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

MPERIAL. PARLIAMEN HOUSE OF L( Rng ( Y _ ESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on tho woolsack -t five o'clock. CHURCH RATES. A. number of petitions were presented by the Earl o f LARD \MIKE and several other peers against the aboh ,on of church rates. COOLIE LABOURERS. The Earl of ELLENBOUGH said, as the House of • ommons had agreed to grant extracts of the correspon .lenee between her Majesty's Government and the Govern lent of France, in respect to legalising the exportation of tatives of British India as indentured labourers to French olotties, he presumed there would be no objection to lay the :,.me papers on their lordships' table. Lord WODEHOUSE said there would be no objection -o such a course. CENTRAL ITALY. The Marquis of NORMANBY moved for a copy of any `. - istructions addressed by the Secretary of State to her Ma • eety'a Charge d'Affairs at Florence, directing him to im press upon the Provisional Government the duty of ab • staining from any arbitrary acts calculated to destroy all freedom of action in connection with those fresh elections which her Majesty's Government had thought proper to recommend. He had no idea that so very shortly after peace had been arranged that the English Government had dropped the mask of neu trality and assumed the attitude of strong partizans. He complained very much of the conduct of her Majesty's Government, in shortly after the conclusion of peace be tween Austria and France giving instructions to Mr. Corbett calculated to pre-rent the accomplishment of that object. He was strongly of opinion that the letter written by Lord John Russell to the Charge d'Affaires at Flo rence, dated the 19th of July, was directly at variance with the terms of peace. In that letter he had spoken of an attempt to suppress popular feeling in favour of the Archducal Government as unjust. He should like to know whether a statesman, who had so much horror of cor ruption at English elections,could not find a harder expression to apply to such proceedings. The noble lord then proceeded to notice the present state of Tuscany, and said that for the last three months, until that day, no single letter had ever been allowed to leave the Tuscan Post-office. It had been customary for him to receive three or four a week, many of which bore the appearance of having been opened, but the letter he had received that day was the first that had for same time, as he had stated came to hand. The letter in ques tion came from an English lady at Florence, who had married an Italian gentleman, who had been torn from her by the Provisional Government of Tuscany, and confined in prison without the slightest appearance of trial, or without knowing the nature of the charge against him. Lord WODEHOUSE said the principle on which her Majesty's Government acted was non-interference, and he thought it improper to ask either the house or the Govern ment to go into minute details with respect to the character and conduct of the Government of another country. The noble lord entered into a detailed statement, to show the unfounded charges which had been made by the noble warquis against the Tuscan Government and against the authorities in Milan and Leghorn, and read a number of documents to bear him out in that statement. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE defended the charac ar of the existing Government of Tuscany, declaring that is result of the elections would in a few days more prove to Europe that it possessed the confidence of the people. After a few words from Lord DENMIIN and the Earl of MALMESBURY, The Duke of ARGYLL said it was the desire of the Government that the affairs of Italy should be settled with a full regard to the wishes of the Italian people, without which no settlement of them could be satisfactory er per manent. The motion was finally withdrawn. The Consolidated Fund Bill (£407,649) was read a third time and passed. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. DOVER ELECTION. Mr. GASKELL, the chairman of the committee ap pointed to try the merits of the petition against the return of Admiral Leeke and Mr. Nicol, brought up the report, whieh was to the effect that the sitting members were duly returned, that bribery was committed, but without their knowledge or that of their agents, and the charge of undue influence at the election on the part of Ministers or other servants of the Crown was not proved to the satisfaction of the committee. PETITIONS. Sir J. GRAHAM presented a petition, signed by 1,000 graduates and under-graduates of the Aberdeen University praying that in any measure of reform, that university should be admitted to Parliamentary representation. Several petitions were presented iron; ladies in favour of legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister ; against licensing, eating-houses, &c. ; against different details of the budget ; by Mr. BBIGHT, from inhabitants of Dunmow, in Ireland, in favour of vote by ballot as adopted in Aus tralia ; and ;by Mr. HALIBURTON, from New Brunswick against the abolition of the timber duties. WEXFORD HARBOUR. Mr. REDMOND moved that the order (Feb. 17) for a return relative to Wexford Harbour be discharged ; and instead thereof copy of report upon Wexford Harbour by Mr. Coode, C.E., and of the plan connected therewith, and of other papers on the same subject, to the Lords Commis genera of the Admiralty.—Ordered. _ _ _ GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE. Mr. GREGSON asked the Secretary of State for India if her Majesty's Government had arranged with the Viceroy of India to transfer the control of the Government of Sin gapore and the Straits from Bengal to the Colonial Office ; and, if so, when it was proposed to complete the same transfer. Sir C. WOOD was understood to say that he had formed an opinion favourable to the transfer, but it was impossible to furnish the information required by the hon. member. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S EUROPEAN TROOPS. General PEEL asked the Secretary of State for India, whether there was any truth in the statement that had ap peared in the papers, copied from the Oude Gazette, " That tidings had been received at head quarters of a feeling of discontent still lingering in the minds of the remnants of the late Company's European troops, especially the artil lery P" Sir C. WOOD said he had seen the statement alluded to, but the Government had received no official information on the subject. MANOR COURTS IN IRELAND. _ _ Mr. lIENNESSY asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when the scale of compensation to be given to the seneschals and the registrars of seneschals, consequent on the abolition of Manor Courts in Ireland, would be announced. Mr. CARDWELL said that the Treasury minutes on the subject would be shortly issued. NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND. Mr. SCULLY asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was prepared to introduce any reforms or im• provements in the present system of national education in Ireland ? Mr. CARDWELL said the house was aware that her Majesty's Government intended firmly to adhere to the system of national education in Ireland. Full and ample means would be afforded to hon. members to consider any improvements or alterations that it was proposed to introduce. every five gallons. There is another class of goods, which being foreign in their origin, but coming into this country without any payment of duty, are exported aft r having undergone here some particular sort of operation. 'I hose free imports which have not gone into warehouse, bu have been landed, and subsequently sent abroad, we cons er to belong to the same class as British goods when e orted. It is necessary to take with respect to them an a urate account, and therefore we propose to class them alone with British goods when exported. NoW, in the case of that particu lar description of exports, it is evident that the simplest as well as the most accurate mode of proceeding is to charge a small fee according to their value, and which shall have no reference to the number of articles exported. The reasin why I look upon value as the best standard to take in this instance is that the value of the goods is invariably set forth in the document which it is necessary should be-presented before any goods can be exported, and that the imposition of a small charge will give the means of effecting improvements which, as I shall on some future occasion be able to show the house, are much needed in order to procure an accurate and satisfactory account of the exports of the country. There will, there fore, be three modes of charge—one of ld. on free imports ; another of ld. on foreign goods out of warehouse ; a third, a charge of per cent. ad valorem on British goods when ex ported, and on foreign goods exported free of duty and never having paid any. [Sir S. Northcote —What will be the rate fixed upon those goods on which drawbacks have been paid fl They do not require any separate arrangement. Goods trans-shipped will be charged at the rate of ls. on the value, and corn and timber, which are liable to a low duty on importation, but which, nevertheless, do not go into warehouse at all, we propose shall be subjected neither to registration dues on importation nor to any charge when re-exported. (Hear.) It will be found by the resolutions which I shall lay on the table for the purpose of carrying into effect the proposals of the Government with regard to registration dues that such an adjustment has been made as to secure the sum of nearly £300,000, upon which my cal culations were based. The next resolution is that which relates to the removal of goods in warehouse. Objection may very fairly be taken to that resolution in the form in which it was originally presented to the house, both on the ground that the charge which it fixed was too high, and that it would operate with undue weight in those instances in which successive removals of goods might take place, The total amount which we hope to receive from the charge on removal is not large, and were it only a mere question of finance which was involved in the matter, we might have abandoned the £50,000 or £60,000 a year which we hope to derive from this charge. There is, however, another con sideration connected with this impost, to which some degree of importanceis to be attached. It is only by means of a charge on -removal that we can establish a self-acting registration in those towns of secondary importance to the revenue, the expense attendant upon keeping up a separate staff in which would by no means reimburse the State for the outlay which it would be necessary to incur. We there fore propose to continue the charge on removal, making a reduction in the amount, so that in future it shall be a uni form charge of ld. on each Ll of duty to which the articles subject to it may be liable. I may add that in the case of tobacco we propose that the charge shall be id. It is also our intention that the charge for removal shall be levied along with the charge for duty, and that it shall be levied only once on any description of goods, and that it shall be paid by the purchaser of the goods, inasmuch as by that means it will be levied over the whole of the community, and will not fall exclusively upon the dealer in bonded goOds. There is also another charge which I propose to make, which, I trust, will add something to the revenue of the country, but which I adopt not so much on that account as because I deem it absolutely necessary to remedy a glaring anomaly in the case of removals which at present exists, but which would be ten times more glaring in consequence of the alteration in the duties of wine, tending to produce a considerable increase in that