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

4 eaty, ikely i his ;ht. h ro nto a anent of fact, because it may be a matter of opinion, and the right hon. gentleman is likely to entertain his own opinion on the construction of the treaty; but, so far as dependence Can be placed on the view of the Government, on the inten tion of the negotiators, whose careful consideration the treaty long received, or on the best advice which was at our command, or which we have yet had the opportunity of receiving, this treaty ha, no bearing whatever on any _rights that either of the Powers may possess with re spect to contraband of war. (freer, hoar.) The power to export, or to prohibit the exportation of coal as contraband of war, is as clear and entire, in the view of the Government, as it was before the treaty was signed. (Cheers.) lam glad to see that lan oheered by the hon. and learned gentleman the member for Belfast ; it is rather unfortunate that he was the only gentleman whom the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire had the opportu tunity of consulting last night, or the matter might have been settled. (Hear, and laughter.) Passing from these points, which are oollateralto the main issue, let me collect. if I can, into a short spacewhat I understand to be the main propositions of the right hon. gentleman. lie says that we have withdrawn the treaty from the cognisance of the house and that we have Parliament in such a position that it cannot exercise its due constitutional liberty of discussion —he says that we have done this in total abandonment of the precedent of Mr. Pitt ; and he complains that we have committed a gross error by mixing up the treaty with the financial arrangements for the year, which he says ought to be kept sedulously apart; and lastly, he expresses his wish that we could agree with dignity to the present motion. I am bound to say that I feel great difficulty on the score of dignity, but likewise—without any reference to that con sideration--I feel the most conclusive objections to the mo tion which the right hon. gentleman has made. In the first place, I do not knew what that motion means ; and I am further so rash and presumptuous as to express a belief that the right hon. gentleman himself is equally ignorant of its meaning. For it seems to me that he declines to go into committee on the Customs Acts till the house has as sented to the engagements of the treaty What does the resolution mean? If the right hon. gentleman asks me What I mean by assenting to the engagements of the treaty, I can inform him. He entreats the house in the strongest manner, and with a moat remarkable inversion of what, if not common sense, at least of what convenience dictates— when you have one article of a general character, and another specific and precise in its terms, he asks you to take no notice of the article that can bear only one construction, and consider the article that, if it stood alone, might really raise some doubt as to the sense of the treaty. We are told that the validity of the treaty depends on the 20th article, which says— " The present treaty shall not be valid unless her Bri tannic Majesty shall be authorised by the assent of her Parliament to execute the engagements contracted by her in the articles of the present treaty." But now turn to the 14th article. It says— " The present treaty shall bebinding for the United King dom of Great Britain and Ireland so soon as the necessary legislative sanction shall have been given by Parliament." That article is perfectly specific ; it defines completely the nature of the sanction of Parliament—the only sanction Parliament can give—that is, its legislative sanction. It is the 14th article that requires for the present treaty what kr. Pitt required for his—the legislative sanction of Faille. meld. And if the right hon. gentleman observes the con struction of the treaty, he will find that the engagements of Great Britain are contained in the 6th, 6th, 7th, and follow ing articles, and that before the 14th article the special en gagements of Great Britain terminate. Then the 14th article explains in precise and distinct terms how the treaty shall become binding for Great Britain, that is, as soon as the sanction of Parliament is given to it—its legislative sanc tion—by the final passing of an act, by which alone that le gislative authority can be conferred. Then, after the 14th article, come the speciai French engagements; then the 20th Which says that the treaty shall not be valid—that is, not valid for France—unless Parliament shall authorise the exe- Taion of those engagements. (Hear.) What does the right re• gentleman mean by this resolution ? It says that the 'alum ought not to go into committee on the Customs acts until it shall have considered, and assented to, the en gagements of the treaty." What engagements? Does he think the House of Commons ought to assent first to the ;engagement as to the Customs duties to be levied ad valorem a the French ports ? I know not what idea the right hon. r.itleman has of the functions of Parliament and the I °wn ; but I deny his proposition. The power the consti tution has reserved to Parliament is this—it has fully see cured to the House of C omm o ns th e r i g ht of giving its le gislative sanction to th ose p ar t s o f th e t rea ty w hich require tha t sanction to have any effect ; next, the house has the }lol re r of expressing to the Crown its general opinion of any 1.44 Y by means of an address; and, thirdly, it has the itical ut it i cir t the use will her line the will gad ith in- len of ral Lilt have been committed. (Hear, hear.) I make no complaint of power, if it disapproves any treaty, of visiting the au the right hon. gentleman; I merely state the reasons why thors of it with condemnation. (Hear, hear.) Does the I shall pass by those portions of hisspeech. Neither shall I right hon. gentleman claim for Parliament any more than at this time enter into a discussion on the constitution of this ? I cannot accede to his resolution, for, if I interpret France, or the conditions on which the Deputies occupy it grammatically, it asserts that the house is to pass a spe seats in that Legislative Assembly. (Laughter.) With cific consent to all the details of every article in the treaty. the permission of the right hon. gentleman, I shall venture Does he mean this or does - he not ? In his speech the right to reserve any share I may take in :that discussion hon. gentleman carefully avoided sayin g a sin g le w or d i n till we come to the second reading of the Reform Bill pro- explanation of the motion he ha s l a id on th e t a bl e o f th e mised by my noble friend. (Cheers.) I proceed to the house. Now, I contend th a t, so f ar f rom h av i ng w ithd rawn this treaty fun). the cognisance of the House of Commons— question which has been raised by the motion of the right Commons— hon. gentleman, and, notwithstanding that the point is, I safer from having aband one d th e p rece d en t s o f M r . Pitt, we think, a narrow one, I at once admit that it is of great im - have founded ou r course o f procee di ng i n every su b s t an ti a l portance. And here I must beg to tender my thanks to the particular upon those precedents, with due allowance for right hon. gentleman. He says we have caused the Queen those changes of ci rcums t ances i n th e con diti on o f th e coun to commit an unconstitutional and illegal act, and that we try, and in our own system of commerce, which have oc curred since hi s ti me . (H ear , h ear .) What was the course are pursuing a course which may end in the invasion and taken by Mr. Pitt ? He mentioned the treaty of 1786 in the abrogation of the privileges of the Hone eof Commons. If this be so, I must say that I never kneer a better opportu- Speech from the Throne, which was not done on this occa sion. But the treaty of 1786 was signed four months before occa nity for a broad change on the part of a loader of the Oppo sition ; but such is the chivalrous conduce of the right hon. the opening of Parliament. And, considering that the right gentleman that, casting over us his proteceing arm, he says im o m ' ega u t t e lem co a n u ta h cr wirti c i lffi e e t e r s ad t e ha and ha c ` o -e m p m la e c r e c d e h o i f m tte n —" I have no doubt at all this was done in pure inadver- country. I was a little surprised to hear him recommend tense." That is really the finest example of the great duty strict adherence to the letter of the precedents in the case of to which some of us yesterday were particularly exhorted.-- Mr. Pitt's treaty, in complete defiance of their spirit. I mean the duty of Christian charity—(laughter, and loud ir a e t a a r, m h o e r a e r. l LD a i r d d it not occur c r ou tV - h n e ot rif j h o t a hr. i zit t l o enaz cheers)—that I have ever seen exhibited in this house. I House of Commons , proposaltan that Government u should advise cannot accept the apology which the right hole gentleman the Sovereign to execute a treaty of this kind—a treatyacting has kindly made for us, any more than, on the part of the largely on the revenue, and still more largely on the trade Government, I can accept the motion which he has placed and commerce of the country—and, bye mistaken adherence on the books, and which he thinks we might, not only with t t o o former elase etw precede nts, between tthe to publicationalla o interval ftim o f t s r e a v a e t ral an m t ien t e a s t propriety, but "with dignity," accept. The dignity of the legislative ' sanction which alone can enable merchants and Government is a matter on which different gentlemen in traders to act upon it ? (Cheers.) The right hon. gentle differenf situations mayhavedifferentopinions—(laughter)— moan has vindicated the memory of Mr. Pitt ; I hope the but I confess that if we have been guilty of a course in- house at does not suppose I wish te, depreciate it; I entertain volving the consequences mentioned by the right hon, gen- general opinion o s p e i n n s i e on ot'th extraordinaryr of advancement eLmeentanirdi the and e understa tleman, if we have gravely erred in our duty to the House of great vigour displayed by Mr. Pitt in concluding that Commons, we can lay no claim to the helping hand which treaty. Let the opinion of the pi esent operations with re the right hon. gentleman holds out to us ; ours ceases gard to our trade and commerce be what they may, we to be the attitude of those who claim an unsullied dignity, shall deserve little credit or honour compared with that but is rather the situation of penitents dependent on an ad- prejudice, e ju tg ic M e Mr. proposed Pitt, t who, o a h n a d v having obtained confront e d ti assent sueh of, a mass pari of Yersary for their delivery. (Hear.) But I contend the right ment to so great a measure as his treaty with France. hon. gentleman is correct neither in his facts nor in his (Hear, hear.) Well, Mr. Pitt mentioned thatetreaty in the principles—(laughter)—and that the course which we have Speech from the Throne ; the present treaty has not been adopted is that which is dictated by general propriety, by a so o mentioned. Why not? Because it was not within our fi a n d alt e a n d vis signed,on regard to the privileges of the House of Commons, and like- tileletTrendroAit,hatestpeimeejletrhaAtlajesty the tre w a a ty s wise by that which he has never mentioned, but which un- much less ratified. