for the loss which it is admitted will be sustained by the operation of the treaty are means most objectionable in a time of peace, and which should be only applicable in oases of war or extreme emergency. For the sake of re gularity I will conclude by moving that there bo laid before your lordships' house copies of the journals of the two Houses of Parliament relating to the treaty of commerce with France proposed by Mr. Pitt in 1787. (Cheers.) The Earl of HARD WICKE made an observation across the table to the effect, as well as it could be gathered in the gallery, that during the late war with Russia two vessels belonging to a Danish port were seized and confiscated as carrying cat goes contraband of war, such cargoes being coals. Earl GRANVILLE said that the course of the noble lord opposite in charging the Government with secrecy was not a little remarkable, for the noble earl, who had given notice of a question on Friday, in a way which the house could not but consider intended to prepare them for a most casual inquiry, had entered into matters of grave import ance, upon which he had spoken for au hour and a half. If he might judge from the brilliant audieace, too, which was then assembled to hear the noble earl, he was bound to say that he thought the charge of secrecy could be more justly applied to the noble earl himself ; for certainly they had not been in his secrets. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) At the same time he did not wish to be understood as complaining of the course taken by the noble earl, and her Majesty's Government were bound to give whatever information was essential to the duo comprehension of the proposed arrangement. One of the objections which the noble earl had raised was that her Majesty's Govern ment had exercised an undue degree of mystery regarding the treaty in the course of the negotiations. Upon that he would only remark that some amount of secrecy was nut only unavoidable but absolutely necessary in such circumstances ; hut the noble earl was to a great extent in etror, as her Majesty's Government were for a long time not committed even to negotiations. When Count Walew ski made the proposition to the Government of her Majesty the case was different, and from that time only the obser vations of the noble earl could be taken to apply, if there were any foundation for the fault which he found. The noble earl, too, had carefully avoided expressing himself on the principle f reciprocity treaties, so that the house was as that moment in the dark as to his real views concerning such engagements. The noble earl compared what had taken place in reference to the treaty, with the proceedings in reference to Mr. Pitt's, but in the latter case they wire actually more rapid. With regard to the question of time, the contents of Mr. Pitt's treaty had become known before Parliament met. Referring to that precedent, the noble earl had given a. Toy accurate account of the steps which tra ditional Mr. Pitt took, and of the debates which had occurred, ad verting also to some of the observations made by Mr. Fox. He (Earl Granville) confessed it was painful for him, who he regretted t his respectearli e s fort youth u h tehhad memor y of cherishedthat a g historicalreat statesman, locked upon the principles ho enunciated fir civil and re ligious progress . fi w nd ith th t a 'e t e feelings gt the eo debate e the bat e g r r e e f a c t r e r s e t d a d t o n: i r b .t o t t i h o n he — and others we r e o as wrong as they could be ; as they took of policy would this singularli noble earl said tat eefargument, that the success of that line (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The render necessary the objectionable step of a free trade treat y. a committee of the whole house was moved for the purpos e of consi h dering certain resolutions yrance ; but the noble with reference to tho treat y • earl did not say that, dealing generally present instance with our Customs duties, wherea s l an tiating exclusively with France dirnenaor w e were nego they would be opened to all the earl also said that the most important c l auses noble the treaty were embodied in the resolutions, but e i a n u t s lrat I. ( i ) e f was not strictly correct; for what was embodied was reso lutions founded on those clauses of the treaty which affected customs duties. The intention of her Majesty's Guvern ment was quite consonant with what had already been stated in the other house, namely, that of giving all neces sary information with a view to obtain the full assent'of Parliament. If they were passed, the House of' Commons would be advised to agree to an address to the Crown; and th o ugh he did not think the course N u V .a h s en st t i ll i cattlywians conformity with precedent , the resolutions passed by the other house would be submitted to their ' lord ships, when their lordships would do precisely what was done in Mr. Pitt's time—consider the resolutions, and then agree to an address to the Crown. Tho 14th article of the _ treaty would also be open to some of the remarks of the noble earl. He thought the noble earl could not make up a case on clause 11. As to the right of prohibiting coal in the case of war, it was no doubt contraband w here its uses were obvious. In Pitt's treaty it was stipulated that coal was not contraband of war; and the same was said of sail cloth and other articles which had since been declared to be contraband. By the law of nations there were "belli gerents' rights," which might be exercised previous to war. The act of 1853 gave the Crown power to prohibit the exportation of contraband of munitions of war, and either there was something in the treaty of commerce to affect that right, or there was not. Before the Russian war Go vernment issued a proclamation six weeks before war, pro hibiting the exportation of the • contraband of war to any ports north of Dantzic, leaving it free to the rest of the world. Countries with the "favoured nation clause" ac cepted this without a murmur, which would not have been the case had not the rights of belligerents been fully ad mated. The noble earl had spoken of the "one-sidedness" of the treaty, which, however, he had not made out. The remissions of duty on our part were for our own advantage, and were, therefore, adopted at once, though the French Government offered to consent to delay as long as we liked. Some of the moat eminent men in France deplored the treaty as absolutely and altogether to the advantage of England, but amongst us by , some it was deplored as altogether in favour of France ; both of those assertions could not be true. He fully believed that this treaty would be greatly to the ad vantage of this country. As to Lord Cowley "washing his hands of the affair," and putting it all upon Mr. Cobden, that was merely to do justice to Mr. Cobden's knowledge and abilities; and Mr. Cobden, on his part, wished the chief credit to he given to Lord Cowley, from whose expe rience and judgment he had derived so much advantage. (Hear.) Because the influential protected classes of France objected to the treaty. it was said we were wishing to force it upon the French people against their will ; but if the Em peror had not known how beneficial it would be to the com merce of his country, he would not have consented to it. Believing that free trade would extend more and more, and that it could not do so without advantage to England, he was glad that the treaty before their lordships had been in troduced by her Majesty's present Government. (Hear.) After a few words from Earl GREY and the Duke of ARGYLL, the motion was withdrawn, Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAYER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a second time :—Coln River Water ; Conway, Llanrwst, and Bettws:y Coed Railway ; Denhigh, Ruthin, and Corwen Railway; Egham and Woking Railway ; Llyfni Vale Railway and Harbour ; Macclesfield Gas ; Manchester and Milford Railway ; Sovereign Life Assurance Company; Stockport, Disley, and Whaley Bridge Ra ilway; Tewkesbury, Upton upon-Severn and Malvern Junction Railway; Westmins ter Improvements ; Ulster Railway and Corporation of Belfast ; and Wellington (Salop) NS Water.) PETITIO. Several petitions were presented in favour of and against the commercial treaty with France, against the- uncondi tional repeal of church rates, against licensing coffee-shop keepers to sell wine and beer, and in favour of the repeal of the duty on paper. BERWICK ELECTION, 1859—INCOME TAX. Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from the Northern Reform Union praying for an inquiry into a compact which had been entered into between Mr. Marjoribanks and the two members who' had been returned at the election for that borough in 1859. The hon. member also presented a petition from merchants and manufacturers of Birmingham, complaining of the income tax, and regretting that the ex travagant expenditure of the country should render the tax necessary. TIMBER DUTIES. Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition from merchants of the City of London, praying for the abolition of the duties on timber, and in favour of the passing of the commercial treaty with France. Mr. BROCKLEHURST presented a petition from the operatives employed in the silk manufactures of Maccles field, praying that if the silk goods of France and the continent are to be admitted free of all duty, that British silk goods be admitted free into France, and that this union will insist on this measure of justice to labour. Tiieprosentation of petitions occupied more than an hour, CLEANSING THE SERPENTINE. Sir J. SHELLEY gave notice that as soon as the re port of the commission to inquire into the cleansing of the Serpentine was laid on the table he woull call the atten tion of the house to the subject, with a view to afford hon. members an opportunity of expressing their opinions as to the propriety of proceeding with the works. COALS, CINDERS, CULM, &c. Mr. H. H. VIVIAN moved for accounts of the quantities of coals, cinders, and culm, and patent fuel, shipped at the several ports of England, Scotland, and Ireland, coast - Ways, to other ports of the United Kingdom, in the year 1859 ; distinguishing the quantity shipped at each of the said ports as compared with the year 1858, &c.—Ordered. CINNAMON, tic. Mr. HANKEY moved for a return of the total gum. ties (producing countries not required) of cinnamon, cloves, mace, nutmegs, and pepper taken for home consumption in the United Kingdom for thirty years past, giving the rate of duty payable on each article in each year.—Ordered. DWELLINGS FOR LABOURING CLASSES (IRELAND) Sir W. SOMERVIELE moved for leave to bring in a bill to extend the act to facilitate the improvement of landed property in Ireland, and the acts amendinc , the same, to the erection of dwellings for the labouring classes in Ireland.—Agreed to. PASSES, &c. Sir C. NAPIER asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a circular had been issued forbidding officers to give passes out of the sea port town; and whether the Cap tain of the Princess Royal asked permission to give passes, and was reproved for so doing ? Lord C. PAGET said that, except in special cases, the passes alluded to would not be granted. •••••11 which I have just indicated, it was, I will not conceal fr om the committee, to us matter of great regret that we fee and ourselves obliged to precipitate chat cenclusion owiz ig to the peculiar manner in which the public business has this year been placed before us by the Government. We were obliged to do so, I may add, although according to ova. own feelings it would have been desirable that we should post • pone giving effect to the conclusion to which we came until much of the preliminary discussion involved in the impor tant topics which the financial statement embraces should have taken place ; in the course of which discussion probably many circumstances might have occurred to change and modify the convictions which we entertained, an& the ex pression of opinion to which I have referred. But when the great haste with which the important subjects embraced in the financial statement were brought under our considera tion was taken into account, when we directed our atten tion to the almost inextricable confusion with which mat ters and measures that had no necessary connexion were mixed up together, and the great difficulty which must attend the hurried consideration of propositions so varied and so complicated, we found it impossible to take any other course than that which was indicated by the notice of my hon. friend the member for Essex. (Hear, hear.) From the way in which these important measures have been in troduced to the house it seemed impossible, if this issue was to be arrived at, and if this question was to be raised, that it could be postponed beyond the question of whether the Speaker should leave the chair to go into committee on the Customs Acts ; and, although we deprecate and deplore the inconvenience, and, as we believe, the great public im propriety of the House being called on, before the prelimi nary debates that might have arisen, to come to a conclusion on the whole scheme of the finance of the Government, still it was inevitable from the mode and manner in which the public business of the country was arranged by the Ministry. (Hear, hear.) Well, Sir, that being the state of the case, there arose accidentally on Friday night last what I maycall a conversation on the subject of the French treaty of-com merce, and towards the conclusion of it I made an inquiry of her Majesty's Government en a matter which I had several times referred to as very perplexing, and that was to know in what manner her Majesty's Government in tended to introduce the treaty of commerce with France to the consideration of the House. (Hear, hear.) And, Sir, I am bound to say that the answer of the Government on that occasion was so ambiguous, so hesitating, and, upon further reflection and research in the course of the evening appeared to me so impracticable, that I felt it my duty, though with great unwillingness myself, to place that notice on the paper which hon. gentlemen are aware of. Sir, su little had that amendment, on my part, the character of a party motion, that I had not, from the state of the House, the opportunity of conferring with any. hon. gentleman with whom I am in the habit of acting, except my hon. and learned friend the member for Belfast—(hear) —an d I should willingly, most willingly, have seen the task undertaken by an independent member of the House. But time was urgent—the subject was pressing—and so it has devolved upon me to call the serious attention of the House to what I believe is the unprecedented and peculiar position'in which it is placed—a position, I think, which will be found after calm discussion to be by no means favourable to the privileges of this House and to that freedom of discussion of which we are so proud and jealous. (Hear, hear.) Probably there have been few sessions of