article, which the house has deemed it right to sanction. In accordace with the present law, while every man who dealsin wine pays a duty and is liable to be called upon to take out a 10-guinea license, it is open to any person who may think fit to do so to deal in wine which has not paid duty, bonded in warehouse, with out taking out any , license whatsoever. It would, therefore, in my opinion, be most unjust to the general dealer in wine to.permit this exemption any longer to exist, especially under the altered circumstances of the trade which we ex pect will take place. We therefore propose that all persons dealing in bonded wine or spirits in a less quantity than 90 gallons shall be liable to be called upon to take •ut a 10. CUSTOMS ACTS. • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that the house at its rising do adjourn to Monday. He said—ln doing so, I will take the opportunity of answer ing a question put to me by a noble lord opposite, and also make a short explanation of some resolutions I am about to lay on the table of the house. The question of the noble lord was whether I considered the profits of tenant farmers have been largely increased during the last four years, because the returns to the income tax under schedule B have increased during that period. It is a mere matter of opinion, on which no argument can be founded. I am perfectly aware that the immediate test of the payments under schedule B is the actual rent. Ent the fanner has the means of proving before the Income-tax Commissioners that his profits are net equal to the charg e on him, calculated on the rent, a n d may o b ta i n a elief fro m a portion of the charge. But I am sure the farmers have not found it to their interest generally to decline the fixed standard of rent, and go on the standard of profit. I think the whole country believes that the farmers' profits during re cent years have been considerably greater than they w ere during a long previous period. (Hear.) The resolutions I have to propose are of importance to the whole commer cial community. They are the 11th, 12th, and 13th on th e paper, and Ist and 2d in the resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means. The Ist of these, the 11th, refers to the registration dues to be charged, with some modifications and adjustments on exports and imports. I will lay the resolutions on the table forthwith, in the form in which the Government intends to submit them to the sanction of the house, and describe very shortly what will be their effect. The goods are to be considered in the classification under which they fall in the course of business, and according to the methods in which they are handled for the purpose of the public accounts. The goods imported into this country are divided into two classes—those liable to the payment of duty and.those that are free. The second class I hope will henceforth be the largest of the two. So far as goods liable to dutyon importation are concerned, inasmuchas the collet• tionof the duty requires the operation of registration, we do not propose to levy on those goods any additional charge whatever. With respect, however, to goods which come into this country free of duty, and in respect to which the ' Customs' establishment is neceessarilyput to a great amount of labour, we propose to charge ld. on each unit of entry, but with such modifications as will have for their general object to. prevent that charge from exceeding in any case the ordi nary ad valorem rate of one-quarter per cent. With regard to'the goods exported from this country, and of which there are four important classes, we intend to submit to the house thefollowing arrangements for its approval :—The first of the clas ses t o w hi c h I a ll u d e i s t h at w hi c h i s em b race d un d er the . head of trans-shipments. A very large trade is carried o_n this country in th e case of g oods which are never landed, but of which account is taken by the Customs' De partment, and with respect to which a considerable amount of labour is incurred. It would, however, in my opinion, be extremely inexp e di ent to cha rge on those goods such an amount as would impede the course of trade, or which would be regarded as in any way burdensome. In the case th er efore of goods which are simply tran s-s hipped pro pose that they should be ch arged at th e rat e we of ls on the v alue for each £ lOO worth. In reference to forei gn : goods eiported from t his countr y out of warehouse —tha t is tosay, which would have been liable to duty if delivered f or con sumption here, a nd in res p ect of which th e Customs , if they had been delivered for consumption, would have been re-imbursed for their labour by receiving the required duty is our intention to levy on the whole of that class of goods a charge of ld., fixed on the weight in the case of solids, and on the measure in the case of liquids, according to 'the tariff, which will be very simple, inasmuch as the whole of tho goods warehoused in this country will be re duced to nine or ten articles. Solid goods, then, will iu general be charged on every 1001 b. weight at the rate of ld., in one or two cases at the rate of Id. on every 501 b., and is the ease of wine and spirits at the rate of Id, On guinea license. Many persons are desirous that on all classes dealiag in bonded goods a certain charge should be laid, but I am of opinion that such a course could not be taken without subjecting the public to much vexation, and that its operation would be attended with a great deal of difficulty. (Hear, hoar.) With respect to the third resolution—namely, that which re lates to operations in warehouses—l have to state to the house that the principle on which the resolution proceeds is to reduce the rate of charge, which is undoubtedly higher than is necessary, and to define more equitably and more particularly the particular cases to which that rate of charge should be applicable. These three resolutions will have to be considered in the committee on the Customs' Acts, and, taken together with the hop duties, I believe they are the only three which remain to be thus considered. Now, there is one proposal which I wish to make for the purpose of re- moving anomalies, and it is but a duty of Is. per ton on foreign shipbuilding wood. I make that proposal with the view of equalizing the position of the builders of foreign ships which come into this country for registration and the builders of ships here who are called upon to pay a low duty on the material of which the ships are made. These, then, are the resolutions which are to be proposed in com- mittee on the Customs' duties. There are, however, others with respect to which much discussion is likely to take place--I allude to those relating to dock-warrants and to contract notes. These I cannot lay upon the table in an amended form to-night, but I can state to the committee the substantial end to which they will be directed. They bear upon four classes of subjects, which are entirely distinct from one another. The first is notes issued by dealers in stocks, shares, and securities, and the proposal to impose a Id. stamp on those notes has been, I think, in principle ge nerally approved. I shall propose a resolution for the pur pose, in order to prevent its bearing hardly and ineonviently on some classes of transactions, particularly those connected with certain charities, that there shall be an exemption of all transactions where the value of the stock, share,-or secu rity to which they refer shall not exceed £2O. That disposes of contract notes furnished by brokers, dealers, or middle men. The second class are dock warrants, which are intended to serve as distinct and independent evidence of the existence -of certain goods; and that evidence is supplied not by the owner or vendor of the goods, Out by an independent person, namely, the owner of the warehouse or wharf in which the goods ace deposited, whether he be an indi vidual or a company. When the document that thus traces the existence of the goods has acquired such independent evidence it becomes a security capable of being deposited and being the basis of an advance of money. In that cha racter I propose that all dock warrants se defined, whether issued by companies or individuals, shall. as negotiable in struments, be charged with a stamp of 3d. The remaining question relates to two other subjects—namely, delivery or ders and contract notes, or notes of purchase and sale of profits. On examining this question lam bound to admit that if we do lay ld. of charge on delivery orders and con tract notes the effect in general would be to lay a double tax on some transactions, and likewise, I must admit it, so far as contract notes are concerned, it would be extremely diffi cult to find an adequate legal definition which would make them liable to charge, and at the same time include a great many documents it is not intended to include, and which it would be hardly fair to include, such as, f - exam ple, all tenders to execute orders or undertake contracts on certain terms—sale notes that are furnished in the corn- trade, and which are absolutely subject to refusal, and may become altogether void. These are documents which it would be very inadvisable to include, and under these cir • cumstanees, having reserved the resolutions so far as regards stock, shares, and securities, I propose entirely to abandon them, and to apply the U. charge to other contract notes. On the other hand I propose to place ld. charge on all deli very orders, with the exception of such orders as relate to goods under the value of 40s. That will be the effect of the resolutions as they will be submitted to the house for their definitive judgment. I don't now enter into the considera tion of the particular clauses, but I thought it was desirable that I should at the earliest moment make known the inten tions of the Government on these subjects, which to a con • siderable degree hang together. And now, thanking the house for permitting me to make this explanation, I A beg leave to lay on the table the fourresolution s to which I have referred, and which will be considered in committee on the Custom Acts. (Hear, hear.) when the Government intended to introduce Measures t o Mr. LlNDSHAAPasßkOedUtilbeSPOreFsiditenEtFor thGeElioard of Tr a d e carry into effect the recommendations of the _ Harbours of Refuge Commission. It would be remembered_that tho a sicom mittee of that house was appointed to in q hi . re te lus ct i o o f n h t ar ha b t ou on rs n o a f t r io e n fu r g i, e, and nd well that a s they e em m a e r r n e v i aeld ao tthe grounds,cuon it wasmost desirable that harbours should be co nstructed, and they strongly recommended Parliament to do s o at as earl y as a period as posrible. Subsequently a Royal Commission was appointed on the same subject, onwhich he (Mr. Lind say) and that commission came unanimously to the same conclusion as to the importance and urgency of these har bours, after devoting five months to the inquiry. They strongly recommended' their erection in the month of August last, and ho wished to know what the Government intended to do with tha report of that commission. Sir F. SMITH, as a member of the commission, was anxious to urge upon the Government the importance of carrying out its recommendations with the least possible delay. The estimated cost of these harbours was £2,000,000, which they proposed to spread over ten years, so that alto gether the expenditure would not exceed £200,000 a- year. When they remembered that at present 850 sailors were lost every year, and one million and a half of he thought the urgency of the case was so obvious as to require no comment. The whole of the eastern seaboard was at Present quite unprotected, and the small vessels engaged in the coasting trade were exposed to great and constant dan ger without any chance of safety. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE wished to urge upon the Go verntruhe ent the necessity for taking immediate steps to carry out of life and d ecommeudations of the commission. The loss be preventedP p roperty rty was enormous , outlay and on muchharb harbours s it of re fuge. Wheth er t h e could veryr question was regarded as one of pro tection to life and property, or as one of national defence, the matter was equally urgent and important, The , Sir G. C. LEWIS said his knowledge of the case was de rived exclusively from the statement of the hon. gentleman and from the reports in the newspapers. The trial took place at Durham on Thursday last, the prisoner being in dicted for stealing a watch. A Roman Catholic priest was called as a witness and sworn ; and on being asked from whom he received a certain watch he declined to state, whereupon the judge committed him to prison. He (Sir G. C. Lewis) differed in opinion from the hon. gentleman, who thought that the law of England privileged a priest from answering a question as to communications made to him in confession. Any communication between a counsel or at torney and his client, especially on business to which a suit related, was privileged—butno such privilege existed with respect to a clergyman of any denomination or a physician. He apprehended that the judge had acted with perfect legality in this instance, and he collected from the report that the question was pressed by the counsel, and that, there fore, the judge had no option but to commit the witness. It would have been competent for the counsel to waive the question, and suoh was the practice in criminal cased in Ireland, where such instances as that referred to were more frequent. He had received no application from the priest or from any one on his behalf, and, therefore, he inferred that a report which had reached him was true, and that the priest had remained in custody only a few minutes. THE TIMBER DUTIES. Mr. HALIBURTON wished to ask the right hon gen tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was his in tention to bring the question of the timber duties under the consideration of the house, as it was one that seriously affected the interests of the people of New Brunswick and Canada. _ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said his hon. friend (Mr. Laing) had a short while since stated the course that was to be pursued as regarded the future son sideration of the timber duties. They had, however, been fully discussed, but if hon. gentlemen were anxious to fur ther consider them, an opportunity would be afforded for that purpose. ' ANNEXATION OF SAVOY TO FRANCE. Lord A. V. TEMPEST said he wished to ask the noble lord whether her Majesty's Government had taken any steps, and if so, whether he had any objection to state the nature of them, to obtain the concurrence of Austria, Rus sia, and Prussia, in opposition to the rumoured annexation of Savoy to France. He wished to ask also, whether they had been made acquainted with the final intentions of Sar dinia with reference to the subject, and also with the un changed opinion of- Switzerland. (Laughter.) He did not know what hon. members laughed at; but allow him to say that Switzerland felt a deep interest and held very strong opinions on the subject—(hear, hear)—and he was desirous, under these circumstances, to ask her Majesty's Government whether they had any objection to give the house the information which he sought for. Lord J. RUSSELL—The noble lord the member for Durham (Lord A. V. Tempest) has put to me some ques tions on a subject of great public interest, and I feel bound to give him such information as I am able in reply to those questions. He asks me if I have taken any steps, and if so, what the nature of those steps is, to obtain the concurrence of Austria, Prussia, and Russia in protesting against the rumoured annexation of Savoy to France. Now, the course which we have adopted in that respect has been to commu- nicato the correspondence which has taken place between her Majesty's Government and that of France on the sub ject to the Courts of Berlin, Vienna, and St. Petersburg. I may add that wo contented ourselves with simply com municating that correspondence, and desiring that a copy of it should be handed to the Governments of each of those countries respectively, without asking them to take any steps or to make any suggestion in the matter, but leaving them to adopt such a course as they might deem expedient on a question which is of importance to the interests of Eu rope. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the probable result of this proceeding I am quite unable to supply the noble lord with any information beyond this, that the Ministers for Foreign Affairs both at Vienna and Berlin say that they agree generally with the views of her Majesty's Govern ment on this subject. Neither at Berlin nor Vienna, how ever, is it absolutely stated what steps their respective Go vernments propose to take in a matter which certainly re quires careful consideration. From St. Petersburg I have received no account with regard to it, probably because the despatch which we sent there was not forwarded so soon as those which were sent to Vienna and Berlin. I may at the same time observe that when any information in answer to the despatch which we forwarded to St. Petersburg reaches us we shall be prepared to lay it on the table the moment it is in a state to be thus communicated to the house. We shall, I may add, have some correspondence from Berlin and Vienna to lay on the fable on Monday. The noble lord has askedime further whether we are acquainted with the final intentions of Saldinia in reference to the annexation of Savoy to France. Now, in answer to that question I may state that I had placed in my hande, by a private friend of Count Cavour a document which was said to be a copy of the Sardinian reply to the proposal of France, but I have been since informed that this document is not quite correct, and therefore I cannot, until I receive further in formation on the subject from her Majesty's Minister in Turin, lay on the table any papers in reference to this par ticular point. I re ay, however, observe, that the substance of the reply of Count Cavour is to the effect that if the Par liament of Sardinia should deem it expedient to have re course to a vote of the people of Savoy with respect to the question of its annexation to France, the tardinian Go vernment would take care that vote should bo taken with every form of liberty, so that the people of Savoy might exercise perfect freedom of choice in deciding whether they would continie under the Sardinian Government or prefer a separation from that country. The answer of Count Cavour then proceeds to state that, should the people of Savoy be in favour of separation, the Government of Sar dinia trusts the'question will be duly weighed by the other Powers of Europe, and that care will be taken not only of the interests of Switzerland, but due regard will be paid to the security of the frontiers of the kingdom of Sardinia it self. So far as Switzerland is concerned, I believe the views of the Government of that country upon this subject re main, as o t n h e m d o eLp a a y t c w h e il s l p w r h o i v e e h . I (H hope ea r t . o ) be T a bb The motion q m u t i o e t e t l i a o u y n n o c f n o h n t the h g table e e d ad Mon day was then agreed to. • , adjournment-of the house until TREATY WITH FRANCE.—ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS. Mr. HORSMAN resumed the debate, and in rising to move that the following words be added to the address moved by Mr. Byng on the treaty with France, viz., "but humbly to represent to her Majesty that, in the opinion of this house, article 11 imposes on. the Crown and Legislature of the country unnecessary and impolitic restrictions, to which this house cannot assent ; and to pray her Majesty to effect the omission of that article from the treaty"—said that he should follow the example set by the mover and seconder of the address, by first considering the genaral policy and general character of the treaty before he directed the par ticular attention of the house to his amendment. The readiness with which the house had voted for those financial remissions, which were necessary to give effect to this treaty, had shown how desirous they were to extend their com mercial relations with France, and to promote all those po litical and moral relations which flowed from a free inter course between two great nations. They had agreed not only to large fiscal sacrifices, but to the imposition of new burdens ; and whilst, on the one side, they had made the ac knowledgment due to the value placed on the friendship of France, they had, on the other, given that assistance which they felt due to the Ministers of the Crown in their laudable endeavours to perpetuate and strengthen that alliance. But as a change was required to be made, and, in fact, had already been made on their side without the treaty, and other concessions and relaxations had been made on the part of France also without the treaty, they were invited by the address to express their opinion as to the peculiar mode in which theme changes had been effected ; and, as those concessions were altogeeher independent of any treaty, they were to inquire why a treaty had been resorted to for that purpose. A treaty of reciprocity was a retrograde step for England ; it was an inconveni ent, an anomalous, and it might prove an embarrassing, proceeding. (gear, hear.) If there was one right more than another which it was the duty of Parliament most vigilantly to guard, it was the right of having complete Con , trol over their domestic legislation, and especially their fiscal legislation, so that they might be able to increase or diminish, vary or modify, their national expenditure, their fiscal regulations, and approximate the taxation to the vary ing wants and interests of the country, but by a treaty of reciprocity they gave up that power. They would have no power next year to reconsider what might be the omissions or oversights committed in the present year. They aban doned their legislative freedom, they bartered it to another Power, to whom they gave the right to control them in taxing the people, which was no longer the exclusive busi ness of England. It was France's business; it was every body's bu-iness. They had tied and bound themselves as long as the treaty lasted, by indissoluble bonds, to France; and it was only by the favour of France that these fetters could be relaxed. Our commercial code repudiated treaties of recipro city. They were a great sacrifice to a nation proud of itsinde pendence—a sacrifice, the greatness of which could hardly be exaggerated. A treaty of reciprocity could only be jus tified by some impending evil to be averted, or some good to be derived, so large and so legitimate that no price could be too great for it. He therefore asked her Majesty's Go vernment what were the motives for the treaty—what its compensating fruits ? (Hear, hear.) For a long time they had asked for that information in'vain. When the treaty was first announced the noble lord the First Minister said it was necessitated by the peculiar constitution of France, which made it impossible for us to get the security we re quired for the arrangements we were about to make. That implied that there was an equivalent for which security was required by us; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer frankly and fairly told the house that England was entitled to no equivalent, and that what we had done it was to our interests to do without a treaty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had avoided most significantly all ex planation as to commercial equivalents, and he must say he fully appreciated and respected the motives which made that right hon. gentleman rather shrink from developing his reasons to the house. But at a later period the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was compelled officially so make that announcement, and he then told them that the protectionists were too strong for the Emperor, read that they had com mand of the Legislative Chambers— Lord J RUSSELL-4 did not say any such thing. (Hear.) Mr. HORSMAN continued—He could not pretend to quote the exact words of the noble lord, but he understood him to say that the Emperor was obliged to resort to a treaty to effect a change which the Legislative Chambers would probably not sanction— Lord J. RUSSELL—I said nothing of the Legislative Chambers at all. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HORS MAN continued—He understood by the noble lord's speech the treaty was resorted to because the ordinary constitutional method of submitting the measure to the French Chambers would not succeed. That was the state ment which they heard, and it only confirmed the state.: ments which reached them from every side. It came to this, that the Emperor of the French was a free trader and the French nation were protectionists, and therefore, if it was left to them to settle the question between themselves, it might be settled adversely to the Emperor, because the project must be submitted to the Legislative Chambers, who would be certain to reject it. The Emperor addressed him self to the English capitalist, and said to him, " To be sure, it is against your law • but it will not be the first time on which you attempted oblige my changing your laws. Give me a treaty of reciprocity ; with that I can laugh at the chambers, and thrust free trade down the throats of my ' subjects." And the Cabinet of England appealed to that house, who were the representatives of a constitutional "eountry, and they thought they were doing good service, L not by making themselves accomplices, but instruments of afording aid to the Emperor to evade the constitution of • his own Legislature, and that they should deem it just, and constitutional, and politic to lend themselves to a de vice by which he might coerce his subjects, and with these motives which were patent to all the world, they were to proceed to loosen their commercial code, to compromise and confuse the policy of England, to meet the interests of France. Now, these were the motives of the treaty, and L what were the compensations "By this," said the ad mirers of the treaty, " you secure th e friendship of the French nation." By helping their Emperor to jockey them, they hoped to secure their eternal gratitude—they hoped to get such a hold of their friendship that old enmities* and animosities would be as dead as reciprocity was six months , ago, and as to the war party they should never hear of it • again. Now, these were the great resuts of this treaty— , peace, friendship, gratitude. These were great results, but they were not all. It was said that these transactions would L turn out most profitable for England—that our coalmasters L and ironmasters woulll find new markets in France—our manufacturers would find a new nation of customers—and French wines would be cheapened to all, and made acces sible to everybody. The hon. baronet behind him said we had now arrived at a millenium of prosperity, and if there be any weak brother in Lancashire whose conscience may prick him for haying acted sharply with the French, let him go home and console himself with the thought that he shall , have great gains. That was the glowing prospectus, but his (Mr. Horeman's) objection to it was that it was based upon fallacious calculations, and that, even as a commercial speculation, it might not succeed. The equivalents pro mised were of two kinds—material and moral. The mate rial equivalents were in the direction of free trade. Now, as to free trade he would say this—that he had embraced free trade principles long before any gentleman who sat on the Treasury bench, with the exception of the right hon, member for Wolverhampton; and he was not to be told by gentlemen who threw up their hats at the eleventh hour that he did not comprehend its spirit. The prin ciples of free trade, as he understood them, had for their:ob ject to unite nations together by feelings of common interest , —to make them materially dependent and assistant—to erase geograpical distinctions, and to unite France and England as closely as Lancashire and Yorkshire were united, so that what benefited one must react on the other, and what added to the wealth of one must add to the wealth of the other, and, therefore, on the narrowest grounds of selfish policy, the most consistent free trader must wish to promote the prosperity of France in order to benefit England. His opinion was that the moral benefits conferred on a nation by free trade were a great deal more important than the material. (Hear.) He valued free trade not merely as a promoter of wealth and commerce, but also as a security for the wealth and dignity of nations. It was quite consistent with this opinion that he should hold it wise in an entirely .exceptional state of things in France, where the military element predominated over the commercial, where there • were armaments by sea and land such as the world never saw before, and a military organisation such as had not been known since the days of the Roman empire—it was quite consistent with his appreciation of free trade princi pies that he should hold that this was not precisely the mo ment when we should part with cur legislative independence, especially to that Power whose menacing attitude imposed on us war taxes and burdens (hear, hear), and an enormous expenditure to protect us from attacks which we appre hended from him alone. (Hear, hear.) His difference with those who were so much in favour of this treaty was not so much a matter of principle as of definition. When those persons spoke of France they spoke of the:French Emperor; when he (Mr. Horsman) spoke of France he spoke of the French nation. There was a difference to be drawn between the free intercourse of nations, which was patent to all the world, and thesecrets of Governments, which were patent to nobody hut the membE rs of those Governments. This treaty violated the first principles of commercial freedom and international right, and on that ground it might yet be found to bear bitter fruit. The promised material equi valents were tvo—first, that France would admit our coal and iron at a lcw duty, and would admit our manufactures at a duty beginning at 30 per cent., which was afterwards to be reduced to 26 per cent. As to the coal and iron, he would postpone his observations until a future occasion ; but, as to the duty of 30 per cent. on our manufactures, he believed it was the opinion of those most capable of forming an opinion that that protective duty might after all turn out to be a prohibitory duty. That opinion had been al ready pronounced by the Leeds Chamber of Commerce. He saw it stated in the Journal des Debals, a great free trade organ, and one that was understood to represent the opi nions of the Emperor, that 30 per cent. was sufficient to act as a prohibition, and was intended by the Emperor to be such, and that he had thus outwitted the English negotia tor. We were in the first instance to allow the French manufactures to enter here free of duty, while our manu factures were to pay 30 per cent. duty in France. We should derive no benefit from this treaty, while our manu factures would be a source of immense revenue to France. On the French side it would not come into operation for 18 months, while on our side it would come into operation im mediately, by which we made a present to the French na tion of £2,000,000 at the very time when there was a deficit in our own Exchequer which must be ma* up by an in creased income tax. Therefore, so far as reciprocity went it was very much of an Irish character. As to the moral effects of the treaty, they were told they would secure peace and the friendship of France, which he admitted would be cheaply purchased at 10 times the price. But he did not know by what subtle process of metaphysical inquiry it was to be' discovered that the best way of securing the friendship of France was to begin by wounding and irritating the feel , ings of the;people. He could not understand how our wound ing the antour propre of the French was to promote their good, feelings towards us, and still less could he understand how the prospect of peace was to be brought about by our making enemies of the commercial class, the only class of men in France who were against war. All the fallacy lay in cdnfounding the French Emperor and the - Frelich nation. Their views were antagonistic ; they took opposite sides ; whatever gratified the Emperor offended France ; whatever served the Emperor, in the estimation of his people, ruined France. (Cries of " Oh.") He appealed to those who had taken the trouble to read the French journals. They were asked to decide for the French Emperor against France ; for, said the Emperor himself, this change was so odious in the estimation of the nation, and so injurious, thathe could not carry it out by his own influence and power. The Le gislative Assembly of France was,, to be sure, a mockery, and the Emperor could dissolve it at his beck. England, therefore, must help him to elude his Chambers by depriv ing them of a voice in the management of their own affairs ; and we, who had been contending that the Italians should kayo a free right to choose their own form ,of government, refused to the people of France the right to have a voice in their own taxation, and we conspired against them with their ruler amid delivered them surprised and helpless into his hands. (Loud cries of " Oh, oh.") This treaty was not a diplomatic secret to be buried in the sanctuary of the Foreign-office; it was a treaty which could only take effect if the rarliament of England adopted this new morality of the Code Napoleon. Observe how doubly odious was our part in this translation ! We stepped out of our way and thanged our laws on purpose to give the Emperor the op portunity he wished for. The people of France were say ing at this moment that the Emperor had bribed England to help him to Trip up France, and that the complicity of a nation of shopkeepers, purchased through the lust of lucre, was sold to the Emperor to help him to circumvent his people. (" Oh.") Well now, the Protectionists of Franc e were, in his opinion, a very benighted race, but from us at least they had right to expect fair play, and he said why not let them fight it out with their Emperor themselves ? They knew their own interests as well as we did, and they could see clearly enough the friendship we professed and the treachery we practised. Ho read the other day, in the Moniteur Industriel, that this treaty would not come into operation for 18 months. By that time France would have her armaments complete and her fleet equipped, and then she might blow this treaty to atoms with cannon balls. If that were so, he (Mr. Horsman) asked what security had we that the Emperor would be able to give effect to the treaty in 1861 ? The fact was, we could not; looking at the grounds we ourselves had taken, justify this treaty to the French nation. Why was there all this haste on our part to obtain those great advantages Could we not be satisfied with the immense material prosperity which this country was now enjoying under the influence of free trede, but we must still play tricks and tamper with it? All the interests of this country were thriving, and money making was going on at a rate unparalleled in the history of this country ; then, why