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman, doubtedly has been much in the minds of the Government therefore, out of veneration for Mr. Pitt, thinks we ought —namely, a regard to the interests of those great branches been signed. (Hear.) He says we ought to have made to have recommended to Parliament a treaty that had not of trade out of doors which are dependent on the result and known this treaty to the House of Commons by a message despatch of our decision. (Cheers.) I will give an instance from the Crown. On all points of Parliamentary lore we or two to show what I moan by my allegations. The right will freely submit to receive correction; but as to this mes hon. gentleman says the resolutions introduced by Mr. Pitt saget trferoalt i l es the o r f c o o w n % e s r u c c e h wisenravoeurmair during the O c a a a l t l were essentially large and general, and totally incapable of century—treaties so numerous as to be almost innumerable forming the foundations of a financial measure. Here is an --I do not recollect that any one was made kno wn t o thi s enormous book from which we do not often quote directly, house by a message from the Crown. There is, I admit, on account of its unmanageable size, but it contains the re- the case of the Treaty of - Utrecht, which was so made known to the House of Commons ; but it should be recol solutions proposed by Mr. Pitt, and the house will judge lected that the commercial portion of that treaty formed how far they are large and general. part of the same transaction as the treaty of peace. (Hear.) Mr. DISRAELI—Mr. Pitt's description of them. And, with regard to treaties bearing on peace and war, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I do not they should be made known t o th e house and the vital condition of Europe, it is the practice that apprehend that Mr. Pitt is responsible for the publication of sage. But whether we a r e r i g ht or by wrong in a Royalying mes - that day, whatever we may be for Hansard in ours. Here treaty presented by co mman d, or b y a Royal message, a are the resolutions; I will take one as a fair example : which we should have heard with our hats off, and that is "That it appears to this committee to be expedient that the t i h a e a l r naln point of difference between the two modes—how, oaensdthsiamerootonof of f ecgvi e n h g ou th ae e i treaZ bear . on tel duty hereafter to be paid on vinegar—(laughter)—of the liberty produce or manufacture of the European dominions of the (Cheers.) What can the house do in rep u ly to discussing a uss m u fssa l g t e French King imported into this kingdom shall be at the rate from the Crown that it cannot do upon papers presented to of £3218x. 10d. on every ton containing 252 gallons." Now, it "by command ?" Really, the question is puerile there is a specimen of a large and general resolution inca- (Cheers.) If we cannot present an address on papers pre pable of forming the foundation of a financial measure, sentedcannot we pass resolutions upon them and on those resolutions found an address ? (Hear, hear.) And then. (Laughter.) Give me that resolution, or resolutions analo- we shall have the advantage of a double debate—a de gous to it, on the duties which we propose to the house, and bate on each resolution, and another on the address itself. you will *soon see whether they are capable of forming the The right hon. gentleman complains that the time allowed t foundation of a financial measure. It was also said by the to the house to consider the treaty has bee n t oo sma ll an d right hon. gentleman—and Ido not wish to quote him other- scanty, respec t a o n d t h r e e t trs e to al theow allowed by I t made fo b r y t r e r . e o F n o s l d with wise than with the utmost accuracy—that the treaty of Mr. tion of his treaty. I shall be very curious to hear, in the Pitt contained no provisions other than those of a commer- course of these discussions, up to what point the right hon. ial, character or relating to duty. Why, the very second gentleman is anxious to support the opinions of Mr. Fox as article of that treaty is one providing what shall happen to the treaty; but they are not very relevant to th e p resen t casprea,asttheer we e m no i ta v c o tatedtn aview of er atlniitted by the House. with respect to personal safety and the security of the sub- [frankly admit the necessity of jects of each Power resident in the dominions of the other despatch' n this case that differs from the view of Mr. Pitt in the event of war. That is neither a stipulation of corn- on the same point; and I apprehend, were Mr. Pitt living coerce nor one of duty; and I quote it because it appears to now, amid the present development of our commercial sys t ate that the right hen. gentleman amidst his researches has em, he would not trouble his brain aboutthe time a nd d a t es of the intervals between the different stages of his treaty, not had sufficient time to examine the instrument whi c h he but rather with the exigencies of all the great interests in has taken the trouble to criticise. Ho says after Mr. Pitt volved in it. What I should like to know is the use of passed the resolutions in committee on the treaty they were quoting Mr. Fox in tho matter. Mr. Fox did not demand delay because he was not s ; o ready to go on v c rith the discussion submitted to a committee on the Customs Acts. I bog the pardon of the right hon. gentleman, they were submitted, as of wine , h e men satl i li p an os c e e w o o ' : u ou l t ) . ar n t a i r la r not to a committee on Customs Acts, but to a committee on enemy, and that the measure of Mr. Pitt was one which the simplification of the public accounts in their various struck at the root of the constitution of this country—or branches, which I venture to point out to the house is quite rather at the root of the power of the executive in the con another matter. The next thing in which I think the right duet . of its relations with foreign Powers. Basing his op hon. gentleman was entirely in error, and which requires p a o e Tt i on as u i r i o n n g ground,t f h or at delay. ; t i o o t d a o o ubt o h w e ev w er as t r e rfo t 3 i c g tll t jt h is o t n i•- • but a single word from me, was with respect to the charge gentleman opposite, who imitates the mere skeleton and against the Government of having, by their ill-advice, led phantom of the proceeding of Mr. Fox, and makes use of a the Crown to commit an unconstitutional and illegal ace, quotation to satisfy his purpose in debate, utterly forgetful by engaging not to exercise for a period of 10 years the of its substantial meaning. (Cheers.) Well, M r . Pitt pro posed a committee of the whole house on the commercial power whick Parlialeent has put into the hands of the treaty with France, and her Majesty's present advisers, Crown, with the evident intention that it should be exer• After maturely considering the question whether they deed at any time during or beyond 10 years, if sufficientoe • should take the same course, came to the conclusion that easion to justify it should arise. That is to say, we have Kr. Pitt was perfectly right in the form which he gave to stipulated not to prohibit the exportation of coal to France, hwirsoirg.ffeeduniudge' but r that they o s t eo a uth u hr s e u bel i a tt b o s n olu t t e ly whereas her Majesty is authorised to prohibit by proclansa- had adopted the same form under a state o s circumstances ) tion or Order in Council the exportation, or even carrying entirely different. (Hear.) I may perhaps be treading onten • der ground in dealing with the forms of thi s H o u se , b u t th e (leastwise, of arms, ammunition, gunpowder, military or naval stores, or any articles which may be deemed capabie view we took of the matter was this, that Mr. Pitt's legisla tion ma was of a h l i e a g t i r s e t legislation nwienrliterallyfavour e re French reao i l) t r e o c il li n ce t i to th re a s t o t i h u e includes, or may, under certain circumstances, be held to tions which he submitted to the House p of Commons, and include, coal as an article which is capable of being con- that it was therefore competent to him to take the course verted into munitions of war, the right hon. gentleman says which he adopted. But now let me ask whither the right we have abandoned our right to prohibit the export of coal hon. gentleman thinks it would be consistent with the public welfare or convenience, or with what after what ha s f a llen as a contraband article. Ido not. treat that as a mis-state- f rom the right hon. gentleman to-night with respect to free trade principles I may call the universal opinion of this house, that we should have come before Parliament and proposed an exclusive legislation in favour of French pro ducts ? Every hon. member's good sense must supply him with the ready answer to such a question—that such a course would bo quite impossible. (Hear, hear.) Yet that was the only course which was open to us if we had pro posed a committee of the whole house on the treaty with France. We could not have asked the house to go into committee on the treaty, and then in that committee enter into questions of commercial legislation which aro beyond its scope. (Hear, hear.) We could not ask you to go into committee on the subject of French wines, and then call upon you to sanction not the admission of those. wines only, but that of the wines of all countries alike. (Hear, hear.) I now want to know who are those who act in reality in the spirit of Pitt. (Hear, hear.) He was a statesman who endeavoured to push forward the commerce of the country by great and enlightened changes in her laws, and in order to effect that object he took a course which 1 believe to have been entirely in conformity with Parliamentary law and precedent. We are endeavouring—l shall not say to compare ourselves with him, for of Mr. Pitt it may indeed be said with truth, Nee viget quidquam simile aut secumlum, —but, following up the work which he was among the first to begin, we, too, seek to acco m pli s h somet hi ng in the same direction. (Bear.) It is with that view that we pro posed to you that you should resolve yourselves into a come mittee to deal with the subject matter which we had to submit to your notice. We, in short, have sought to act in accordance with the spirit of Mr. Pitt's policy, and not regarding it from an antiquarian point of view ---(a laugh)—to snatch at its dry form as you in your blind superstition--(Cries of "Oh, oh!")—I ask your pardon, and will use a phrase less exceptionable —your pardonable error—would have us do, wasting your ingenuity, a n d elo quence, and declamations in the endeavour to impress upon our notice what is, after all, but the mere letter of this ancient formula, in contempt of its spirit. (Cheers.) I have pointed out to you the course which was taken by Mr. Pitt. The House of Commons at his invitatio n went i nto com mittee on the French treaty, and what did he then propose ? Precisely that which we are going to propose ; he did not submittheeng knew agem his ents duty a of his trea ty a on co i n b e r ti t t h u e ti ass a e l mntoiiiste fPkr; Par liament, for he too well to place the clauses of the treaty in the hands of the Speaker, or of the clerk at the table, and ask the House to come to a decision upon tkem. He did not hold the doc trine of the right hon. gentleman opposite, that, although the Queen may make a treaty on paper, it rests with Par liament to ratify its provisions. (Mr. Disraeli—" I used the language of Mr. Pitt.") Then I can tell the right hon. gentleman that there is a wide difference between the lan guage of Mr. Pitt and his acts. It is not a little remark able that ho should have propagated such a doctrine as the right hon. gentleman ascribes to him at the very moment when, having invited the attention of a committee of the House of Commons to the treaty with Franee, he submitted apar most treatyanoonlysisanction. :vn e hi to the consideration of that committee no portions of the r, nottd t aoo h r b.o)sseue bringobluswv: substantial under c rtdsai h aetirtd a i tnibirhtgs parts unt u aspo t n e tooid l ttfc y requirednotice hiohtfehe opr without esarsilenr legislativespirit Parliament of his x t . eael difficulty,de it to take the course which we desired to follow, for that, if the right interposingto treaty t h l d e ; hon. gentleman had permitted us have been the direct effect of our proceeding.. Indeed, wu I point requiring legislative there doubt very muchwhethersanction n s treaty one h single ' is sa ni net t not embraced in the given notice, except, perhaps , that with respect to trade patterns. (H ear, hear.) Now, if I understand the right hon. gentleman opposite correctly, ho seems to look upon it as a great