Parliynent in which measures of such great importance have been introduced to the notice of the House of Com mons as the present; yet the management of this business by the Government—inadvertently, I make no doubt—has been so arranged, that although we have before us most im portant measures, although we are called upon to take up some of the most considerable questions that can be raised, I will be bound to prove to the house that on no occasion have the opportunities for discussion been so abridgei and limited—(hear, hear)—and, as I think I shall show on one important portion of these topics, not only abridged and limited, but absolutely superseded. Sir, believing that this has been unintentional and inadvertent on the part of the Government, but feeling that it has already placed the house in a very inconvenient position, not without injury to the public service, I have thought it my duty, by the motion I placed on the table, to give the house an oppor tunity of interfering and remedying that which I think will, on reflection, appear to be an evil of no slight magnitude. (Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, I hardly know that I can more clearly illustrate the extraordinary position in which the house is placed at this moment than by referring to the first two amendments of which notice has hems given in the order of the day. The first amendment is by the hon. mem ber for Sunderland, with reference to those differential duties on timber which are retained by France in the commercial treaty. Well, if the hon. gentleman had brought forward that question, no doubt the house would have had the op portunity of deliberating on an important article of the commercial treaty; and when the division was called for, when the division was made, no matter how, or on what side it might be declared, by the rules of the house, which prevent a second amendment on the question of going into committee on Customs Acts, no other single article in the treaty of commerce could- possibly have been brought before the house. (Hear.) Well, then, suppose, as I un derstand would have been the case if the hon. member for Sunderland, according to the custom of the house, and in unison with the court e sy whi c h always regulates on both sides our habits, feeling that he had to bring for ward a subject though of importance yet of limited in terest, had deferred to the hon. member for Essex, who was challenging a much wider and completer issue, and that too at the request of a large party—supposing the hon. member for Essex had brought forward his amendment this evening, then the house would have had the opportu nity of giving an opinion on the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and after the decision upon that question, assuming for a moment that the motion would be negatived, it would be utterly impossible for any member either to bring on any amendment on any article of the treaty of commerce, or again refer to any subject connected with the budget. (Hear, hear.) Well, now, sir, is that a state of the business of this house which is satisfactory? Ought the house to be placed in such a situation on any question in a session when the Government bring forward questions of first-rate importance, and measures the magnitude of which can scarcely be exaggerated ? Sir, so far as I can form an opinion at the present moment—and I beg the house calmly and completely to bear this in mind—so far as I can form an opinion, and I have spared no meant in the brief interval that has elapsed to avail myself of the learning which I myself do not possess on this subject, the treaty of commerce with France, which never has been before the house, never can be before the house. (Hear, hear.) Surely this is a point on which the house ought to arrive at accurate know ledge and a correct judginont. It will be for the Govern ment to-night to prove that I am under an erroneous im pression of the case ; but, sir, my opinion is that if we go into committee on the Customs Acts, and if we pass all those resolutions which ire on the paper to be preposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which will effect all th ose remission s or reductions of duty which are contemplated in the treaty of commerce, that treaty can never afterwards come before this house for its consideration and its judg ment. (Hear.) It may be said, as it was said indeed the other night, that the mere resolutions of this house in com mittee on the Customs Act are not laws of the land, and are not conclusive, and therefore they might again be placed in anotherform before us. Well, sir, let us see what is the value of that plea. It has been admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent letter to a member of this house that for all practical purposes, as regards the c mule!, the votes in the committee on the Customs Act are conclusive; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer only used on that occasion the language and availed himself of the view which has always been ac cepted by individuals in his position and recog nised by the house. What is the language of the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on this subject? We have his language in the despatch to the joint negotiators of the treaty; the noble lord there says that "with respect to all these articles which are to be set free from the duty and removed altogether from the tariff, these articles shall become free on the day succeeding that on which a resolu tion in committee of the House of Commons affirming the proposed freedom from Customs' duty shall have been duly reported and agreed to by the house. And no doubt the noble lord was perfectly justified in making that statement, and in giving that instruction to the co-negotiators. But if that be the case, what opportunity should we have upon the Customs' Act, subsequently introduced, of considering the treaty of commerce ? Those who had voted for the reduc tion or remission of duties in committee Would scarcely op pose an Act which carried their own resolutions into effect; and all thoso who, assuming them to be the minority, op posed those reductions and remissions must, in their oppo sition to the Customs' Act, be confined merely to the mat ters contained in that Customs' Act. Therefore I main tain that if that Customs' Act were passed all that assent of Parliament which is provided for in the 20th article of the treaty would have been perfectly fulfilled and satisfied. But it is a mistake to suppose that the 20th article of this treaty requires the sanction, or—as the hon. member for Finsbury called it—the ratification of the House of 'Com, mons. The House of Commons has no right, under the constitution, to' sanction or ratify treaties. And if her Majesty, having exercised her prerogative, subject in cer tain particulars, to her being enabled by this house to fulfil her engagements, is so enabled by this house to fulfil those engagements, the treaty becomes a complete treaty, and there is no doubt it would be accepted as a com plete treaty by the foreign Power with which it was nego tiated. (Hear, hear.) But if the only mode by which the provisions of the treaty can be brought before the house is by the remission and repeal of Customs' duties in committee, and afterwards by passing a Customs' Act, I ask the house how are we to deal with those considerable questions that may arise in this treaty which have nothing whatever to do with the remission or reduction of Customs' duties? (Hear, hear.) I would refer again to