The Sun. — London, England, 1863-02-18 00:00:00

their minds was to be rejected. Its criminal jurisdiction was most anomalous. For instance, it was made a crime for any one not to observe the fasts of Lent, while har. dened criminals, the perpetrators as it might be of half a dozen murders, instead of receiving the punishment due to their crimes, as in other countries, were permitted to live on as hopeful subjects for reformation. Nothing in Europe sk as more unenlightened than the administration ' of criminal justice by the Papal Government, and it was quite impossible that that Government could be assimi fated to the Government of other countries. A popula tion desirous of being united to another Government was kept down by the French troops, and most certainly it was not a politic action so to keep them down. The Roman people desired to join themselves to another government, there was nothing they desired so much ; and as soon as the French people were of opinion that justice had not been done to the Italians, he believed that the Emperor, as he was the last to adopt the policy of occupation, would be the first to give effect to the views of his people. Why it was that the Pope spoke to Mr. Odo Russell about taking re • fuge on British territory, he could not say; but certain it was that in July last he did send for him, and spoke to him at great length upon the state of Europe. He referred to the progress made by Garibaldi, and he then pointedly asked him whether, if he took refuge on British territory, he would be sure of a welcome. The noble marquis thought it great presumption in him that he gave an answer to that question ; but it seemed to him that. taking into account the character of the Pope, and the fact that he felt bound, by the dictates of conscience, not to accede to the reforms which had been called for, it certainly was not wrong to offer the Pope a safe asylum; and, although the Pope had declined to accept that asylum at that moment, he nevertheless expressed his grateful acknowledgments for the offer which had been made to him. In conclusion he would only observe that he felt convinced it would be both for the advantage of Italy and of Rome itself if Rome were declared the capital of the Italian Kingdom. (Cheers.) The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH believed that no prac tical advantage could accrue from recurring to events thirteen or fourteen years back. (Loud cries of Hear, hear.) He must, however, express the great gratification which he felt at observing the conduct of the really Italian adminis tration recently appointed by the King of Italy, in de clining at the present moment to enter into any nego tiation respecting the Roman question. (Hear, hear.) In adopting that policy they had acted with a true sense of the dignity of the country they represent; and, almost for the first time, they had shown that thorough inde pendence of conduct upon which Italy must depend for the respect and consideration of other nations. (Hear, hear.) It had been asserted in the French Chambers recently that at Turin men no longer talked of Rome. But though they did not talk of Rome they thought of Rome. (Hear, hear.) And instead of endeavouring by negotiations with the Em peror of the French to accomplish their objects, let the Ita lians trust for the present to giving their country a good government and making it strong in arms. Those objects attained, it would be impossible for the whole of Europe not to combine for the accomplishment of the grand object which Italy had before it. (Hear, hear.) The French Em peror was too sagacious, too able a man not to feel that he must yet consummate the great work which he had com menced. By the establishment in the south of a great con stitutional kingdom he would be conducing more than by any other means to the future tranquillity of the European continent. (Hear, hear.) At the same time they must not forget that it was of the highest importance, not only to every Catholic Government, but to every Government which ruled over Catholic subjects, that the Pope should be restored to a real independence. That ought to be a universal object. The time must come when the occupa tion of Rome by French troops must cease. It was con trary to the interests of France and to the interests of Eu rope. And that which might now for a time be postponed on account of what was termed the Catholic feeling of France, would ultimately be called for by the universal feeling of the Catholics throughout the world. He looked forward to the time when the Pope, restored to a real inde pendence, might exercise his authority in the Vatican, while the Parliament of free Italy conducted its delibera• tions in the Capitol. (Loud cheers.) After some observations from the Marquis of NOR MANBY, in reply, The discussion ceased. THE TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM. Earl DUDLEY gave notice of a question on this subject for Thursday next. Their lordships then adjourned. HOITSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. NEW MEMBER—DEVONFORT. Mr.W. B. FERRAND took the oaths and his seat for De vouport. The hon. member was introduced by Lord John Manners and General Peel. The hon. member was re• ceived with loud cheers from the Opposition. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a second time :—Alyth Railway—Andover and Redbridge Railway—Cleeve and Evesham Road—Farnborough and Aldershot Railway— Great North of Scotland Railway—Great Western and West Midland Railways Amalgamation—Great Western, West Midland, and South Wales Railway Companies Amalgamation—Herne Bay and Canterbury Junction — Lancaster Canal and London and North-Western Railway —Mersey Docks and Harbour Board—Milford Railway— Mistley, Thorpe, and Walton Railway—Ogmore Valley Railways—Vale of Neath Railway—Furness Railway Company and Barrow Harbour Commissioners. LIVERPOOL LICENSING BILL. Lord FERMOY moved that this bill be read a second time that day six months, on the ground that it would in troduce by a private bill an entirely new mode of licens ing for a single town in the empire. If a change were required in the present form of licensing it should not be effected by a private bill, but by a measure brought forward on the authority of the Government, Free trade ought not to be introduced into the business of licensing ; to magistrates ought to be dele -3 • gated, as now, the power of adjudicating upon the proper parties to be intrusted with licenses. In