offeucethat Ministers should advise the Sovereign to enter into a treaty, and include in its provisions matters requiring legislative sanction, without obtaining the assent of Parliament. Let me remih' however, that there have been Ministers who contracted engagementslm, foreign Powers requiring direct legislative with and who—perhaps through indifference —forgot taoaneku legisla tive sanction to those engagements at all. The last as example of such conduct on the part of a Government waswhe treaty was entered into between her Majesty and a northern Power, Power, by the 20th article of which the high contracting parties being desirous to secure each within its own domi nions protection against fraud in the case of certain manu factured articles, her Britannic Majesty engaged to recom mend to Parliament to adopt the measures which might be required to accomplish that object ; and I am sorry to be obliged to add that the Government which advised the So. vereign to enter into this engagement—the law at the time being insufficient to effect the object whichthey had inview —were so forgetful of their duty as never to have come to Parliament at all to ask its assent to the treaty, not only when they laid it on the table, but at any period during their continuance in office. And who were the Ministers, the committee will ask, who were guilty of so monstrous a neglect of duty ? It was no other than that of which the right hon. gentleman opposite was a member. (Cheers and laughter.) But, to return to the proceeding of Mr. Pitt with respect to the treaty, there are, I admit, some portions of it which, up to this moment, we have not imitated. They, how ever, lie in the future, and it the right hon. gentleman will but have a little patience ho will find that as up to this hour, so at every future stage of this treaty, it is our earnest desire to conform to the spirit of Mr. Pitt's policy. The right hon. gentleman says that Parliamentis to be called upon, not till after these resolutions have been passed in committee, to ex press its opinion upon this treaty as a whole, and to set forth that opinion in an address to the Crown. Now, the Govern ment are, I apprehend, entirely free to take that course ; but Mr. Pitt, be it observed, did not announce it to be his intention to take any such course to the House of Com mons until they had given their assent to the great stipula- I t ? THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 21, 1 60. and he contended that the noble lord at the head of the Government was hound to sustain the privileges of that house. lie would not criticise the language of the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire —he looked only to its substantive meaning —that that house ought to have had cognisance of that treaty, and he cer tainly should support it. (Heat, hear.) "What was the reason that Parliament was asked to depart from its usual custom in relation to treaties of this character ? Was Government afraid of a discussion upon a treaty upon which they professed to be so proud ? (Hear, hear, and laughter.) If they felt the confidence in its justice they had expressed, why not submit at once a series of substantive resolutions on the subject, and let the house de cide upon those resolutions apart from all other questions, stating their reasons if they refuse to accept the treaty why they do so, in order that the people of France may not be deceived ? If they wont into committee in the manner proposed by the Government, the fact would be that the moment a single article of the treaty was agreed to the treaty itself would be accepted. There was another im portant point. If they went into committee on the resolu tions with respect to our own Customs' acts, and passed the proposed resolutions, they would be passed without any re ference to the treaty. But next February, when Parlia ment assembled, it might be called upon to modify any resolutions or statutes agreed to thus with reference to our own Customs' duties. But, by the course proposed by the Government, these resolutions would preclude Parliament from making any change whatever in the arrangements sanctioned by the treaty for the next ten years. In fact, in that respect the hands of Parliament would be tied up, and they would be deprived of all control over financial legisla tion in these respects for ten years to come. Therefore ho said that the resolutions which the Chancellor of the Ex chequer proposed wore not an honest fulfilment of the pro visions of the treaty itself, because the treaty made a bind ing arrangement for ten years. and he was bound to obtain the sanction of Parliament for that period. (Hear, hear ) They must look to the effect of these commercial conven tions with reference to our relations, not with France alone, but with Russia and other Powers which were directly affected by its language and provisions. Substantially they had to decide this question that night, Whether they would proceed immediately to sanction the terms of that treaty, or whether Parliament was not bound to give it due deiiberation, to decide upon its policy, and to hoar and to take into consideration the claims of the people of England, who thought that their interests would be injured by it ? (Hear, hear.) It was on that ground, and oa that ground alone, that he intended to support the amendment of the right hon. gentleman opposite. (Cheers.) There had been times when Parliament had not assinied to be so popular as it now boasted of being. Before Parlia ment was reformed, individuals affected by its legislation were heard at the bar of the house in defence of their own interests and rights. Since then the house was supposed more truly and completely to represent the whole people through their representatives, and believi ng th a t th e course of pro cedure proposed by the right hon. gentleman was the only one which would enable those representatives to give a deli berate and an unfettered vote upon the important questions involved in this treaty, he felt it to be his duty to vote for the amendment. (Cheers.) Mr. MALINS said he had noticed with regret the tone in which the speech of his right hon. friend (Mr. Disraeli) had been received on the other side of the house. It was a speech characterised by great lucidity, temperate language, and the resolution with which ho concluded was of a moderate cha racter. It had been mot, and especially by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a tone of the utmost bitterness and sar casm (Oh, oh), and wh;ch was followed by the Attorney • General in a similar spirit and tone, because his hon. and learned friend had denounced the amendment as " perfectly puerile." He asked what was it that was" puerile ?" The nation had been taken by surprise by a treaty which had been entered into, and which had given rise to various sus picions and anxieties. A large portion of the community believed that their rights and interests had been bartered away without any consideration or equivalent (hear), that the bargain was a one-sided one (cheers), that while we en gaged to admit French articles duty free, France engaged to admit our products at not less than 30 per eent. duty. The amendment of his right hon. friend asked simply that that treaty should be submitted to a fair discussion, and that the sense of Parliament should be taken upon it, apart from the numerous other questions which were mixed up with it in the resolutions upon which they were asked to go into committee. Tho course proposed by his right hon. fi ieud, na me ly, th a t t h ey shouldfollow the precedent set by Mr. Pitt, was free from all these objections. If the treaty were such as to deserve the approbation of Parlia ment, that approbation would be given in a free and inde pendent manner, on the merits of the treaty itself. If not, our domestic finance would not be complicated anti bound up with considerations altogether foreign to the subject, and for these reasons ho hoped the house would support the mo derate and constitutional proposition which had been sub mitted to it, The course proposed by the Government was most unusual and improper, and no matter how they might now deal with the a•nenduient of his right hon. friend, they must eventually ask the house whether it approved or disapproved of the treaty. Lord T. RUSSELL and Mr. BRIGHT rose together, and his lordship giving way - '-3 ..-, tions of the treaty in detail. It was not, in fact, until after ' duti rs on the goods of all nations, I find that in one part of those stipulations were adopted that he intimated to Par- hie resolution ho speaks of articles which are to be free of liament that it was the intention of the Government to ask duty under this treaty. (gear, hear.) Yet he now says it its opinion on the general subject of the treaty. But as we uld be foreign to the business of the cammittee on the the right hon. gentleman is so anxious to be assured that in Cu Moms Act to allude to the French treaty, or to look upon some shape or other the house shill have an opportunity of the remission as applicable to French produce. (Hear, expressing its opinion on the specific enactments of the hes .r.) The course taken by Mr. Pitt was the only conve treaty, I have no hesitation in stating that it is the inten- nie ut one for enabling the house to discuss the question, tion of the Government, if the house adept those specific He, proposed that the Speaker should leave the chair, in enactments requiring legislative sanction, fairly to submit or der that the house might go into committee on the French to the house the treaty as a whole. (Hear, hear.) And treaty. No doubt Mr. Pitt in committee moved only such let me add, we don't intend to do it as supposing it to be resolutions as he thought necessary to carry out the objects necessary in order to fulfil the tomes of the treaty that require c f the Government ; but it was perfectly competent for the legislative sanction of Parliament, because we hold dis- ovary mereber of that committee to discuss any item of tinctly that the only mode in which Parliament strictly can the French treaty, and propose any resolution he pleased, g:lee its assent to a treaty is by giving effect to the stipule- approving or condemning it. That is exactly the differ tions it contains. A Parliament cannot assent to a treaty. ence between our position now and that• in which Mr. Pitt Parliament is a fluctuating body. The King never dies, placed the house. If we go into committee tc- night, or but Parliament does ; and you could not in any formal way on any subsequent evening on the Customs Act—and here bind Parliament to any terms of a treaty; Parliament I speak under Mr. Speaker's correction—it will not be might be dissolved to-morrow, and a direct opposite vote competent for any member to enter into the general might be given by that which succeeded it. It is not, policy of the French treaty. I even doubt whether it will therefore, to enable Parliament to assent to the terms of not be irrelevant to mention the treaty at all ; but it cer the treaty in any formal judicial sense that we shall ask tainly will not be competent for—and the chairman will its opinion, but to add all the moral weight we can obtain not allow —any member to propose a resolution expressing to the instrument in order to make it fulfil all the mai n an opinion on the whole or part of that treaty. (Hear, ' purposes for which it is intended. (Hear.) I have detained hear.) 'We demand, then, on the part of the House of Com the committee longer than I bad intend e d— (h ear )— an d I mons, some proceeding —no matter what, provided it is prac have but one word to add on the ch arge o f th e r i g ht h on . tied and convenient—by which we shall have this treaty gentleman. He thinks he has lighted upon a great god . fairly presented before us, and that we may not be entan send when he finds that Mr. Pitt separated his treaty from gled, though I acquit the Government of any intentional his Budget, and he points out with exultati on th e reg u - desire to entangle us, into an approval of its stipulations in larity of Mr. Pitt's course. But ho did not state it the shape of a resolution on the Customs Act. (Cheers.) correctly. First of all there was a committee on I fully admit the importance to trade of expedition and cer the treaty, then a committe e on th e C us t oms tainty in this matter ; but I demand what is even more ha- Acts.