the 11th article of tab; treaty, which has greatly interested—l may even say agitated—the mind of this country. In this article the Crown engages not to prohibit the exportation of coal. There has been, indeed, a great deal of excitement in va rious places on that subject, but that question, I think, was never clearly end completely put before the country until it was stated on Friday night by my lion. and learned friend the member for Belfast. (Hear.) With great respect to the noble Secretary opposite I could not infer from his observa tions that he fairly understood the question,. because the noble lord referred to a treaty with Russia which had been negotiated by Lord Malmcslaury, and seemed to imagine that that was an identical parallel with the important case now before us. But the treaty with Russia to which he alluded contained only an engagement on the part of her Majesty and the Emperor of Russia not to enforce, the one against the other, any prohibition of importation or expor tation which shall not at the same time be applicable to all other nations. That, sir, is not the case which the 11th article of the present treaty deals with. (Hear, hear.) And nothing can prove that more clearly than that the co-nego tiators have absolutely inserted in the 19th article of thfB vet y treaty of commerce a proviso to that effect, which con clusively shows that the contingency contemplated in the 1 lth article which has so alarmed the country is totally dif ferent from that identity of circumstances assumed by the noble lord. Now what is this 11th article ? The Parlia ment of this coun try has entrusted the Sovereign with the great right of prohibiting the exportation of coal. And by the 11th article of this treaty the Sovereign has agreed with a foreign Power not to exercise that right which has been confided to her by her Legislature for the space of 10 years. (Hear, hear.) I give no opinion now on the policy or on the law of the question. Ido not wish to-night to mix myself up with controversies of any kind. But I ask the house, ought a treaty, including such an article as this, so near l y concerning the privileges of this assembly, and touching the very constitution of tho country—and bear in mind this is not the only article of importance which is not 4 4114uci4 - • 1.••• •k • or a fiscal one—ought such a treaty, I repeat, to escape the due consideration of the House of Commons ? (Hear, hear.) I say, then, that the 11th article alone furnishes an unan swerable argument for the end I have now in view, viz., that of bringing before this house a treaty which has never from the beginning been clearly submitted to us. But it is held by very high authorities, by men who have been eminent in this house, and who are ill us t r i ous i n th e ot h er house of Parliament, that notwithstanding this is an illegal act on the part of the Crown — notwithstanding that her Majesty has been advised to take an illegal and unconstitutional course; still this is a complete engagement, as far as, a foreign Power is concerned, on the part of the Sovereign ; and if her Majesty is enabled by the reduction and remission of Customs' duties, assented to by her Parliament, to carry that engagement into effect, her Majesty would be bound by the 11th article of the treaty. But if that be the case, and I give no opinion upon it, so much the more important is it that we should deliberately, regularly, and methodi cally consider all these questions of the reduction and re mission of revenue. (Hear, hear.) Because this might happen—that it would only be the refusal of the House of Commons to reduce or remit a duty that might extricate the Sovereign from an unconstitutional and perilous position. According to that view—and I give no opinion on its jus tice—it is equallynecessary, I think, that this treaty should be placed before us. The noble lord the First Minister the other night said, " Ofcourse the house will be asked to give their opinion upon the treaty." I want to know in what way we are to give our opinion upon the treaty, assuming as I have done throughout these observations, that the course of conducting business indicated by the Government is pursued—that we gointo committee on the Customs Acts, and pass all these remissions and reductions of duty which among other remissions and reductions, are necessary to enable her Majesty to complete her engagements with the 1 Emperor of tho Fr enc h. If a ll t h ese reductions and remise 1 sions are made I want to know in what way her Majesty's Government propose to bring the treaty of commerce with Franco before the cognisance or subject it to the constitu tional control and criticism of this house. That is the ques tion which I hope will be answered to -night. (Cheers.) Will the noble lord the First Minister give notice of an address to the Crown after all these reductions and remission have been made, assuring her Majesty that he will lose no Lime in taking those measures which will enable her to ful fil her engagements with the Emperor of the French ? In the first place, it will be very difficult—l believe it is per fectly unprecedented—under any circumstances, for the. House of Commons to address the Crown on a treaty on which her Majesty has not been advised to condescend to address the House of Commons. It was im possible, it may be said, in her Majesty's Speech to an nounce the fact of this treaty of commerce being ratified. But in a similar case—that of the treaty of commerce which was negotiated at Utrecht—that treaty, having been nego tiated when Parliament was sitting, could not be announced from the Throne at the opening of the session ; but a mes sage from Queen Anne was brought down, informing this house of what had occurred—(hear ' hear)—and, of course, that led to a c ommun i ca ti on which was in every respect constitutional and conformable 'to Parliamentary usage. But we need not go back to so distant a period. It is in the experience of two-thirds of the members of the present House of Commons, although it happened under the former one, that our gracious Sovereign entered into a treaty with the King of Sardinia while Parliament was sitting, and to carry it into effect she required the assistance of her Legis lature: What then happened ? The Minister brought down an address from her Majesty, and that invited a loyal and dutiful response. (Hear, hear.) I think it would be very difficult for the noble lord, all these reductions and re missions having taken place, then to propose that we should address the Crown to inform her Majesty that we were pre pared to carry this treaty into effect. But the noble lord may say, "It will then be full time for isle to advise her Majesty to address this house, and after youhave concluded your committee on the Customs Act a message from the Crown shall come down to you." Sir, the relations between the Crown and this house are of a peculiar and delicate, character. It should be our first study not to let them de generate into more formality. (Hear, hear.) And for the Queen to send down a message to this house announcing that she had concluded a treaty with the Emperor of the French, inviting our consideration of that treaty, and call ing upon us to grant the means of carrying it into effect, when her Majesty must have been fully informed by her Minister that we have parted with all those privileges of Parliament which secure our constitutional control over treaties, would be, I think, a course which no Minister would be justified in recommending his