should we endanger all this by a mad, exciting chase after what might, after all, turn out a failure, and for which we had no justification. The advice which Sir R. Peel bequeathed to his countrymen was— " Take no heed of foreigners, except to set them an example which, sooner or later, they are sure to follow ;" and, now when that example was just beginning to tell upon the great nation of France, we were abandoning it. His opinion was that, even as a commercial speculation, it would not pay. He thought the profits would not compensate the risk. We did not find the benefits of free trade with the Chinese, and he hoped we were not going to burn our fingers with the French. In his speech the other• day the Emperor stated that this treaty only anticipated.what he should have been compelled to do in a short time, but he (Mr. Herman) must say he had no faith in treaties which were carried by a coup d'etat. But there was another ground upon which he strongly protested against this treaty. It was submitted to them as a political transaction. Now, the political rela tions of England with France, Italy, and the other great Powers of Europe were at this moment in a very delicate position. Within the last week the Emperor of the French had volunteered a speech which had agitated every bourse in Europe. Within the last few days a Minister of the French Emperor had published two despatches which had changed the whole aspect of European politics, and while England was still perturbed by those new phases of imperial policy, they were invited to concur in this new commercial compact of brotherhood. (Hear.) To what was this new alliance with France to lead ? He would remind the house of the circumstances under which this treaty was negotiated. The noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had given instructions to our ambassadors. What construction was to be put upon those instructions ? Why, that by the treaty the great Powers of Europe were to be informed that England and France had come be a complete understanding as to their common policy on the affairs of Europe, and especially upon that question which was engrossing the minds of men—the settlement of Italy. Was that alliance between England and France calculated to reassure the public mind ? He thought he had put upon the language of the noble lord the proper construction. He asked the noble lord if that were not the proper interpretation—the interpretation which the noble lord meant in giving those instructions ? Was it not intended by the noble lord that the treaty should give an assurance to Europe that a feel ing of confidence existed between the Cabinets of St. James's and the Tuileries ? Was not that treaty preceded by an assurance that France had no designs upon Savoy ? (Hear, hear.) And was it not upon a solemn declaration to that effect that the house was invited to the adoption of that treaty ? (Hear, hear.) Would the Government venture to recommend the treaty upon the same grounds now as formerly? Had not the speech of the Emperor of the French blown these notions to the winds; and had not the despatches of his Minister put an end to the opinions for merly entertained as to his intentions with respect to Savoy? (Hear.) The Savoy papers had been laid upon the table ; he had read them, and came to the conclusion that they did form a niost favourable contrast to the attitude and manner that had been on some occasions exhibited by the Governmentof England towards the Government of France. To him it was refreshing to read the tone and the lan guage of the noble lord—it was refreshing, too, to see that the noble lord had the spirit and the sound and true heart of an English Minister. So far as he (Mr. Horsman) couli gather from those despatches, he, for one, should be content to place the honour of England in the hands of the noble lord. But the noble lord was not the whole Cabinet; and there had been indi cations upon that and other occasions of difference of opinion in that Cabinet. The noble lord could not be said to be the master of the Cabinet, which had another master not at present in his place. (Laughter.) They had seen it stated in the public press of France that England had once anage of Elizabeth; at another time an age of Pitt; but that at present she had an age of the hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham. (Laughter.) He never grudged the hon. member for Birmingham any honour he had won, because his honours had been won by earnestness and ability, by openness and fearlessness; but he musttbe permitted to say that he viewed with apprehension and anxiety, especially with regard to our foreign affairs, the predominance of the commercial element in the Cabinet. (Hear, hear.) Events were gathering in Europe—one could not tell how soon we might find it necessary for some English statesman to evoke the spirit which, though dormant, was not extinct, and who would spurn the imputation that Englishmen, after all were no more than money-making machines. He must advert to the scantiness of the official despatches, and to the reluct ance with which even those scanty despatches were given to the house. It was a strange fact that the diplomatic de spatches of despotic governments were given to the world, while it seemed to be the policy of the constitutional Go vernment of England to keep back from our - Parliament what it was essential for Parliament to know. He believed the system of secresy to be unnecessary, and he disliked it, because such a system invariably became one of deception. He could not make the present case an exception to what he had stated. There had been an unusual application of the scissors to the correspondence which had recently been laid upon the table. There might be much kept back which if brought forward would throw light upon the causes of that scantiness, which might perhaps be accounted for by tho difference said to exist in the Cabinet, and which might have caused the Foreign Secretary to clothe parts of his despatches in language not his own. It was, however, a fact that the house had been told to place confidence in the pacific intentions of the Emperor at .a time when our ambassador was directed to remonstrate with the French Government. At a time when our Government were inviting the House of Com mons to pay homage to France they were possessed of in formation that the Emperor was meditating the grossest out rage against the public law and morality of Europe that had stained its history since the days of the first Napoleon. Was its possible for any two countries to differ more in policy than did those of France and England respecting the affairs of Italy ? It was our polioy that the Italians should be governed by themselves ; it was the policy of Franco that Italy should be governed by France. It was our policy that Savoy should pertain to Piedmont; it was the policy of France that Savoy should belong to her. Our policy respected treaties, and had reverence for international rights ; the policy of France was extinction of treaties, aggression, ag grandisement, and war. The sentiments and opinions of the two nations were, in a word, the antipodes of each other; and yet they were called upon to contract this alliance, which they were told was to have so much significance in the eyes of Europe. He objected to the policy of the treaty—which gave everything and received nothing ; he preferred the old doctrine to the new philosophy which would tax Englishmen to benefit Frenchmen. (Hear.) It was called a treaty of peace; but that title was belied by our immense armaments. It was most objectionable to connect ourselves with a policy which we could not fathom, with an ally whom we could not trust—to make ourselves responsible for occurrences which all Europe would con demn. The right hon. gentleman then alluded to the notions of scientific men upon the capacity of our collieries, which, in the opinion of Professor Ansted, would last 350 years. To build a column of coal whose base would be as wide as Lincoln's-inn-fields, and as high as Snowdon, would represent the annual nonsumption of coal. He wished the house to observe that this gentleman also said he could not tell how soon the exhaustion of coal would take place, but that within 25 years there would be a rise in the price of coal which at this moment would ap pear to the house to be incredible. (Hear, hear.) He wanted the house to observe this, that all the authorities admit'•l that at the present rate of consumption of coal they must have an increase of the price. Now what did an increase in price mean? Did it not mean an increase in the cost of the production of our manufactures, and a severer competition in foreign markets? What was the great source of England's manufacturing success? Wash the abundance of labour? Labour in France was cheaper. Was it the in genuity of our countrymen? The trench were at least as ingenious. Was it the advantage of climate? The climate of Trance was superior to ours. It was this —that we had a cheap and abundant supply of the first element of prosperity, which had enabled us to produce cheap goods, and to out strip all foreign rivals, and to carry away the profits and wealth of the world. (Hear, hear:) They had only been working the coal which was most acce , sible—viz., that nearest the surface and extracted most easily. An increased demand for coal meant deeper mines, more extensive ma chinery, worse ventilation, multiplied accidents, increased waste, greater loss of life, and a great enhancement in price. (Hear, hear.) And as to enhancement in price. Was there a factory in Lancashire, an establishment in Yorkshire, or a furnace in Birmingham, where the increased price of coal does not mean an increased cost in production. (Hear.) It could not be said with truth that it was in favour of Eng land that the French should take our coal. In a commercial point of view it would be no advantage to England. But it might be a great advantage to the coal proprietors of Eng land. Their interest, however, was to raise the price of coal throughout the whole of England; but raising the price of coal would be to inflict a tax upon the people equal to ano ther income tax. (Hear, hear.) Coal was an exhaustible commodity, and every ton which was consumed was an exhaustion of the capital of England upon which I hey r!