—Mr. Pitt's propo sa l was t o s i mp lif y th e C us . portent th an t h e interests of trade—the recognition of the toms Acts ; and then, said the right hon. gentleman, y ou most valuable privileges of the House of Commons. had the Budget. This was the meaning of the commotion (Cheers.) If any undue delay has arisen the Government of the right hon. gentleman. The re a l s i n th e G overnmen t have themselves to thank for it ; because if they had pur have been guilty of is that they have combined the treaty sued a course that would have given this house the means and the Budget in one . (H ear , h ear. ) V ery goo d . Wh at an d o p por t un i ty of expressin g its opinion en this t rea ty an d ought they to have done ? It i s very eas y t o p o i n t ou t i n - all its details, th e y mig h t to-night, in place of asking us to convenience in any cou rse th a t may h e adopted in carr yi ng go into committee ou the Customs Act, have asked the out a great and complicated subject—(cc Hear, hear," f rom house to consid er a s i m i lar resolution to that proposed by Mr. Newdegate)—but I want to know what course should Mr. Pitt on the French treaty. The right hon, gentleman have been taken by the wisdom of Parliament, as repro- says it is utfetly contrary to . practice to bring down any sented by that hon. ge n tl eman w h o h as j us t c h eere d. (A Ire i ty w ith a f ore i gn Power in the shape of a message from laugh.) What construction has been put on our procedure the Crown, and such, he thinks, his not been the usage by the right hon. gentleman who made this motion ? I for many years past. I ask the Government, can they pro understand him to say that we ought to have separated the duce any example of the bringing down of a treaty of corn provisions of the treaty a n d th e di scuss i ons on th em f rom merco to the House of Commons, which required its ap the financial arrangements of the year—that is in the begin- proval in order to give it validity, without accompanying ning of February we ought to released French wines from that treaty either with a message from the Crown, or with duty by resolution ; we ought to have reduced the duty on out introducing it by the Speech from the Throne ? (Hear, French spirits by resolution, and we ought to have repe a l e d hear.) Th e r i g ht h on. gent l eman produced nothing of the a great number of other duties on articles coming from kind ; and the only case which with all his diligence he France. Are hon. g entl emen o pp os it e aware o f th e usage cou ld fi n d was the treaty concluded with Russia in 1859, of this house; now confirmed for a considerable number of which ho says was laid on the table of this house, and the years, that when duties are reduced the reduced duties take provisions of which the Uovernment so far forgot that it effect immediately after the resolution has been reported to did not ask the House of Commons to give effect to one of the house? Surely, after the profound and deliberate con- the articles which required its intervention. The 20th sideration of the question of procedure by the right hon. article of the treaty with Russia, to which the right hon. gentleman, that must have been taken into view. I pre- gentleman referred, was as follows. And here again the sump he would not have inflicted on importers and traders right hon. gentleman has fallen into an entire mistake : the penalty of hanging up this matter for some months P cc The high contracting parties being desirous to secure, Very well; the up s h o t o f thi s p roce d ure wou ld h ave been, each within its own dominions, complete and effectual pro -you would have legislated to reduce duties on French tection against fraud for the manufactures of the other, have wines and spirits by resolution ; that resolution w ou ld agreed that any piracy or fraudu.ent imitation in one of the have taken effect in the usual manner at the Custom. two countries of the manufacturers' or tradesmen's marks house, and for three or four months we should have had originally affixed, bons fide, to goods pr o d uce d i n t h e ot h er what must have gladd ene d th e h ear t o f th e h on. gen tl eman i n at t estat i on o f t h eir origin and quality, shall be strictly (Mr. Newdegate), but, after his declaration to-night, prohibited and repressed. Her Brittanic Majesty engages would not have gladdenel the heart of the right hon, to recommend to her Parliament to adopt such measures gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) by a perfect revival of differen- as may be required to enable her to give the more complete tial duties—in all their deformity or beauty—call it what execution to the stipulations of this article." you will: and French wines would have been admitted There is nothing there dada, bug that the treaty shall not be at 3s, per gallon, while Spanish wines would have been pay- binding till Parliament has legislated. But in the present ing ss. Bd., and French spirits would have been admitted at instance the treaty provides that it shall take effect only as the reduced rate, while Dutch spirits would have continued soon as the necessary recognition shall have been given to to pay the first duty. (Hear, hear.) As this is, I believe, it by Parliament; and in another part it is stated that it the first night the right hon. gentleman has boldly declared, shall not be valid unless her Britannic Majesty is authorised that the principles of free trade are very good principles, I by the assent direr Parliament to exe,ute the engagements am very sorry at this hi s fi rs t essa y i n hi s mo d e o f g i v i ng contracted under the articles of treaty. (Hear, hear.) 1 effect to those principles. (Hear, hear.) In point of fact, say, then, that the amendment before the house is one that our defence for mixing the treaty and the budget may be ought to be adopted. We do not ask for any delay, but we comprised in two sentences. We considered, in the first want to have an opportunity of diseuesine this question. place, exclusive legislation entirely out of the question. We are quite prepared for its disc ussion —(cheers)—but we (Hear, hear.) That is one of the principles I want to see cannot discuss the French treaty upon resolutions moved in tested by the vote of to-night. (Hear, hear.) That was committee on the Customs Act, nor on the bills introduced our first princilele ; the second was one that hal reference in pursuance of those resolutions. We may discuss it on simply and exclusively to public convenience. We were some future day, if you propose to address the Crown with about to propose to Parliament that it should give its sane- reference to the treaty. But what will be the consequence ? tion to a treaty with France that involved remissions of We may differ from the Government in respect to the treaty. duty to an extent little short of £2,000,000, and a surrender We may approve certain parts of it, or we may object to for the year of revenue to an extent somewhat exceeding this, that, and the other engagement. 'We may think it re £l,ooo,ooo. Now, Sir, I want to know what would have .quirts some of the raodificatiens which scores of petitions bean the position of Government if they had come down to presented to-night beg and pray for, and then the Govern- Parliament, not in this speci a l year 1860, but in any year, ment may say, " What I modify this treaty aftefeyou have stating we ask you to re m it t axes t o near ly £2,000,000, and repealed £1,800.000 of Customs Duties 1 What did you re to surrender revenue above £1,000,000, but we won't tell nut those duties for ? Was it not to give effect to this you yet what are to be the 'financial arrangements of the treaty?" (Cheers.) They may also say, " Has not this year. (Hear, hear.) That i s th e j us tifi ca ti on of our cow- treaty already coot you £1,800,000 of revenue ? Don't you bining the treaty and budget; and lam certain this house mean to adopt it after that?" That would be a plausible will net fail for a moment to see the sufficiency of that jus- argument, and one which I dare say it would be most con tification. (Hear, hear.) Nay more , I ven t ur e to say this, reuient for a Government to urge ; but, on behalf of the had the right hon. gentleman hi mse lf b een Minister at the privileges of this louse, I submit a different argument. I time; had he made this commerci a l tr ea ty with France— ask that thi s h ouse. may not be put in that p os iti on , an d for ho is a great admirer of commercial treaties with France that we may have the means of expressing a free end un -had he been Minister, and had he made this treaty, the fettered opinion on this treaty before wo can be told that force of circumstances, the force of reason, the fear of resist- the revenue of the country has been already given away. ante, the fear even of ridicule, would have prevented him (Hear, hear.) I su b m i t that there could be no delay. It is from proposing to the h ouse to commit itself to proposals in the power of the Government within a few days to bring vitally affecting the revenue of the year, and at the same down a message, within a few days to go into committee, time telling the House of Commons that the financial ar- and within a few days t) o'etain the opinion of the committee rangements were not to be considered in connexion there- and of the house upon those parts of the treaty which are with. (Hear, hear.) That is, I think, enough to show that not mere reductions of Customs' duties, and then, when under a form of raising a question of procedure and rectify- they find that there is nothing in the treaty which is not ing the mistake which the Government has committed, it is approved and assented to by the house, with the exception to be charitably presumed, the right hon. gentleman says, of the Customs' duties, then, and net till then, let them ask through inadvertence, he proposes to us not only to rectify us to go into committee upon those duties. We shall then an error, but to commit an error of the grossest kind, and know that if the Customs' duties are dealt with as the treaty one which, if it ever entered into our intention to commit, proposes it will be complete as far as the House of Commons the House of Commons would have speedily rectifed in an is concerned ; and we shall not be told at the end, when we unmistakeable form, by expressing its sense of the folly of come to discuss the parts relating to those duties, that we our procedure. (Hear, hear.) are practically forbidden to discuss them, because the whole Sir H. CAIRNS—Sir, if any member appears to wish by of the treaty has been acted upon and acknowledged by lianaent• (Cheers.) the liveliness of his imagination to make us forget the ac- Par - - • , • The ATTO -Celle Y-GENERAL said that, after what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was hardly tual facts of the case as they lie plainly before us, that right hon. gentleman is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But necessary that anything should be added on the part of I would ask you for one short moment to return from the the Government. His hon. and learned friend (Sir H. Propositions si thosetn s of were his Haver hon. friend the forward member more or e for great fancy he has displayed and actually to consider what Cairns) had brought forward ar gumen t s t h at were un- He said it was i nexpe di ent to discuss the treaty is the point to be answered by him, and which, I submit erroneoustne e n l a fa o h l e t .. with confidence to the house, has n o t i n an y way b een me t . (Hear.) I listened with some patience to hear from the in committee, that there was a resolution remitting every right hen, gentleman what explanation he wou ld give with radtwbuielutesyhnt'fooatunalsdyseseitotadfit effe c t o C B :l 3 o k : ffae