Sovereign to follow, and would be at once a mockery to the Crown and an insult to Parliament. (Loud cheers.) A great Minister, whom I shall have occasion to quote in the course of some subsequent remarks, has touched with great eloquence and truth upon the union which may be effected between the prerogative of the Crown and the privileges of Parliament upon This important subject of treaties. He said, " It is a happy circumstance of our constitution that it gives to the Crown the sole prerogative of negotiating and concluding treaties, but it gives the judgrneat, revision, and execution of those treaties to the privileges of the peo ple." (Hear, hear.) I want to know how we can give judge ment, how we can effect revision, how we can control the administration of this treaty, if we have already parted with the privileges upon which the exercise of these powers de pends. There is another course by which the noble lord might contemplate bringing the treaty under the considera tion of the House of Commons. He might have thought that it was in his power, after the committee on the Cus toms Act was concluded, to give notice that on a particular day he would call upon the house to consider the treaty of commerce with France. Suppose the noble lord gave that notice, hew would he act upon it? He could not go into committee to consider the treaty, because every financial and fiscal vote would have been arrived at, and he would have exhausted all the reasons which authorise the house to go into committee. Could he then propose a resolution that the house would sanction the treaty ? I apprehend that such a course would be one which would outrage the prerogative of the Crown. The noble lord would not for a moment pre tend that it is the business of the House of Commons to sanction'a treaty which has already been ratified by the Sovereign; and therefore if he gave that notice, I cannot conceive what he would do when the house met to discuss it. These are the main reasons which have induced me to come to the conclusion that if the house persists in the course of business at present proposed, this treaty of com merce with France will really never be submitted to its constitutional consideration. I want the house this evening to see whether there are not some means by which we can extricate ourselves from a position so difficult, and to the house so humiliating, as that which we now, unintention ally I doubt not on the part of the Government, appear to occupy. I believe there are simple and efficacious means for effecting that result which the house ought to adopt, and I think we can do no better than follow those prece dents with which the wisdom and experience of our prede cessors have furnished us. There are several precedents which apply to the present state of public business, but I do not wish to weary the house with th em . ("H ear, he ar, " from the Ministerial benches.) I doubt not, because there is one precedent which in its nature is so apt, which affords an example so complete, and the actor in which is so illustri ous, that I am quite sure that if the house will give its at tention to the proceedings which were adopted by Parlia ment in that case—and by Parliament in the prime period of its reputation —we shall obtain a guide not only in the present position of this question, but in case of any combi nation of difficulties which may arise in the:course of a pro longed debate. I referred to that prec&lent in the course of the conversed= of Friday, but very hastily and very im perfectly. If the house will permit me, I will now state very succinctly, but I hope clearly, what took place with respect to the treaty of 1787 ; and it appears to me that in a right appreciation of those circumstances wo shall find means of disembarrassing ourselves from those difficulties which we have already felt, and which, if we do not adopt that course will, in my opinion, daily incr ease . (H ear, h ear. ) The house will recollect that the treaty of commerce between England and France negotiated in 1786 was concluded at the end of the month of Septeniber. In October it was published throughout Europe. Parliament did not meet until the last week in Jan., 1787, and therefore for four months that treaty had been canvassed and analysed, and had been in the mouths and minds of men. (Hear, hear.) Oa the 2d of Feb ruary Mr. Pitt, having a few days previously brought up the treaty by command (as the noble lord the Secretary of State did the other night), gave notice that upon the 12th of that month he should call upon the house to take it into consideration, thus allowing 10 days f or th e s t u d y o f a docu ment which for four months had been so fully discussed by the country that many of its defects had been discovered, and Mr. Pitt had even negotiated a supplementary treaty by which they were remedied—a hint of which the hon. member for Finsbury might avail himself. Let the house remember that when Parliament met the Sovereign had an nounced the negotiation and ratification of the treaty which was not our case this year. Mr. Fox immediately rose and protested against 10 days only being allowed. (Hear, hear.) We have had only 10 days allowed, although this treaty was not even ratified when Parliament met. We have not had the advantage of the criticism of four months. On the con trary, it is only by a miracle that, the financial statement (h e r s upon l having been made on F r id a y, we Thursday. wuerrseday not c . called e to decide upon it on th e following think that all that h as s i nce o ccurred with regard to th ese matters has shown that I was not irrational when I pressed the importance of delay, and the necessity of giving us time to consider in what manner we had best deal with proposi tions of such magnitude. (Hear, hear.) Upon the 12th of February Mr. Pitt called the attention of the house, which had upon his motion gone into committee, to the considera tion of the French treaty. He did so in a very ample and able speech, in which he considered that instrument both commercially and politically, and he conclud e d b y moving the first of 20 resolutions which he had prepared. Those re solutions—and let me call the attention of the house par ticularly to this fact—wore not resolutions similar to those of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given notice to be moved in the committee on the Customs Act. They were general resolutions. Mr. Pitt himself impressed upon the house that they need not be alarmed lest, by acceding to these resolutions, they should be entrapped into an ap proval of details which they might afterwards regret. They were drawn largely and generally, and were not, as I will show, resolutions which could form the staple and element of a financial bill. There were several debates, adjourn ments, and divisions upon those resolutions which em bodied the pith of the treaty, for the commercial treaty of Mr. Pitt was limited entirely to commercial considerations. (" Hear, hear" from Lord John Russell.) If they were n s ai t gn a tt k dhh e ie n i: kee b dpo e .on c r a t teudsee2oi 'Towardson . 