- lied ; every ton used was a positive and permanent dimi nution of the manufacturing and productive power of Eng land, and accelerated the term of England's prosperity and greatness. (Hear, hear.) Yet knowing this they were giving to foreign nations a vested right in England They were making France a copartner in thefirstelements of our commercial success ; and they were doing this at the very time when they knew that coal was the first element of national life, and that the exhaustion of coal meant an Wh end to the greatness of England. ( was that but a greedy and speculative race after at hear 'after wealth in our own time, and wasting the inheritance of that which wi quandering, ck- Providence had made us the trustees —s edly squandering, that on which depended the prosperity of our successors. (Hoar, hear.) Bat they must also remem ber that coal and iron were the raw materials of war to France. Her army and her na v y could not move without them. They were as essential as gunpowder. Was it not, therefore, right that we should reser f ve in our hands the legal power of stopping the supplies o that article which other nations might under d i sadvantageous circumstances require. (Hear, hear.) Coa l was not only a great engine of war, but it was a great instrument of peace. notace. te (Hear, hear.) When they know that othe r na t ions coal, they should always rem ai n in a u position to st o p th e having supply ; for, being the only nation an abundant sup ply, they were in a position to carry on a protracted war. Financially, he thought there was not much to be said about it. No one advocated export duties, because they were vi cious in principle and pernicious in operation. But the late ' Sir R. Peel laid an export duty upon coal partly because it was an exhaustible commodity, and partly because it was the element of strength to foreign countries to compete with England in the foreign markets of the world. (Hear, hear,) But no one at this moment would advocate an export duty on coal, but he (Mr. Horsman) said they ought not to part with the power of laying on such a duty. Their financial posi tion at this moment was not very satisfactory, nor were their prospects very assuring. The export duty of 1842, im posed bySir R. Peel, was admitted Ira be a failure, and people therefore said an export duty on coal would always be un productive. (Hear, hear.) But they forgot that in 1842 the duty was imposed in the face of hostile import duties in foreign countries. It was in consequence not admitted. But foreign nations had become wiser, and they were now going to Admit coal free of duty, (hear, Imo lb 044 that - - - rtbgr financial position now was not encouraging. He thought it would be unwise and unnecessary that they should now for all time to come deprive themselves of the power of making a financial arrangement with other countries. It was mortifying to them to see the sagacity upon this sub ject exhibited by the Emperor of the French in contrast with the weakness of our own Government. (Hear.) The Em peror knew that coal was a mighty engine for war, and for commercial purposes it was a still mightier instrument for peace. He knew it was the source of England's greatness, and the power by which they had won their wealth and ascendancy in Europe. Wisely and sagaciously the Em peror had acquired an ownership in England's coal, and wisely and sagaciously he had deprived England of the sole ownership and control over her own mineral resources. (Hear, hear.) He (Nr. Hemmen) felt they had much to dread in case of war by English coal being used against them, and it behoved them to feel how much they had to dread by allowing their coal to be an element of competition against them in time of peace. (Hear, hear.) They were reversing the policy of Sir R. Peel, for he, with a jealous patriotism, endeavoured to prevent coal from leaving our shores, while our present Government were going to give cheap coals to Rouen and Havre, and Make them dearer to Manchester and Birmingham. Could any commercial ad vantages be derived from the trade in- coal to compensate for this, if they increased the competition in foreign markets against themselves ? (Hear.) The Emperor could not bestow upon us a share ,in the sun of Southern France, nor could he give us a share in the brilliant hues in French silks, or the delicate flavour of French wines. (Hear, hear.) The com mand over those things he intended- to keep in his own hands, while the whole of the Channel, from the shores of Dunkirk to Cherbourg, and from the banks of the Seine to the great Manchester of France, had been made a favoured part by England in regard to the possession of coal. Hence forth, then, they woul have a race eminent for industry, for energy, and for taste in the fine arts, who had acquired a vested and permanent right in the mineral re sources or England. (Hear.) The whole history of civilised legislation offered no parallel for such an improvident agree ment. And it was the more inexplicable, because upon every ground it was proved tobe unnecessary. (Hear, hear.) It was neither required by England nor demanded by the Government of France. For the Ambassador of France, knowing how obnoxious the measure would be to England, came forward voluntarily and suggested to our Government the modification of the article on coal, but our Government would listen to no suggestions. The time might, however, come when the interests of England might require that the export of coal should be taxed and prohibited, but against the interests of England they w o uld be asked to tak care of the interests of France. The time might come when fu ture governments might deem it matter of policy or patriot ism to imposethat duty It might be inconvenientto France —it might be injurious to France—there might be appre hensions about, but still they were giving to France a gua rantee against our own nation. That might be a matter of years or of months ; but so long as the treaty lasted they gave a charter of right which could not be questioned by any English Minister. (Hear.) If this country had a supe riority they would give it up, and make other nations com petitors in time of peace and rivals in time of war. (Hear, hear.) He wished it to be clearly understood as to the point to which the amendment was directed. Let it not be said that he wished to place an export duty upon coal. Let it not be said that he wished to take from France the privi leges which she possessed. He took his stand on the exist ing law. The present law gave France all that she could demand, and as much as any legislature could concede. (Hear, hear.) It was for the Government to show why they gave more than France demanded. It was for them to show that this treaty would be beneficial to English in terests, because it was for English interests alone they ought to care in an English Parliament. (Htar, hear.) This article in reference to coal was inserted solely for the interests of France, and he challenged the Government to disprove his assertion. (Hear, hear.) He said that by this bargain it was obvious they would injure England and give a benefit to France. The Government had placed the inte rests of France first and not last, and he said, that in this transaction the Government had not acted as the Ministers of England, but as the Ministers of France. They had sacrificed the highest interests of England. He said, in the face of the house, that the Government had failed in their duty to the Sovereign whom they had sworn to serve, and to the magnificent empire it was their duty to - save. (Loud cheers.) The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving the amendment. Mr. C. W. PACKE seconded the amendment. Mr. VIVIAN, as representative of the largest coal dis trict in the country, thought he could give the house some information upon the subject. The coal field of South Wales was sufficient to supply the wants of the country at the highest rate of consumption for 500 years to come. The ex tent of the field-was about 640,000 square acres, and the average depth of the coal 60 feet. It was estimated that under every foot of surface there were 1,500 tons of coal, and that a cube yard of the mineral weighed more than one ton. He found that South Wales contained no less than 545,000 millions of tons of coals, and making all necessary deductions, South Wales alone could supply the consump tion of England for 500 years. The present consumption of coals in South Wales was about 7,500,000 tons per. annum, and at that rate of consumption South Wales could supply itself for 5,000 years. In great Yorkshire the coal field ex•• tending from Bradford to Nottinghamwas estimated at 500 to 600 acres of the average thickness of 30 feet, it was therefore very nearly equal to South Wales. The coal fields of Lanca shire were 200 to 300 acres in extent, of an average thickness of 60 feet, and with another coal field, that of Bristol, would furnish a supply of about 900 millions of tons. These data he had obtained from various works, but as regarded South Wales he vouched for the correctness of his statements upon his own knowledge. There was also an enormous coal field in the west of Scotland and other coal fields to which he alluded. To talk to him, therefore, of exhausting the coal fields of Eng land was altogether absurd. As to the bearing of the ques tion of war upon coals he found that in the French navy the consumption per annum was 160,000 tons, while in the British navy the quantity was 200,000 tons. And as to the 160,000 tons of which the right hon. gentleman had spoken why that was the produce of one colliery alone. He had himself a colliery that produced that quantity per annum, and it was absurd to talk of such a consumption having any political consideration whatever. He found that in 1845 the coal fields in France produced 6,251,000 tons of coals, of which it consumed internally 4,101,100 tons, and yet the right hon, gentleman talked of the importance of an export of 160,000 tons to a country producing nearly 7,000,000, and in addition to the coal fields of France, there were the coal fields of Prussia. Them was no better fuel than coke for the purposes of steam, and nothing could be more ap plicable to war purposes. Now France possessed plenty of coal which could be converted Into coke. The light hon. gentleman (Mr. Horsman) had spoken of the price being increased by the deeper sinking into coal pits, but that was a matter which would be subject to the usual laws of trade. It should be re membered that the original cost of sinking into a coal pit was as nothing compared to the after cost. The amount of production must always be measured by the amount of labour. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Hors man) seemed to think that no benefit would result to this country from the export of coal, but every ton exported was not a loss but a gain. (Hear.) Coals were lying useless in the earth until they were brought out, as it was with every mineral. He believed the whole prosperity of England de pended upon her manufactures, for which coal was essen tial, but he .had not the slightest fear of that supply being affected. (Hear, hear.) He begged, in conclusion, to say thatshe had simply risen to put the house in possession of some statistics which he believed he could furnish with some effect. (Hear.) As to the treaty it had his most cordial approval, and it should have his support. (Hear.) Mr. BENTINCK said that the hon. member for Swan sea (Mr. Vivian) was mistaken on the subject of coal, as far as regarded the use of that article for the purposes of war. Therefore the entire of his argument fell to the ground. The hon. gentleman then referred to the speechof the right hon. member the President of the Board of Trade, who said that he was opposed to commercial treaties, and yet he gave up his views in order to support the treaty before the house. His right hon. friend had also saidthat English ships would not suffer by the terms of the treaty, when put-in competi tion with French ships. In answer to this theory of his right hon. friend, he begged to read an extract from the master of an English ship in a French port, in which he stated that, while an English ship could only get £3 10s. a ton for freight, the French ship in the same port could get £3 15s. He had heard with surprise the speech of his hon. and learned friend the member for Belfast (Sir H. Cairns), who, while he said that the treaty *as a very bad bargain, gave it his support. The hon. member for Middlesex said that the treaty was founded upon right principles. It was because he believed it was not founded upon right prin ciples that he (llr. Bentinck) would oppose it. Refer ring to the support given to the Government in this mat ter by the hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), he said that that hon. gentleman had done so witt , ithe s' of exercising a political control over her Maj y s t o Minis ters. (A laugh.) The hon. gentleman was now wasoesysthet avowed originator of a scheme, the effect of which downtheinterestsallmanufacturingclassesclasses. the benefitofthe fo h r e ß bo o l c i h eN cl e a d le h ( i M m r. t C o e b b ; e He could not concur in the amoun t of eulo gy which h ad been heaped upon t htehthis hen. member Cob den) in respect to considering his antecedents,the of