r n i an s e f i t . e o h h i n i neupt the ehyi en " momen t a o od n If forgo tte n e p a t a r i l t . a was le regard to those clauses in the treaty which do point to the d by a safeeuard that it powerand interference of Parliament; and, although he read n t h t p a a r t ,a ss t i : e li was, n by g at the commencement the two clauses which refer to thein mttateet ; but the necessity of coming to Parlia the resolution. Then they worn told that Ley would have terference,of Parliament, I was somewhat amused to hear at no opportunity of discussing the treaty in detail if they t t h h e e r e e n d d ee th ti a e t n a e l f l e these ue t e ms duty, clauses is m e to an g , i ire with som th e e m ex or c a er w ti e o i n gh o t f wont into s committee ante with wt certain ae s t o s ni o e f gar t li t a a not assent to them without the antecedent propositions e were at veld to a commercial treaty with France, and that in point of constitutional law the house has nothing to do with the ment. But those matters which were within the prerogative te'clenlitearssMenaii"oftyPacrTa treaty but to sanction the alteration of customs duty. I of the Crown, and did not militate against any existing law, assent of Parliament at all. • His hon. and learned friend made two errors in matters shortest possible compass. There are two articles in this want to test that doctrine, and I shall do so within the did not require the antecedent which he said required the antecedent assent of Parliament. ingthtostPtahrelriaemue.anst no o t all c , e a s n s d ity h . er I lla t j h e o st s y s treaty, and I will not go beyond them, on which I will join As to patterns of designs and trade marks, i here was no issue with the right hon. gentleman. One of them, you may say, is a comparatively unimportant one, and, as the right But he was as mueh in er g ror as regarded hon. gentleman himself admitted, is somewhat difficult to wnEeatelsge English sg i hthyetlfryoormemom. advised cases it was a concession made by the foreign trader te the understand. Well, I should say, for the authors of the treaty it is rather early to admit that any of the arti hibit the exportation ef all articles_ of the Customs Acts, which gave the Queen ' h e power to pro ( A laugh.) One of the two articles relates to trade marks and patterns of every stores. - They must, .however, to I say it is quite impossible you could give effect stores of Great Britain, not of .r With re description without an Act of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) file other erroneous military t or nivel grounds of argument, he could only This stipulation requires the sanction of the House of Com- that there had been a mons; how could he gain their assent in committee on the any y d learned friend also said th community ;it they could not discuss the Customs Acts ? But I come to what is a much more im - treaty in considering the re not discuss the grounds and reasons ofth o e f resolution ; but when they were portent article, as to which I look fora different answer from asked to alter the law in reference to the treaty, could . they l e a r w r error. Isis discussing s h a. i o n n g . that just received. I took the liberty the other night of calling the attention of the house to that article of the treaty t to consider the propriety power, regard to coal. I pointed out that the Crown had a and pr utility af the treaty in rig its opriety. They had a • eslttyw'saGs'ovtletrnment to proceed by way of considering whether the . law power, conferred by Parliament, an absolute power, to pro erefore, a perfectly legitimate hibit the exportation of coal, whether in time of war or the should altered. her Is i imminency of war, and that this power conferred by Parlia these resolutions: It was the only proper and rational mode ment could not be surrendered by the Crown or be advised f proceeding, and a mere correct and constitutional form of to be surrendered without the assent of Parliament. ocouldnot Now, Proceeding eon have been adopted. He could not, what answer did the right hon. gentleman make to that ? course therefore,have thought that a great party could have corn y said, we considered it very carefully—it took us a num ,. ril' edibelf to this idle • ingenuity. ,It was a puerile pro ber of weeks to do so ; and we came to the conclusion milted ceeding. (Alaugh .) It was to lead, ' said they, to great and this part of the treaty does not in any way touch the article grave IL- but, without adverting ; w out further to this sub of contraband of war, and therefore does not 'require the resu • 1 ct he.would conclude by hoping that those counsels in assent of Parliament. I ask; who ever talked of contraband wouldnot be d futnre use to retard the great business of of war ? I certainly never said a word about it, nor did my the nation. .- right hon. friend—(hear, hear)—and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know the difference between contra- Sir F. KELLY said that,' in return for the hope ex band of war and the right of prohibiting certain exports, pressed, he also would. gibe a piece of advice to his hon. with great humility I would say, the sooner he studies it an d learned friend , which was, that in c ommenting on a _ the better. Contraband of war hasnothing on earth to do treaty lisi eb.ould loqk to the , . terms of tho treaty itself and with this question, and, if the right hon. n ge ntleman has been advised that this article does not touch eontraband of war, master the clause's of which it was composed. Ire owned I entirely agree with the advice that has been given to him. it was with profound astonishment that h e h ear d th e con - In truth contrab an d o f war is ' the g common t erm used in re- struction put upon the treaty by the right hon, gentleman Terence to the proclamation made by a belligerent Power its the Chancellor of the Exchequer, an d which the hon. and to what articles it will se i ze if i t finds them in neutral ships. But the right now under discussion is a right vested in the learned gentleman (the Attorney-General) had not yea- Sovereign by Act of Parliament, not a belligerent right. tared to defend. What was the true construction of the The Crown possesses it for two purposes—first, to pro- 7th, 14th, and 20th articles of the treaty P There were vent supplies of an important ar ti c l e from going to those conditions and reservations making the whole treaty de who are or may become our enemies ; and next, to pond for its validity upon its being sanctioned as a whole enable the Sovereign in times of extremity, when naval by the Legislature of the country. By the 20th rrticle, the stores mei] tees t to the salvation or the success of this treaty wet :absolutely invalid from beginning to end until country, to care that we are amply provided with them. it should have been entirely sanctioned by act of Parlia- Do the Government mean to say that a power entrusted by meat. The language of that articie was to the effect that Act of Parliament to the Crown can be surrendered by the the treaty should not be valid unless the Queen was autho- Crown without the _consent of the body whi c h gave it? r i led by her Parliament to assent to every article. Now (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly there was one way, and one only, in which the Queen did not advance such a doctrine. He met the argument by could assent to the treaty, and that was• by act of Parlia merely saying—what nobody controverts—that the lit wont. So soon, said the articles, as the necessary legisla article of this treaty does not touch contraband of war. tive sanction should 'be given, the Queen might assent. Here, then, without going any further, are two engage - Th e effect of the articles taken together was that the treaty ments in this treaty which I maintain it is the privilege of should have no effect till it received the sanction of the this house to consider, and give either its assent or its re- Legislature. Ills hon. and learned friend, setti ng as id e a ll fusel to. Tho simple question I desire to ask is, when and former precedents, proposed for the present to lay aside the in what form of proceeding that pi ieilege is to be exercised I' treaty, and in- comm i ttee to d ea l w ith th e different duties. (Hear, hear.) Tho Chancellor of the Exchequer has told But every one kiwis when a duty was repealed in that us that the very next day after we agree to the resolutions house, it was for all practical purposes considered as re in the Customs Act they will be acted upon by the authori- pealed by the Legislature. He very much regretted that ties of the Custom-house ; and it is a well ascertained prat- the hon. and learned gentleman the Attorney_Generd was tice for this house never to withdraw from a resolution not in his place, because as a constitutional lawyer, he which it has so passed. Why, that is our very case, and it must have been well aware .that he was trifling with the is the plainest case i n th e wor ld. You admit that whets. house when ho gave to- the clause the effect he contended ever the assent of Parliament is necessary for hete engage- for, which really amounted to an advice to her Majesty to form barter awe he ments in a treaty, that assent must be given in lII° y r prerogative without the consent of Pallis er other. There are two articles hero which require th at went. He was very sorry to have detained the house so assent. It cannot be given in a committee on the Customs long, but he could not refrain from pointin— g out the em- Acts, but must be given i n some su b se quentlproceeding. In b a nrassrnent in whi c h it - was i nvo l ve d, an d from which not the meantime, how ever , y ou are go i ng i n to a committee on all the ingenuity of tho ri g ht hon. gentl eman the Chan the Custo ms Act, and to ask us to pass resolutions which tenor of the E xc h equer could extricate it. — (Conservative are immediately to be acted upon, and from which you can- cheers.) not withdraw, The r esu lt is hi s —if the h ouse s h ou ld Mr. NEWDEGATE said the treaty provided for a reci afterwards refuse its assent to tho se pa r t s o f the treaty which procity which was all on one side with a ven geance. Th e affect the Customs revenue, that assent being necessary, on. me mber kr Birmin g h am was i n f avour of an abolition you will ha ve repea l e d th e d u ti es —y ou w ill h ew d one th e of all Customs duties, and for a property tax • and follow mischief, an d you cannot go back. The House of Commons ing in his wake, th e h on . mem b er f or Rochdale abandoned will have refused its assent to the engagements of the treaty, on behalf of France a revenue of upwards of a million. which require its assent to give them effect, and yet you will And that was done, too, at a time when tho national de have lost your revenue. (Hear, hear.) The right lion. g en- fences we r e so loudly called for. The Chan ce ll or of the Ex tleman says, "W e as k you to go into committee on the Cus- chequer may be very angry with him—(a laugh)—but it toms Acts, not as Mr. Pitt's proposed to go into committee was perfectly clear the house was trapped, for they must on the French treaty ;" and his reason for that is that " the either accept the treaty or he supposed to insult France. niodi c •fi ations of duty to be made in committee are modifica- He had only to say that if her Majesty's Government did tions on the produce, not of France, but of all countries." not act from such motives, they treated th e H ouse of Corn- But the fact cannot be disputed that it is by treaty with mons with very little courtesy. France that ,y ou h ave bound yourselves to recommend to Mr. AYRTON rose for the purpose of stating the grounds Parliament to repeal or reduce the duties on the manufae- on which he intended to give his vote, He thought the tures and produce of all nations. Therefore, if you go into question in debate should not have been involved in the committee on the French treaty, according to the precedent perplexities of former precedents in other Parliaments, to followed by Mr. Pitt, the treaty will be strictly