20th —those ithatlh: the hhh c ooe a us s es e een2. m do yoafr resolu tionsg theu not, it would tall more for my position. I should be glad m mt o efi n nn t t h dw w o to f e hu r a F l e td e February —it uaae passed l a s s r e y tm d r — ei Imme diately lhey were reported a follower of Mr. Pitt moved an address to the Cro a e n , i n answer to a passage in the Speech ( m a r r t h y e the Throne, treaty into pledging effect.th e l h v o h u i s t e to t he n e nable occurredhi his M ? a m r j e h s t y y , f to ro the resolutions and the address of the house were sent up to a body which it appears to me has been entirely forgotten in these transactions; because when her Majesty in her engagements with the Emperor of the French talks of the assent of Parliament, I can hardly suppose that her Ministers consider that Parliament consists only of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear) Mr. Pitt took no further step in the business until the House of Lords had equally passed those resolutions, after most memor able debates distinguished by a speech of the highest class from the first Marquis of Lansdowne, which may be read now with great profit. (Hear, hear.) The house of Lords als o assented to address the Crown, and the two houses went up with their joint address. What then took place ? Mr. Pitt left those resolutions on the table, and then brought forward his Consolidation Act, and when the house went int) committee on the Customs' Consolidation Act, those resolutions wore submitted to that committee, and in committee they were brought into practical effect after the house had discussed the general principles which they declarel. Thus the house had an oppertunity of en tering into all the minutiae which the subject demanded. (Hear, hear.) There wore some impatient gentlemen when I mentioned precedent, and I know I shall be told "Don't talk of times past. What have times past to do with an age of progress like the present? Never mind precedents or standing orders, go ahead with large comprehensive te m _ sures. You must not suppoie the author,s, of such schemes are subject to such rusty regulations. (Cheers.) Wh en Mr. Pitt, in 1787, intradliced the treaty of co mmerce with Frailest, lie no large and comprehensi ve measure of ho thlaucial reform ? Why, sir, with reference to gie akito of our country at that time, its revenue, its population, and its general resources, the measure which Mr, Pitt brought for ward for the consolidation of our Customs and Excise may be looked upon as by far the greatest reform of the kind which ever was carried. (Hear, hear.) We hear a great deal now of the simplification of the tariff, as if it were some new idea, the offspring of this enlightened age and only dis covered at Manchester. (Laughter.) We are told now that 200 or 300 articles in the tariff is a barbarous state of things which marks an age. The house can form an idea of what Mr. Pitt's labours were when he dealt with a tariff which had not been revised for generations—l may almost say for centuries—and when the committee had to agree in those days to no less than 3,000 resolutions in order to carry his policy into effect. (Cheers.) Mr. Pitt had a large and comprehensive measure, but he did not mix it up in any way with his commercial treaty. On the contrary, having given the house the constitutional opportunity of consider ing the treaty, and having moved and passed in committee the twenty resolutions necessary to carry it into effect, he introduced his Consolidation of the Customs and Excise Bill. The House went into committee on that bill, and those resolutions were referred to that committee. Let the house observe that during the exposition by which Mr. Pitt introduced the treaty of commerce with France in ' 1787 there was not the slightest allusion to the effect which that treaty would have on the revenue of this country, though its effect must have been considerable. There was not the slightest allusion to his great and comprehensive measure of fiscal and financial reform, although it was his purpose to submit to the committee on that great bill the resolutions which were passed in committee on the commercial treaty. In February Mr. Pitt introduced the commercial treaty. In March ho introduced his great measure of financial re form, and at the right time in April he- produced his budget. (Cheers.) I ask the house why are we to be treated differently than the Commons in 1787 ? (Hear.) Why should we not have the commercial treaty, the com prehensive scheme of financial reform, and then the budget submitted to us in their natural order, which would give frequent and ample opportunities for that matured debate and that criticism which questions of such importance and of so complicated a character require ? (Hear, hear.) I ask the house why we should not follow in the present in stance the same course as the Government of 1787? That is a question which 1 think ought to be answered. If we follow that course it appears to me we shall have frequent opportunities of debate and discussion, of which we shall otherwise be inevitably deprived, and above all, the treaty will be brought under our cognisance and criticism, which, as far I canjudge, will otherwise not be the case. (Hear.) I venture to say that I am at a loss to understand what ob jections her Majesty's Ministers will make to the proposi tion with which I shall conclude. I shall be extremely glad if I can obtain my purpose without asking the house to assent to any amendment. The amendment which I hays put on the paper is one in accordance with the forms of the house, and I have no other object but that of asserting the privileges of this house, and of preserving that right of de bate which we havehitherto deemed so important. (Cheers.) I said I would make no observations on the policy or pro visions of this treaty with France, but I may be allowed to make one remark, firstly upon the negotiator of this treaty, and secondly on the form of the instrument in which the result of those negotiations is placed before us, and I do so because I cannot but feel that they are in some degree the causes of the embarrassing position in which the house is placed. (Hear, hear .) lam s ure th a t th e h ouse w i ll do me the justice of believing and perhaps remembering that I have never been slow in recognising the great ability and honourable and eminent position of the hon. member for Rochdale. I have the satisfaction of remembering that I recognized those qualities before they were acknowledged by vanquished Ministers, and before they received the ap probation of those sympathizing statesmen, with whom, some how or other, he seems doomed never to be a colleague. (Laughter.) But I can only feel—and I will give reasons for that sentiment to the house—that it was a most unwise selection on the part of the Government to have appointed Mr. Cobden—whose name I may mention, as it is one of the signatures to the treaty—as their secret agent for nego tiations with France. (Hear, hear.) I should rejoice to see the member for Rochdale on the Treasury bench, in an. honourable and recognised position, because then I should know that he was responsible for the policy which we be• lieve her Majesty's Government profess; but when I find him the secret agent negotiating a treaty of commerce, it is impossible for me not to trace in the treaty something of the idiosyncracy of the negotiator. (Cheers.) For example, there are objections to this treaty—l do not make th em my self now, becau se t o - n i g h t I wish to avoid any controversy of the kind—that it compels a wanton destruction of sources of revenue which are much needed at the present time But it was perfectly consistent with the opinions of Mr. Cobden that he should recommend those sacrifices, because, as ha always openly, frankly, and honestly professed, he is never at fault to find substituteis for the revenue he forfeits, and he finds them in re d uc ti ons of expenditure. Is th at the opinion of her Majesty's Ministers ? The estimates on the table prove that it is not. (Hear, hear.) lam quite cer tain that, if upon this subject they shared the opinions of their secret negotiator, they - you'd soon forfeit the confi dence of this house. (Hear, hear.) There is another im portant matter in this treaty —a matter which excites con siderable controversy, and on which Mr. Cobden has most decided opinions viz. :—belligerent rights. 