m Eng most dangerous at a fpeorresignon possible to represent the honour treaty, for Opposition cheers.) c 0( Li thought n H aeu e tgo htaelaruntimely T i h f e t i h .e e ewnad a de Court. ( Protec tionists of France followed the course of the Protectionists n ho ie m a ld iulation, and that of t therehi this not country, pity they f e o y r was, that the right hon gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had question of great congratulation, induced the French Government to take off the duty on rags—(laughter)—a most important consideration in the right hon. gentleman's financial scheme, seeing that one of the objects of her Majesty's Government is to take care that her Majesty's subjects shall be clothed in "rags." (Great laughter.) He could not say how, in the name of common sense, the right hin. gentleman could defend the treaty and condemn protection at the same time. The right hon. gen tleman had much lauded the principles of free trade ; but this was not the free trade of Sir R. Peel—it was rah& a treaty drawn up by France and signed by Bedlam. (Laugh ter.) The right hon. gentleman, however, had a very easy way of reconciling things, seeing that he took office under one Government, then went abroad, came home, and then took office under an o th er, which succeeded the la , to Govern it to be unjust, un w i se, ment. Now, as fa r as th e ireaty is concerned, he believed and degrading to this country, and that it was mainly framed at the dictation of Europe, and he should rather see this country engaged in a war with France, and with the whole of Europe, than see this treaty ratified. (Oh, oh.) He held those opinions. War might be disastrous, but it could never be disgraceful to us, and this treaty would. (Hear, and laughter.) He would only fur ther add that he for one should express his dissent from the ratification of a treaty which was framed by men who were alike indifferent to the honour, the interests, and the welfare of England. (Hear, hear.) Sir R. PEEL could not agree with the sentiments of the hon. gentleman who had just resumed his seat, but should give a cordial vote in support of the motion for the address. He had admired the manner in which the right hon. gen tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had placed be fore the house the facts of the case, and had cordially sup ported him in the divisions which had taken place on the question. (Cheers.) With respect to the present address, its terms were unexceptionable, for no person could &tube that it was her,Majesty's desire to promote the happiness and welfare of her subjects. They were all unanimous upon that point. (Cheers.) He considered that the earnest desire of her Majesty's Ministers had been, as they said it had, to draw as close as possible the bonds of amity between this country and Franee ; and he considered that the policy of the Government had been a wise one, and they had been desirous to develope trade and industry; and he considered that the sacrifice of £1,200,000 which he had made for this purpose was as nothing compared with. the benefits 'which must result from -that course of policy which they had adopted. Ile reminded the house that in 1787 Mr. Pitt had told ,the house that the sacrifice of revenue to secure great commercial objects was by no means unknown to the his tory of the country, and he' confessed that, in his opinion, the adyntageo noultin fr9A a coutirawt4Co of sue aucl 'amity between France and England would incalculably re pay anyimmediata loss of revenue. He admitted that it was impassible te separate the treaty from the general policy of France, and that there was some reason for the hesitation of the house, considering that many disapproved of the policy of the Emperor as it affected the States of Europes, and he at first doubted whether it would be wise to enter into a treaty of commerce, when that gene ral policy was of a questionable character ; but on ma ture consideration he thought it was, and that the conduct of her Majesty's Ministers had been such as should meet with the approval of the people. At the same time he had heard with surprise in support of this treaty the speech of the hon. member for Birmingham, who had announced himself as a new ally of the Government ; but the hon. gentleman was no new ally to despotism. Knowing the connection of the hon. gentleman with Mr. Cobden, he must confess he had been astonished at the tenor of some of the speeches uttered by him. The hon. member for Birmingham was the universal friend of the people—not of this country or America, but all over the world He had obtained a great deal of provincial eclat, and had made himself popular by discussing popular topics during the recess ; but he (Sir R. Peel) was surprised at the tone he had taken in advocating this treaty." Why, he was abso lutely despotic in his ideas. (Laughter.) How often was it that they saw a man of talent, an energetic man, full of emotion, the friend of the people, contradict him and oppose him, and they found hint a most unmitigated despot and tyrant. (Laughter.) What did the hon. member say with respect to this question, treating on the general policy of France ? He said, " Perish the liberties of half a million of people, only give me thi- treaty." (Opposition cheers.) He said, "Perish all natural feeling, give me the treaty and I shall be satisfied." That might be the feeling of the hon. gentleman, but was it the feeling of the Government as well as of their new ally ? The member for Birmingham at tempted to gauge the loyalty of the people of England by the depth of their breeches-pocket. He said a man's loy alty was to be counted upon in proportion to the extent or deficiency of his resources. He (Sir R. Peel) never before heard such an atrocious sentiment, and he was sure it was uttered, because he himself took the words down from his honeyed lips. (Loud laughter.) But many a brave man's heart beat with as ardent an emotion of loyalty to the Queen as the heart of the richest aristocrat in the land— (cheers)—and many a rich man, if he lost his riches to morrow, would lose no jot of his loyalty. (Hear, hear.) He wondered if the hon. member represented the opinion of Mr. Cobden, with whom he was so intimately associated, when he said, " Perish the liberties of half a million of people, only let us have the treaty." No wonder that the house hesitated to adopt the treaty made as it had been under the influence of revolutionary tactics, and styled a treaty of peace and amity, with a power which every day was evincing a policy'calculated to sow dissent in Europe. (Cheerslle thought the despatches of Count Walewski, and afterwards of M. Thouvenel, put the case in a very dangerous light. No one desired more than he to see the tie of amity and friendship between France and England drawn closer, but_ he was afraid it was becoming evident that not only the fu ture prospects of one country, but She independence of an other, were being. endangered. But still more was he afraid that their worst apprehensions regarding the peace and hap piness of Europe were on the ev e o f a final and desperate accomplishment. He hoped this was not the case. (Hear.) The hon. member for Stroud had tried to persuade her Ma jesty's Government that they were responsible to a great extent for thepresent state of Europe, and that knowing the intentions of France, they had connived at this treaty. He could not agree with that sentiment. (Hear, hear) Nothing should make him believe that the Government, but espe cially his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in their desire to imitate the policy of Mr Pitt in 1789, under different circumstances he admitted—(Opposition cries of " Hear, hear ")—had been so far forgetful of their duty . to their country as in any way to have connived at such an in tention, and he believed that had the noble lord the Foreign Secretary known the intention of the French Emperor so far back as August last, he would have entered a dignified pre test against such proposals. It was of the utmost import ance that while negotiating a treaty of this kind the Par liament of England should not be mere spectators of such a transaction as the annexation of Savoy, but that they should speak out, and that they should not allow it to pass by with a formal protest simply. (Hear, hear.) They ought to remember the millions they had spent in wars that might have been avoided by a vigorous policy at the outset. (Hear, hear.) He wished to see a vigorous policy now pursued towards France. History showed from what com paratively insignificant causes the heaviest disasters arose. Had experience taught the Parliament of England nothing ? He entreated the house without delay to endeavour, whilst they approved of this treaty, to enter their most indignant protest against an act of spoliation and wrong. (Cheers.) He would make an allusion to one expression used in the papers relating to this subject for the purpose of entering his indig nant protest against that language, and this was the only allusion he should make to the policy of this country, but it demanded the most serious attention of the house. The other day the ambassador of France had called on the noble lord (Lord J. Russell), and although France had as far back as August last disclaimed any intention of annexing Savoy, had said, "After all, what does it matter ? Let 113 take Savoy. It is but a bare rock." If the ambassador of France had dared to speak to him in that language—(great laughter, and cries of hear, hear)—he would have returned the reply of an honest bukindignant Englishman. (Cheers.) He would have told him that the men who lived and moved and had their being on those rocks—on the mountains of Savoy—were just as respectable and worthy of the conside ration of the world as the denizens of a crowded city or the sycophants of a degraded court. (Cheers.) He would have told him that those men clung to their homes in the mountains just as much as the rich did to their gilded palaces of luxurious ease. (Cheers.) And he would have told him that those men were worth of every consideration from the very fact of the locality of their residence. (Hear, hear.) He had no desire to create disunion between France and England, nor to raise any ill-feeling against the French Emperor. He desired to see France occupying that position in the world to which her natural resources and the character of her people justly en titled her. But as long as he had a seat in that house, as long as he was capable of raising his voice he would attempt to check the growth of an immoderate power on the part of France, which could not fail to create mutual jealousies and to endanger the peace and the happiness of the world. (Hear, hear.) It really appeared as if France, whatever might be her desire to draw closer the ties of amity, of friendship, under a Napoleonic Ministry was always to be a source of anxiety to Europe.' As his right hon. friend the Chan cellor of the Exchequer had so beautifully expressed it. France was blessed with a satiety of everyl hing that Provi dence could give her—with every advantage that soil and climate could impart, and yet she was always dissatisfied with her lot under a Napoleonic Ministry, and was always trying to remove her neighbour's landmarks, and create dissension in Europe. (Cries of " no," and counter cries of " hear, hear." if any hon. gentleman differed from him in that opinion, he only hoped that that hon. gentleman's es timation, might prove correct, and be would cheerfully acknowledge himself to be wrong. (Hear.) At all events he believed that such was the general policy of France at this moment, and, therefore, it was that he entered his re spectful protest against it. (Hear, hear.) He should sup port the treaty because he believed it would improve the wealth and