within the avoid the possibility of misleading fore i gn countries. He province of the committee, and the stipulations respecting could not help saying that the Government, for the first the remission of duties, no matter what country the produce time, pursued a novel course, and took the house out of the subject to them comes from, will be legitimately before it. beaten track so long followed. From the Treaty of Utrecht And here I must say the Chancellor of the Exchequer can to that with the King of Sardinia but one course was pur hardly remember his oxen resolutions, for although he tells sued. Whenever Parliament was called on to vote away us that in the committee:on the:Customs Acts no mention is the money of the people, either by treaty or otherwise, it to be made of the French treaty, but the whole question was always usual to refer the subject to a committee of the will be dealt with as a general redaction or repeal of the whole house. The principle adopted was always the same, but we should take it as we do other things in life, a little bad with a littl e , or, i t may be, a great dealof good. akar.) But, when we have gone through the budget, including everything of the treaty that can take effect through the resolutions on the budget, several things will be left net included in the resolutions, which it will be still necessary for the house to consent to. When we have done this, it will be very easy to pass resolutions expressing the approval of the budget if the house does approve it, and the whole thing will be at an end. (Hear.) What can be more rat i onal than su c h a p roposal ? As I understand him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not the least objection to the House of Commons expressing its opinion on every point of the treaty not involved - in this budget, is this not a course, then, that hon. gentlemen opposite may well adopt P lam afraid they have a very faint idea of the amount of incon venience and suffering this state of things produces in the country. (Hear.) It may be assumed from the number of deputations that wait on Ministers, the letters that fill the newspapers, and are received by members of this house. A very large portion of that which annnvs persons in trade is, not the ultimate result of such changes, but the perplexity and difficulty by w hi c h theyare surrounded during the three or four weeks the subject is in suspense in this house. (Hear.) If you believe that the policy of the budget and the treat y is bad, y ou are per f ectly justified in opposing it, or even in throwing out the Government on it. Rat you should meet it in a straightforward and manly way. (Hera.) Wo on this side of the house are mainly in favour of the proposition; you on the other side are mainly against if . . Wo decide by majorities, and a result may soon be come to. Move a speci fic resolution ; let us have the debate on a well-defined ques tion, and talk it out. The country will derive infortnation from the discussion, and, I hope, will be satisfied with our decision. Every Chamber of Commerce that has not;o id this plan, almost every meeting, and every opinion given in the press, or by the public - -except on details not ver y essential —ha s been in favour of the great changes the Go vernment has proposed. (Hear, hear.) Now, I ask hon. gentlemen opposite not be led astray on this question, for any mere party interests ; not to leave the whole trade and industry of the country in a state of suspense and par tial confusion, till these great measures are settled, (Hear, hear.) If I speak to any member in private he agrees with me in this--if these things are to be done, let us get them done. lam not arguing in favour of any party I urge it on behalf of the country and of interests ten thousand times dearer to us, I hope, than those of party. I do not speak in favour of these measures to keep one set of gentlemen in office or anothet set out. I only wish the hon. gentlemen en the other side when they sat here had had the couraee to propose a policy this. They should have received from me as warm a support as I shall give the right hon. gentlemen who no have the good fortune, if good fortune it be, to occupy the Treasury benches. (Hear, hoar.) Mr. S. FITZGERALD said that they had be en discus sing the question for five hours, and not a single speaker had attempted to grapple the points put forward by his right hon.. friend (Mr. Disraeli). The speech of the Chan - cellor of the Exchequer was a series of evasions and one of the most unfair in argument that had ever been addressed to an opponent. Its personality was only so refined as not to become offensive. It was not true that his right hon. friend had suggested that the treaty should have been made public four months, and that there should have been a fur ther delay of four months. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) asked the 'reuse whether the course taken by the Government afforded a fair opportunity of discussing the question of the commer cial treaty ? The course taken by the Government, he contended, was the very reverse of that followed by Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt moved certain resolutions in committee to consider the treaty with France. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that his resolutions should be considerd in committee on the Customs acts. He contended that it was the duty of the house to consider the clauses of the Treaty of Commerce before they went into committee on the Customs duties. The noble lord the Secretary for Fo reign Affairs said that there was no political influence iden tified with this treaty. Was it not well known that the French fleet depended entirely for its supplies of coal on this country, and what was the good of having a steam fleet if they had not themeans necessary for its propulsion. They had read of a conversation which took place between an Englishman and a distinguished Frenchman wlijaste identity it was not difficult to guess. (Hear.) Reference was made in the course of their conversation to certain - flat-bottomed boats which were being constructed in France, and the Englishman inquired if they were intended for purposes of invasion. The " distinguished" Frenchman replied that that was not the purpose for which they were intended ; but' that as France depended for the supply of coal on Englund, it was the bounden duty of the French Government to take care that they were dependent on her no longer. (Hear. hear.) " The fact was the coal they possessed was an enor mous advantage to England, and as it was of the last politi cal importance to France that she should be always able to obtain a supply from this country ; there was inserted in the treaty an article which would give her that advantage, and in proportion weaken this country. He wished, then, to know if the house would have an opportunity of ex pressing its opinion on that article. The hon. and learned gentleman the Attorney-General had given utterance to an opinion which had caused the greatest astonishment amongst lawyers on both aides of the house when he de clared that this power of prohibition was a common law prerogative of the Crown. If that wore so, it was extraor dinary that the Government should think it necessary to pass an act of Parliament that the Crown should have that power. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) was -inclined to think that it was a statutory power, given by act of Parliament, and that being so, the question was, could the Crown waive it without the assent of Parliament. He called upon the Government to consider the treaty in committee, and if it were for the benefit of the people of England, it would at once meet with the approbation of Parliament. (Cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL said he should confess that when he read the motion of the right hon. gentleman, Mr. Disraeli, he understood it meant as much as it was stated to mean. It was said that it was not fit to go into committee on a Customs Act with the view of repealing the duties until they had first considered the engagements in the treaty of commerce; but ho thought that the answer which his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given upon the point was fully sufficient. His right hon. friend told them that they could not go into committee on the treaty because the resolutions he should have to propose there would net carry out the object in view. Let them take, for instance, the article of the treaty about wine. If the article were passed in committee, ho believed with his right hon. friend that from the time the article was reported the duty on French wine would be reduced, but not the duty on Spanish or Portuguese wine ; and in conse quence they would have to go into another committee on the subject of the wine duties. It was obvious that that was not the course to be pursued, and that it would be im possible to obtain the assent of the house to it. It was obvious, however, that the scope of the motion was more expansive, because the hole. member for Wallingford (Mr. Melbas) and the right hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) remarked that they should go into the consideration of the treaty with the view to go through every clause, in order that they might obtain the legislative sanction of the house. It appeared to him (Lord John Russell) that that was a course most strange on the part of those who professed so much reverence for the prerogative of the Crown. It was a course which had never before been proposed in the house, but which the Con servative body were new, it would seem, prepared to introduce. The power which the hon. gentleman claimed for the house was lam ger even than that given to the Senate of the United States, for they proposed that the acts of the Crown should not be valid until the house had gone through all the propositions of the treaty. There was the article in regard to shipping, which was to the effect that shipping in the 3 ear 1860 should be s u bj ec t t o th e same d u ti e s that it was in 1859. That e v id en tly requ i re d no ass ent o House of Commons, and yet the hon, gentlemanthewhole house. insisted that it should be brought before a committee of house. It was perfectly competent to an hon. gentleman like the hon. member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) to bring forward a resolution, and to say that the house consideredthe that a treaty of commerce was not worth having , unless duties on shipping were altered. It was constitutional to the House of Commons to affirm the proposition, and if they did so it would put an end to the treaty, because it would declare that the treaty was not worth having, and that no reduction of duties should take place in the way of treaty until the differential duties on shippi ng were a l tered by France. That might be a wise or unwise proceeding, but it would be a perfectly constitutional proceeding ; but to go into the articles of the treaty, part of which depended upon the prerogative of the Crown, and part on the assent of the House of Commons' was a monstrous proceeding. What was the course taken by Mr. Pitt ? Did he go through all of the treaty ? It contained 47 arti c l es , and they were simply embodied in 16 or 20 resolutions. That was:the course Mr. Pitt pursued, and that was the course which her Majesty's Government proposed to pursue. They proposed to bring before the house all the resolutions relating to Cus toms' duties which required the assent of the house, and they then proposed to move an address to the Crown on the subject of the treaty. The hon. member for the Tower Ham lets said that they had acted differently when the Tower Hamlets had what he considered the happier times. (A laugh.) He told them that manufacturers and commercial men were thou listened to, and that Ministers brought be fore Parliament all subjects that required discussion. Their course was a very plain course. It was th e course pur sued by Mr. Pitt in 1787, and it seemed to him the only course which Parliament could rationally pursue. But then the hon. gentleman