'Under this treaty, it is the opinion of some, the rights of belligerents are likely to be sacrificed. It is perfectly consistent, that with his opinions Mr. Cobden should not have guarded those rights which he has always opposed. A word or two now with re gard to the form of this instrument. I will not enter into a controversy now as to whether this is or is not a recipro city treaty. The subject is not exhausted, and I hope there will be an occasion to renew it, especially if her Majesty's Government consent to my suggestion. But if this be a reciprocity treaty, then I must say never was reciprocity less adroitly managed—(cheers) —and if, on the other hand, it be not a reciprocity treaty, then I can find no satisfactory' reason why the negotiation should -have taken this conven tional form. I say I can find no satisfactory cause—but I should be in error if I said I could find no cause or reason at all—for the noble lord at the head of the Government gave se a reason the other night for the matter under n ego ti a ti on taking the form of a treaty, which n o d ou bt h e th oug h t was perfectly satisfactory. He told us that it was owing to the peculiarity of the French constitution, that peculiarity be ing this, that the Sovereign of France can enter into a treaty of this nature without consulting his Legislative Chamber, which is naturally interested in matters affecting the indus try and taxation of the country. In our conversation • Friday some notice was taken—and I regret the tone in which it was taken—of the Legislative Chamber of France. I make it a rule to speak with unaffected respect of the constituted authorities of foreign countries, and I think we may take it as a general rule that they would not be con stituted, ware they not adapted to the exigencies of the time and the character of the people among whom they subsist. (Hear.) But with respect to the Legislative Chamber of France I am surprised that any gentl emen w h o are w h a t are called advanced Liberals should speak in disparagement of that body, and should exult that that body had not had the opportunity of exercising its functions. (Hear.) The Legislative Chamber of France is elected by universal suf frage—it is chosen by the ballot—(hear)—its members are sent to their seats from electoral districts, and if they be sa laried members, when advanced opinions are triumphant here, it will be recognised that they have only anticipated the idea of a British member of Parliament. (Laughter.) It may be—l give no opinion upon the matter—that the Legislative Chamber of France is inferior to us in political sagacity or legislative skill, it may be that its members have not that high sense of political liberty which flourishes in. this country. Perhaps—at least it is my opinion, and I have often expressed it—in the old countries of Europe political liberty and aristocracy are inseparable—(cheers) —but it cannot be denied that a body of men elected under such cir cumstances and conditions must at least represent the opinions, or at any rate the prejudices of the people. My hon. friend the member for North Warwickshire referred the other night with legitimate pride to the circumstance that the most powerful empire in Europe, and the most flourishing community in America still professed those opinions with respect to protection to native industry which he himself had so long, so ably, and, all must acknowledge, so honestly maintained. (Hear, hear.) There is a country which I hope is not inferior to Imperial France, or to that famous Confederation across the Atlantic, and that is the country to which we are all proud to belong. We have not been faithful to those principles of protection to native in dustry which my hon. friend still professes. England has repudiated those principles which Prance and the United States still retain. But although only two of these groat communities still adhere to these opinions, it is some satis faction to learn that whatever difference there may be be tween them with respect to free trade principles, there is some sympathy between them on constitutional principles. principles may b e, and are no doubt very god —but I may b e perm i tted to say that con tFlirienegtar_ad(ceheers) stitutional principles are better—(counter-cheers)—and much older. This treaty of commerce appears to be an in strument which has been devised to silence the voice of one Legislature—don't let it turn out that in carrying it into effect another Legislature is deprived of its privileges. (Cheers.) That is what I wish to impress upon the Go vernment to-night. I earnestly entreat her Majesty's Ministers not to force us to any division on this question. I ask them fairly to meet the points which I have placed be fore the house, and not merely by their concurrence and co. operation, but by their leading agency to bring back the house to the path of public business from which they have so unfortunately deviated. I accuse the Government—but I will not use the word accuse—l impute to the Govern ment nothing but inadvertence ; but it is inadvertence which, if persisted in, will lead to great practical inconve nience, and, ultimately, probably, to great public injury. (Hear, hear.) I maintain that it is the right of the House of Commons to have this treaty frankly submitted by the Government to its critical andconstitutional judgment; and that, if Ministers persist in the course now recommended by them, all practical contr3l over its provisions is lost. (Hear.) It is a _question which concerns the privileges of this house and the freedom of debate—considerations which I trust will never become party questions. (Hear, hear.) I want her Majesty's Ministers to feel that they can take this line not only with honour but with dignity; for I hope the finis has not yet come when an English Minister will feel that he is in a false position, because he defers to the privileges of the House of Commons, and acknowledges the authority of Parliament. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving as an amendment, " That the house does not think fit to go into committee on the Customs Acts with a view to the reduction or repeal of the duties referred to in the treaty of commerce between her Majesty and the Emperor of the French, until it shall have considered and assented to the engagements in that treaty." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The right hon. gentleman, in the motion which he has proposed to-night—abandoning for the most part, though not with entire consistency, throughout his speech—those most in teresting and important topics of general interest which are connected with the financial propositions of the Govern ment, has called our attention to a matter which, however important, is strictly a point of procedure, and I think when wo consider points of procedure it is for the convenience of the house that we should, as far as possible, avoid general and collateral discussions. (Hear, hear.) On that account I must confess that I do not see the peculiar advantage of importing into this discussion on procedure the criticism which the right hon. gentleman has tendered on the cha racter and competency of Mr. Cobden. (Cheers.) I did' • not think it was at all necessary for the purposes and for the dignity of this house that the right hon. gentleman should commence his speech by an explanation—however interesting it might be to us who had not the privilege of being summoned last week to a particular assembly, held at the house of a noble earl—(laughter) —of the grounds that had induced him to think better of the decision which was then apparently arrived at, and to explain the change of purpose and of procedure—(cheers and laughter)—which his taken place on the other side of the house. On this head I must say I should have greatly complained of the right hon. gentleman if we had been deprived of the pro spect that is held out to us of a general and comprehensive debate on the motion to be made by the hon. member for Esser, than whom, if he will permit me to say so, there is no gentleman on that s id e o f th e h ouse, espec i a lly, of his ttsuding, to whom an important party motion could better THE CASE OF GIOVANNI PORPA. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he had inquired into the truth of the allegations contained in the petition of Giovanni Porpa, a naturalised British subject, presented on the 26th day of January last, complaining of wrongs in flicted upon him by the Neapolitan Government ; and, if proved to be true, whether he had taken any steps to obtain the petitioner redress. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the party, being only a naturalised British subject, the Government could not in terfere. SALE OF BEER AND WINE. Mr. E. JAMES asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was prepared to state the course her Majesty's Government intended to pursue with reference to the grant ing of licenses for the sale of beer and wine by retail to the keepers of refreshment houses, as indi cated by Resolution No. 1.5, to be proposed in com mittee of ways and means ; and whether he still intended to propose that resolution to the committee ? Mr. GLADSTONE said that he had been waited on by a deputation of licensed victuallers, a portion of which con sidered that there should be no alteration in the system of licensing places for the sale of wine. Another section con sidered that there might be such an alteration as would enable those who now could be licensed to sell beer to ob tain licenses for the sale of wine, which would bs subject to the discretion of the magistrates ; and there was another section of the deputaton who entertained a further diversity of opinion. He assured hon. members that they would not be called on to vote on this subject until they had received every information as to the intentions of the Government. THE TREATY WITH FRANCE. On the motion for going into committee on the Customs' Acts, Mr. DU CANE withdrew the following motion which stood on the paper : "That this house, recognising the necessity of providing for the increased expenditure of th e com i ng fi nancia l year , is of opinion that it is not expedient to add to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue, and is not prepared to disappoint the just expectations of the country by reimposing the mcometax at an unnecessarily high rate." He explained that he had adopted that course in cense quence of his right hon. friend (Mr. Disraeli) having given notice for that evening of a motion of a similar character. However, when that motion was disposed of, he would again bring forward his motion. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LINDSAY also postponed the resolution of which he had given notice. . Mr. DISRAELI then rose amid cheers and said—ln the course of the observations which I am about to offer to the house it is not my intention to give any opinion on the po licy or the provisions of the treaty of commerce with France. Still less would it be my desire to make any reference to the financial statement which has recently been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if I am for a moment obliged to allude to that subject it is because I feel I am bound to sot myself right with the house, and without re serve and with the utmost frankness to state to hon. mem- berg the cause why apparently at the last moment on Friday night I seemed to interpose between them and the discussion on the amendment of which my hon. friend the member for Essex had given notice, of which amendment I cordially approve, and which when brought forward I shall entirely support. (Hear, hear.) When, upon the day following that on which the financial statement was made, it became my duty, in conjunction with those with whom . I have the honour to act in public life, to examine the proposition of the Minister, that proposition appeared to us, afror giving to it the most mature consideration, to be one of a very dan gerous character. (Hoar, hoar.) When a Government an nounced a great increase of expenditure in the face of a large and avowed deficit ; when, under these circumstances, they proposed, by dealing with certain branches of our re venue, to increase that deficiency, and to proceed to balance the accounts of the financial year only by having recourse to a tax which the country has for many years beon led to be- lieve would terminate in the present year—(hear, hear) — and which, even under the altered circumstances of the country, the public had a right to expect would at least be revised, it did appear to us, Sir, that it was impossible for us, with the opinions which we have always maintained on the subject of finance in this house—and more especially with reference to that impost, the income-tax—to shrink from maintaining those opinions on the present occasion. (Hear, hear.) Well, that being so, it became our duty to con sider the course which we should take. No doubt, in dealing with a scheme at once so complicated and so comprehensive as that of the Government, wo might have taken occasion to avail ourselves of the opportunity which would present itself, when by joining some interests that happened to be attacked, or some peculiar body which was menaced, we might probably embarrass, perhaps partially defeat, the Ministry. But then came the question, was that course worthy of a great party ? (Hear, hear.) If we believed that the general principle of the financial scheme was er roneous, was it not our duty to fix upon some broad, dis- tinct, and straightforward objection, and take the opinion of the House with respect to it? (Hear.) That was the policy upon which it was our unanimous opinion that wo ought to act. (t 3 ear, hear.) It was not, in our mind, neces sary that we should join discontented wine merchants or paper manufacturers, or those publicans whose claims we have listened to this evening, or indeed any of those other numerous bodies who believe that their interests are menaced by the proposition of the Government. It was, upon the contrary, our opinion that issue should be joined as was proposed by the amendment of my hon. friend the member fur Essex, and that upon some broad and distinct ground the judgment of the house should be taken. (Hear, hear.) I make these observations on the financial statement, not that I wish to introduce the slightest controversy on the present occasion as to its merits, but with the view of ex plaining the course which we who sit upon these benches hang takop. Havinit however ? arrived at the couchtki44 pr( ha ho it (