prosperity of this country. Mr. Pitt, in his re markable speech of 1789, when introducing a similar treaty, had said, " If war was the greatest evil and commerce the greatest felicity which it was a desirable for a country to en joy, then it became the duty of those to whom the affairs of the public were entrusted to endeavour as much as possible to render the one permanent, and to remove the prospecta of danger from the other." This he believed to be the ob ject of the present treaty. Mr. Pitt continued—" For so great were the advantages likely to arise from commerce that they would not only tend to contribute to avoid war, but they would also strengthen the resources of this country." H e believed that such had been the impression of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer when he negotiated, through Mr. Cobden, the present treaty; but he did hope that the Go vernment would bring the influence of the public opinion of this country to bear upon their endeavour to dis suade the Emperor of the French from persisting in a policy which could not fail to saw mistrust in Europe, and, if persevered in, would not fail to rob Europe of all the blessings of commerce and the estimable bless ings of peace, Tne hon. gentleman the mover of the audress, in a speech of much eloquence and ability, had said that that man was worthy of public estimation who made two blades of grass to grow where only one grew before. He concurred in that sentiment, and would add, that that statesman was worthy of public estimation who enlarged the resources of his country and extended the pacific in fluence of her powers. (Cheers.) A great many compli ments had been paid to Mr. Cobden, and it had been said that to his influence was owing this commercial treaty ; but though, d A Aless, much was owing to that hon. gentleman whatever might be the credit due to him, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchoquer equally entitled to the thanks of Parliament and of his country. The right hon. gentle • man had treated the subject with a compass of mind and Powerful genius rarely equalled and never excelled. Whilst dealing with the imperial interests of his country, he had made himself master of the minutest details of trade. If he might be permitted to allude to the subject, he would say that the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche quer was the Parliamentary representative of a policy and a system which, •in 1842 was inaugurated in that house with the consent and approval of the great party that sat oppo site. He was the representative of that policy which was inaugurated by a party, of which his father had the proud distinction of being a member. (Loud cheers.) And what ever might have been the dissensions which unhappily en sued afterwards, he thought that every impartial man in that house would bear him out in saying that the policy which was then inaugurated would not have succeeded without the sup • port of that party at the outset, and without that support the blessings of that prosperity, which had so abundantly resulted, would now be wanting. (Hear, hear.) He thought the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now following out that policy which his predecessors of the time to which he (Sir Robert Peel) had alluded also laboured, and he thought not altogether in vain, to pursue. (Loud cheers.) The right hon. gentle man had genius and ability to carry out that system, and it would promote a permanent good. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir R. Peel) thought that by this treaty a permanent good would result to this country ; and, therefore, he supported it. He believed a permanent good would ensue from the policy of the right hon. gentleman quite irrespective of the politi cal bearings of the treaty; and therefore he supported it. And he felt that the right hon. gentleman's principal ob ject, upon which he centred every wish, lavished every thought, concentrated his whole study, had been te see the vessels of this great country sailing triumphantly to every shore, carrying the products of our industry to every clime, and the trade and enterprise of England steadily pursuing its onward course, under those influences which had carried them to the remotest limits of the world. (Loud cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI said—l trust the house will permit me to Min a brief but general view of this now celebrated in strument and of the circumstances under which it has been brought before our consideration. Sir, the first intimation of a policy of any Government of this country that would tend to increase our commercial relations with Franco is of a character so satisfactory and encouraging that I cannot doubt it must confer uptha both sides of this house, and, in deed, I would say, upon all subjects of her Majesty, a sen timent of great gratification. I have not altered the first impression I entertained of the matter when I was first in formed of the intentions of the Government. I still believe that on the whole it would have been wiser tia have waited for a year. I think it would have been wiser to have per mitted the Emperor of the French to have fulfilled his honourable engagements to the commercial and manufac turing interests of this country, and to have seen what er h o a r ve n b ot een in t t h h e e nreeoseuleeteryof ordersuch o a f t h e u rm man ela a p ff s e in ir g e: t a h n a d t w t w h ho e ulet p hd rohibitory system of France would not have co n - eluded at that time. Had that been the case, I think all must admit that we should have been placed in, if not an e s n q l u t a l e in a d o v n a e n w t af i e e o h u o s n position h a o s l e r w e g o a r u i d d s p t h r o e CenVenieut conducive t() the permanent iutereato 02 b i a m bl m y ed be iat m e mom THE SUN, LONDON SAT URI) Y EVENING, MARCH 10, 1 , 60. fact tikatitilost each year as many mariners as were equal to the ship' s company of a first-rate man-of-war, should im pel them to immediate and strenuous efforts to carry out the recommendations made to Government on the subject. Mr. M. 'GIBSON replied that in consequence of the in quiry which had taken place before the committee, and also of toe proposals made by the commission to which reference had been made, the Government. had felt it to be their duty to give this subject their most careful consideration. Un doubtedly great expectations had been excited upon the subject by the reports which had been made, and by the re commendations of the committee and the commission. The Government had formed their views as to what measures they should submit to Parliament on the subject, and when the state of the public business permitted, these views and measures would be submitted to the house and fully ex plained. At present hon. members would excuse him from entering into any details. He could only assure them and the house that the Government were fully impressed with a sense of the importance of the subject. THE SHRUBS IN HYDE PARK. Mr. COWPER, in reply to several questions, said— With regard to the numerous questions of the hon. member for Middlesex, and other hon. members, as to the shrubs in Hyde-park, I will state simply what I believe has occurred. When my late predecessor, whose loss has been so much deplored by the whole house, had to consider the subject, he thought it would be better to increase the amount of space given to the flowers, and for that purpose it was desirable to curtail the portion wcupied by trees and shrubs. The late Mr. Fitzroy seemed to have expressed an opinio .4 hit the mixture of trees, shrubs, and flowers was not al age her de sirable ; and though he did not wish to make the place bare, he did desire to substitute another arrangement. He gave his orders early in October for tho removal of the trees and shrubs, audit was only at the suggestion of some one else that the actual operations were postponed until the end of November. There is no reason to suppose that the trees and shrubs had not been planted in the very best manner. They were planted under the care of Lord- Llanover, whose practical experience in such matters, and zeal, was a gua rantee that the work was well and fairly done. But there certainly were trees placed in that part of the park which it was thought not desirable to have there, and that was the reason why my immediate predecessor gave orders to have them removed. lam not aware that any serious damage has been done to the trees and shrubs in their removal, and I am informed that when they shall be placed in the ground again they will sprout out as vigorously and as successfully as ever. (Laughter.) I do not desire to express any opinion as to the fact. (Hear.) Time will show whether they are to grow or not—(laughter)—all I desire is that the ground should be again planted with flowers as far as can be done with advantage, and that where the space is too large it should be planted with shrubs, either deciduous or ever green, and I believe it will then be more pleasant to walk in—when the shrubs are alone—than it was originally. I find no reason to find fault with the superintendent of the parks who originally planted the trees and shrubs. I think he is the best person to have the care of them, and that the person who uprooted them is the very best person to plant them again. (Laughter.) May I add that I hope the last operation will be as successful as the first. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) With reference to the enclosure in the park and the cows, it was in obedience to the feelings of the public that the cows were prevented ranging over the whole park, and a fence was put up in order that they might be circum scribed in their walks. (Laughter.) The only mistake that seems to have been committed Was, that in shutting in the cows the fence put up also shut out the pedestrians. (Loud laughter.) But when 1 observed the mistake I ordered that openings might be made in the railings of a size too small to admit cows to pass through, but which would admit a gentleman, a child, and, if possible, a lady. (Laughter.) When the openings are made in that way, I hope they will meet with approbation ; but if too wide or too narrow, I shall be happy to make them of the exact size that will suit. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) THE CONFESSIONAL. Mr. BOWYER rose to ask the Home Secretary a ques tion regarding the committal of a Roman Catholic priest at the Durham Assizes for refusing to disclose statements made to him in confession. During the trial of a prisoner a Roman Catholic priest was called as a witness, and, on being asked from whom he received a certain watch, refused to answer. It was evident that if the priest had answered the question he would have divulged the most material part of the confession, for when a person confessed a theft he was bound to make restitution of the thing stolen ; and the watch was, no doubt, given to the priest in confession. The judge told the priest that he was not asked to divulge any thing communicated to him in confession, but he was only asked who gave him the watch. This appeared to be a dis tinction without a difference. The priest, however, was committed for contempt. He wished to say nothing but what was respectful to Mr. Justice Hill, but he thought the matter was a mistake and an oppressive one. He thought he was warranted in saying that by the old common law o f England the seal of confession constituted a privilege. An attorney was not required to divulge anything told him by his client, and the seal of confession was not of less high a nature. What he wished to ask was, whether the rev. gentleman who had been committed to prison had been set at liberty, and, if not, he should like to know whether the Government would take steps that he might be immediately liberated.