opposite, and others, contended that there were certain matters which affected the preroga tive of the Crown, as forbidding the export of coal, and therefore that article ought specially to ba brought under the consideration of Parliament ; but ho found in the treaty of 1787 that there was a clause of considerable im portance, which referred to many articles of commerce, among which coal was included, and which were declared not to be contraband of war, even when shipped to ports belongin g t o a P ower with which we were at war, provided such ports were not blockaded or invested. It was true that coal was not then an article which might be reckoned as munitions of war, but cables, sailcloth, &c., among the enumerated articles, were of that class, yet the Fren c h might carry those articles to all countries with which this country was at war, provided only they were sent to places which were not blockaded or invested. Those were arti cles which! would :have assisted a hostile Power; but did Mr. Pitt move any resolutions to make them contraband of war ? By no means. It was never to his knowledge men tioned in the house. He had consulted many authorities on that point. The house had heard the eminent authority of the Attorney-General, and the would now quote the autho rity of another eminent !personage in the other house who h . said that the relaxations of prohibitions were intended to operate on both sides ; that while at Peace with footing w ith those t manufactures were put upon an equal The France 0 _ France, but as to fuel there would be no prohibition. treaty could not operate politically, and had n neutral rights, and in spite of it the ex p ortation be hought reason o effe , e ) f t uponcoal might be remedied if such a step should we might able. If we were at war with Franco refuse to permit neutrals to -„t w ar according export coal to Frame, and coal might be contraband s o to which so its destination, and . the nurPo it was to be The hon. Now, hear.)thst was the opinion of the Lord Chance him l that lor . (hear, wanting gentleman opposite had n c e e h re ar e ge iv d e in sufficient sagacity to p Ho (Lord John purpose was concealed under this treaty. Russell) did not know that at that hon. gentleman had shown because when the war was about any wonderful saga France and Austria, though it was to break out between generally known s ix months before, the h on. gentleman, who was then at the Foreign-office, seemed not to know any thi ng about it. (Hear.) His sa gac it y might have been very gr eat once, but at that mo ment he seemed to be too acute. Hon. gentlemen opposite never hear any pro posal from the French Government th a t was not connected their minds with war against England ; but he, on the contrary, firmly believed that the Emperor of the French had seen great advantages to England from free trade, and knew the great profits made by our coa l ownera at t h e ex pense of the French people, and though he wished France strong in time of war against an enemy, ho wished to make her rich and prosperous in time of peace. He (Lord J. Rus sell) believed, with regard to this commercial treaty, .that that was the Emperor's obje c t, an d th a t h e h a d no sinister Mr. BRIGHT said—From the very earnest and animated manner of the hen. gentleman who had just sat down a stranger might be led to imagine that there was some great question before us. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) After having listened to every sentence, I think, that has been Spoken in the debate I can hardly tell what it is we aro debating. The right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire assured us it was not a party question ; but I did not feel that he added any confirmation to that statement when he informed us he had consulted nobody but the hon. and learned member for Belfast—by no means a bad soldier to have at one's side when engaged in a party fight. I can learn nothing from the speech of the right hon. gentleman or of his supporter, because I am perfectly satisfied neither the one nor the other divulged the real object and purpose of this motion. (Rear.) In the speech of the hon. member for North Warwickshire I could get at something real. He digs up theories we thought were dead and buried, and never more to appear among us. I do not in the least blame him for the course he takes, though I cannot understand the point of view from which he re gards this question. He does not believe in the treaty, or in the principles which his leader pronounces sound, and therefore, like a man, he stands up and says so. And, how• ever absurd his views may be—(laughter)--or however erroneous in my opinion, still he discloses them frankly, and makes it no secret that his object in supporting the mo tion is just to got rid, if he can, of this obnoxious treaty. (Slight cheering from the Opposition.) But what is the true object of the motion? If I were on that side of the house—and it is not an uncomfortable side to sit on, as I know by pretty long experience—(a laugh)—and held the opinion which many hon. gentlemen opposite do of the Budget end commercial treaty, instead of carping at them in private and making vicious stabs at them in the house, I would fairly avow I thought the treaty a mistake, that the Queen had been badly advised in entering into it, and that the Government were to be condemned for their policy, and that Parliament should not adopt it, I would be open and aboveboard. I would take—l was almost going to say, the only rational —at least the only manly course. (Hear, hear.) The real fact, lam bound to believe, is that a por tion of the hon. gentlemen opposite are very much annoyed at the treaty from beginning to end; another portion do not like the side of the house on which they sit. (Hear, hear.) They think that an attack may be made on the Govern ment, and perhaps the treaty may be altered in some re spects, but I hardly imagine even that party will go so far as to overthrow it. This is why the motion has been brought forward and is supported by honourable gen tlemen opposite. If those gentlemen are really against it, if the house is against it, why do they not bring forward a resolution to say so at once ? The resolu tion of the honourable member for Eisex did go, with out saying it, very near meaning it, because ho objects to the reduction of the duties, as diminishing the ordinary revenue—the duties and ordinary revenue aro necessarily reduced if the treaty bo adopted, and hence his resolution goes a very long way towards condemning tho treaty altogether. lam free, for my own part, to confess I cannot exaggerate the greatness of the policy which charac terises the treaty or the good which I believe it will do to this country and to France. (Hear, hear.) It is a great question and worthy of a great debate. Let there be one ' side of the house for it, other sgainst it, but let us debate it manfully. (Hear, hear.) Do not take the course chosen by the leader of hon. gentlemen opposite—(hear, hear) —a course which half of his own party, even if they vote with him, would rather in their hearts he had not taken. Don't put a resolution on the paper which nobody can understand —(cries of " Oh, oh I")—which his principal recruit on this side of the house cannot even compliment as either gram matical or sensible ; and which proposes a course which neither the right hon. gentleman himself, nor any one who has spoken en that side of the house, has yet been able to give an explanation of, lam not going into the question of the treaty in the least. We will talk about the coal difil abtytearnkud b a y ;,a t E ha v t e consume in a year half as much coal as a single colliery in e th u e lt nl Y rY the on w e ho w le ho na k v n y o o w f s F a ra ny n t ee hin d r oe a s b rot t England can produce, and, after all, is only what the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), speaking of the national debt, called a mere "fleabite." (Laughter, and hear, hear.) If you are not adverse to the treaty—for I desire to give the right hon. gentleman all the credit I can for his proposal, and to believe that he is merely anxious the house should take the most convenient and expeditious mode of considering is the proper this great proposition with the view to advance the 'public interests—let us consider what course to take. lam so much in favour of the treaty I can vote for it altogether as it is. (Opposition cheers.) l am so much in favour of all the great free trade measures in the Budget that I can vote for it also as it is. (Oppo sition cheers.) But Ido not insist others should do the Same. I cannot expect the House of Commons to come by a leap, as it were, to a conclusion like that. But I ask you to consider that groat interests are involved in the ques tion, that it is one which ought not to be made the mere stalking horse of party, and one we cannot fight over night after night without any d ()finite proposition before the house. The question, it seems, is Treaty or Budget. On the other side they do net speak much in favour of the treaty, but they are all very anxious the house should loess the treaty at once. suppose the Government had taken the course hon. gentlemen opposite affect to recommend, in what posi tion would the house have been then ? Suppose the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, or the noble lord at the head of the Government, or the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had laid the treaty on the table of the house, and asked you to discuss it—could you take the treaty and go through it from beginning to end and put every single word every sentence, every proposition to the vote ? Do hon. gen denten opposite propose that ? Or do they propose that the Government should have offered to the house a resolution for an address to the Crown expressing the general approba tion of the house of the treaty which the Queen has negotiated with the advice of her Majesty's Ministers P if they did, then I would vote with them ; but only look at the position the house would have been in after such a resolution was passed. You could not then have gone into the details of the treaty, you would have been prevented from considering all the propositions to which the Chancellor of the Exche quer invited your attention. A very large proportion of the prepositions of the budget are details of the treaty; and if you had approved the treaty in the bulk, and got rid of it, when you came to the resolutions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer you would have been precluded from any ex amination of half of his proposals, you would have been shut out from exercising the most constitutional duty, pri vilege, and right of the House of Commons—that of ex amining seriatim every one of the features of the plan which the Chancellor of the Exchequer lays before you. Now, my notion of the course we should take to expedite business is this, —we should go through the whole of the budget, accept what we can accept of it, and reject what we do not like. I dare say there is something in it we do not like ; designs against this country. (Cheers.) He had been asked why these changes had not been made without a treaty. But this differed somewhat from the commercial treaties of other times. The truth was that protection, as it existed in France, was of that nature that unless the French Go vernment could say that great benefits would be gained by France, the proposed_ reductions ana remissions could not have taken place. The people saw at once that by admit ting their wines at reduced duty much benefit accrued to them, and a great trading interest would be created which would set protection at defiance. He agreed with the hon. member for Birmingham that this was a large proposition, and that it ought to be met in the way the Con. member for Essex had suggested, by a resolution, affirming other prin ciples in opposition to those of the Government. (Hear.) The noble lord then alluded to the course which was pur sued by Mr. Fox on the occasion of the treaty negotiated by Mr. Pitt in 1787. Upon that occasion Mr. Fox said that whatever might be the opinion of Parliament it was bound to respect the faith of the Crown, and the engagements I which had b een en t ere d i nto by the Crown should be adhered ! to inviolably; that was a fair, honourable, and constitu tional course; and not to endeavour to harass the house by questions as to the form of proceedines That was a course unknown to the Constitution which was net worthy of a • great party, and to which he hoped the house would never give its countenance. Mr. HORSMAN expressed his surprise at some of the statements he had heard made by the noble lord, for he wouldthe i t n h o e s t t i r t c , a p t o y r t m e ' n u t s i t n o ti i t : o e nc o .o bt u ain o o n d t . found by th e 20 t h article of the treaty that the consent of ( heLhlissi titreaty f Europe. Ad o pti ng i t merely as P it • a budget, they to o k for one year, but adopting it as a treaty of commerce, they took it for a serie s o f years. It would be a subject of reflection 9 to every Cabinet of Europe, and they might reflect upon the vast increase of character and influence which this treaty would give to a Power which it could not afterwards con trol. (Hear, hear.) It might affect the boundaries of em pires —it might affect the new sovereignty of Savoy —it might affect the independence of Switzerland. (Loud Oppo sition cheers.) Was he exaggerating ? (Hear, hear, from both sides of the house.) They were all anxious to co-ope rate with :the Chancellor of the Exchequer in providing liberally for the year. (A laugh.) All were anxious to ex tend their relations with other countries—all were anxious to promote those great principles of free trade which were now the law of the land—all were anxious to cultivate good relations with France—(hear, hear)—that was, so far as was consistent with the honour and interests of this coun try—(hear, hear)—and, let him add, with the goodwill of the other nations of Europe. (Hear, hear.) The treaty was founded upon political and commercial con siderations—the Budget upon financial considerations. The tax upon wines was not taken off because it would be for the benefit of England, but because it would be most agreeable to France, and the deficit was the price of the treaty; but ho would ask, was the treaty worth the price ? (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) In fact, the treaty was the horse which was to drag the cart-load of deficit out of the mire. (Renewed cheers from the Opposition.) It was the duty of the Ministers to decline to sanction this treaty until it had been submitted to Parliament; for if they agreed to it, their own acts belied it, as at the present time they were arming, and arming to the teeth, against France, just as if a war was actually impending. lie should give his hearty support to the amendment of the right hon. gentleman opposite. Lord PALMERSTON—I can assure the house that I will not detain hon. gentlemen more than a few minutes from the division to which I am sur o they are determined to come. (Hear.) I should hardly have felt it necessary to say one word on the subject, had it not been forth, speech of my right hon. friend who has just sat down. The ' speeches on the other if do of tho house have been com pletely and triumphantly answered by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by my noble friend. (Hear, hear, No, no, and cheers.) Either the right hon. gentleman proposes that which would be unconstitutional, or that which is of no importance. (Hear, hear.) If he means that we are to go article by article through the whole treaty, and give a Parliamentary explanation upon each article, the execution of which rests upon the prerogative of the Crown, I say that such a proposal is fundamentally un constitutional. (Hear, bear.) Treaties concluded by the Crown, and which I sug ges t that. tha Crown's pr erogat i ve i s competent to fulfil, may require or admit the approval or die . epproval of Parliament in the aggregate ; but they are not treaties with which the house can constitutionally deal article by article. To maintain such a right would be to place this house in the condition of the senate of the United States, which has the power of de claring and ratifying, and is part of a contradictory autho rity of that State, and not simply a legislative assembly. It would be fundamentally at variance with the established principle if this house were to take upon itself to deal ar ticle by article with those parts of the treaty which require no legislative enactment, and simply bind the Crown to the exercise of its acknowledged prerogative. (Hear, hear.) The lion. member for Wallingford went beyond that, be cause he said a treaty would not be valid unless an act of Parliament was passed to give legislative authority to it. Mr. MALINS—No. Lord PALMERSTON proceeded—These who followed him, speaking on the other side, actually supported the very proposition of the Government, for which they asked the house to go into committee. This was, indeed, the fair and constitutional drift of the proposal of the right hon. gentle man's proposition, so that he (Lord Palmerston) wondered that he should ever contemplate a division on the subject. (Laughter.) It was said that the house ought to have an opportunity of expressing their approval or disapproval of the treaty, and this the house would have an opportunity of doing. The Government were, in fact, following exactly the precedent set by Mr. Fox in 1787. Laughter and cheers.) His right hon. friend, near him (Mr. Horsman) had evi dently prepared a most eloquent speech which he intended to deliver on the budget. He bethought himself there could not be a better opportunity than to night, a fuller house, or a better audience, on which to dispose of his eloquent and argumentative oration, which circumstances had pre vented him from delivering on the former occasion, aod he thought it would be an admirable diversion to un - bottle it now. Therefe •e, scarcely saying a word on the motion before the house, his right hon. Wend dashed into the logic of hie speech. But a few words he did utter regarding the tariff were most remarkable words, because if his argument possessed any value he cught at once, disregarding the budget and the present question as to the propor mode of proceeding, to propose a non intercourse resolution for England and France. (Hear t • hear, and oh, oh). Ho said, " I object to your treaty because it tends to increase the wealth and prosperity of France." (Hear.) He would not deny that it increased the wealth and prosperity of England ; but anything that had a tendency to make Franco more wealthy, more com mercial, more industrious, more prosperous, he objected to. (Cries of " no.") He ought, then, to move a non-intercourse resolution between England and France to be consistent. (Cries of "no" and "yes.") Mr. HORSMAN rose, but was received with a continu ance of cheering from the Ministerial benches which for some time rendered it impossible for him to make himself heard. At last the right hon. gentleman said—The noble lord, I am sure, will thank me for telling him that I did not say one single syllable. (Cries of " Oh, oh I" and cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON reaffirmed what he had stated. He did not pretend to a better memory than other people, but he could recall what had passed only a few minutes ago, and he again assorted that if the right hon. gentleman was consistent in his opinion, that was the conclusion to which he ought logically • to come. Doubtless great latitude was allowed to members of that house, especially on questions which directly or indirectly referred to finance and taxes, but inasmuch as the question before the house was ono simply as to the mode of proceeding, the whole of the right hon. g entleman's observ a ti ons were out of order. He had • stated that Sir R. Peel never made a deficit; but in 1842 Sir R. Peel increased the taxes, and in 1845 he created a debt. (Cries of "divide.") The question was Bind) , as to the mode of proceeding, and really it mattered very little which was adopted. (More cries of " Divide, divide I") The house then divided— For Mr. Disraeli's amendment Against it . 393 Majority for Government —63 The announcement was received with loud cheers from the Ministerial benches. Mr. DU CANE, gave notice that as it was not competent by the forms of the house to bring forward a second amend ment on the question that the Speaker do leave the chair, ho begged to give notice that to-morrow, when the house was in committee on the Customs Acts, he would move a reso lution as nearly similar to that of which he bad before given notice as the forms of the house would admit. Lord PALMERSTON said he would give every facility to the hon. gentleman if he should resolve to persevere with his resolution. The house then went in committee pro forma. In answer to Mr. Baton; Lord PALMERSTON said he proposed to go on with the budget to-morrow, and he hoped those hon. gentlemen who had notices on the paper tosmorrow would waive their right. (Hear, hear.) The house then resumed. THE ARMY. On bringing up the report on supply, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY remarked upon the large num ber of troops proposed to be sent to China. • Mr. S. HERBERT explain e d, th a t i n his statement on . to be Friday last he had shown th a t th e number of troop sent to China differed from th a t generally s tated in the re ports from India. 407 649). CONSOLIDATED FUND (. ' This bill passed through committee. CORONERS. Sir G. LEWIS brought in a bill to a mend the law in re laden to the remuneration of coroners, and it was read a first time. e minutes to one o'clock. The house adjourned at fiv h has been c orh s exingam on n compan y Saturday during last f oyr House, W i lts. L or d and Lad I !Lord Broug h am the past week at o Wm. Powlett were tol ea ve Bath. h C am rshani pI ovE nTfsEmENT.J — Mr. Ber m Lu dgate-hill, has j ust ttshed a new illustrated pamphlet on watches (tree by post It should be re a d for two stamps). by all Who are about buying* a watch, as it contains prices and important informa tion as to—What watch to buy ! where to buy it 1 and how to use it 1 thous extra extraordinarysome cures without medicine effected by Du Barry's delicious Health Restoring Revalenta Arabic& Food of Indigestion cdyspepsia) flatulency, constipation, nervous, bilious and liver compl:tints, cough, asthma, con sumption, and debility ;—Cure No. 41,617. Winchester, December 3, 1847 . — Gentlemen,—I am happy to be able to inform you, that the person for whom •our Revalenta was p rocur ed has derived very great benefit from its use; dis tressing symptoms of dropsy, dyspepsia, and constipation of long standing have been removed, and a feeling of re stored health induced. Having witnessed the benefical effects in the above mentioned case, I can with confidence recommend it, and shall have much pleasure in doing so whenever an opportunity offers, &c., &c.—James Shorland, late surgeon 96th Regiment. —Cure No. 52,422. Bridge house, Frimley, April 3, 1854.—Thirty-three years diseased lungs, spitting of blood, liver derangement, deafness, sing. ing in the ears, constipation, debility, s h or t ness o f breath and cough, have been removed by your Revalenta Ara i biea. My lungs, liver, stomach, head, and earsare_all right, my hearing perfect, and my recovery is amarvel to all my acquaintances. James Roberts, timber merchant._ En tins, at ls. 6d. •, 11b., 3s. ; 21b., 58. 9d. ; 51 b., 1 25.; 121 b., 265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of post-. office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, Lomb , r Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly; Abbis, Gracechureh-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63, and 150, 0 x f4, 4 : treet ; 330 and 451, Strand; 49 and 60; Bishops ,gate ,treet ; 85, Tottenham-court-road. Al so at 13 üblin. Bewley :and Draper ; at Edinburgh, Raimes an.',! Co. ; it Liverpool, Nixon and Thew ; at Manchester, Skil rp and icott; at York. Raimes, Blanchard, and Co. ampton, Randall and Scat,; tioutip Wit