Liverpool the question of licensing was made a party question, but that was no reason the house should be called to favour one set of partisans. • The motion having been seconded, Mr. HORSFA.Li. said the bill did not arise from any party feeling in Liverpool. One set of the magistrates were in favour of a great extension of licenses, whilst another considered that they should be materially restricted. The powers sought by this bill were exceedingly wholesome. Persons only of good character and able to give secu rity for their good conduct by bond, and rated to the poor at £5O, would be granted licenses. Different localities required different modes of dealing in this re gard. For instance, Liverpool had 1,540 licensed houses, whilst Manchester, with a larger population, had only 600. The bill was :framed in accordance with the re port of the house of last session. He believed only one petition had been presented against the bill, and he believed that was simply in favour of closing publichou sea on the Sabbath. He should support the second reading of the bill. Mr. AYRTON considered that the bill ought not to have been introduced as a private bill, and in that shape ought ought not to be proceeded with any further. As the bill would affect the law and the revenue, he should be glad to know who was responsible for it ? It appeared merely to be based on a petition from Mr. Lamb and others, who did not venture to give their names and addresses. There was no valid reason why the law should be altered to favour Liver pool alone. (Divide divide.) It was not a bill to be quietly settled by a committee of five memb ers u p s t a i rs. Mr. MASSEY explained that by some ancient statutes of the house some bills affecting trade were allowed to be introduced as private bills, and this bill before the house was introduced in accordance with these rules which were framed about 200 years ago, before private bills were known to the house. The bill was based on the report of the committee of this house on licensing ; an d he believed was approved of by the magistrates of Liver pool. (No, no.) Liverpool possessed half a million of in habitants, and probably was entitled to exceptional legisla tion in regard to a matter of this kind, which, after all, was a mere matter of police. Mr. HARDY opposed the bill, considering that it ought never to have been introduced as a private bill, but before the house, and discussed clause by clause. (Hear, hear.) If this plan of introducing private bills were made a prece dent, the Government might avail themselves of it to pass several bills that ought not to be treated otherwise than as public bills. If this bill were passed, the Government Ought to adopt a general bill for the whole country. Mr. WILLIAMS opposed the bill. Mr. J. ENVART said the magistrates of Liverpool were in favour of the bill. Sir G. GR - E-v con nected with the psuotPceoroteZer.taa ' the bill . T l h t a w t was aessentially cprincipalon this—that element they had to c h o use should not l ose Inall such matters the sight of h. the public morality was a paramount question.large locality might not su i t thell adapted for a whole country. Th e bill ought to be sent t o ;, committee to be care f u lly investigated and then subsequently d is seu sed by the whole house. He hoped the house would not stop the bill at this stage. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCREQuRR con sidered that it would be well to make an experiment of this bill so far as Liverpool was concerned, in order to see whether its provisions were adaptable to the whole country. The present system of licensing at Liverpool was exceed ingly anomalous, and required material amendment. Mr. WALPOLE said the committee referred to had re ported in favour of a general system of licensing for the whole country, and considered that an exception ought not to be made in favour of Liverpool. He understood that the bill was not promoted by the magistrates, but by the pub limns of Live r p oo l . Mr. HENLEY should vote against the bill, because Waf4 exceptional. If a good bill could be devised he saw no reason why it should not be applied to the whole country. The house then divided, when the numbers were — For the second reading lOB Against it 124 Majority against the second reading —l6 The bill was therefore lost. SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. Sir J. DUKE moved the second reading of this bill. Mr. DODSON opposed the bill, because it would not Mr. R. HODGSON then rose to propose rescinding so much of the tabled fees charged at the House of Commons (under the standing order of the house passed in 1852) as multiplied the fees payable on the petition, first, second, and third readings, and report of private bills, according to the money to be raised or expended under the authority of such bills—the reduction to take effect in respect of private bills introduced in the present session. Mr. HADFIELD reconded the resolution, which he said was highly necessary and important. The returns showed that the railways of the United Kingdom had cost .U 0,000,000 for fees alone. He thought, while they were about it, they might also introduce some system of taxing the enormous fees demanded by the counsel with their briefs. (Hear, hear.) Mr. M. GIBSON said the subject was no doubt very important, but he intended that evening to move for a committee upon the whole subject of private legislation, and the question of fees would certainly fbrm part of their de liberations. (Hear.) Colonel PATTEN and Colonel FRENCH hoped that would be so, and on that ground would advise the with drawal of the motion. Mr. HODGSON said, upon that understanding, he would withdraw the motion. PROMOTION IN THE NAVY. Mr. B. FERRAND gave notice that on Tuesday next he should ask the Secretary of the Admiralty whether the board intended to rescind the order of October, 1861, rela tive to promotion in the navy. THE GAME LAWS. Mr. C. FORSTER postponed his motion from the 3d to the 17th of March. MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCE OF WALES. Mr. Alderman SALOMONS asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government were prepared to bring in a bill for making commercial engagements falling due on the wedding day of the Prince of Wales payable as by law provided for Christmas-day, so as to enable all her Ma jesty's subjects to enjoy the day of that auspicious event as a general holiday. Lord PALMERSTON—I am sorry to inform my hon. friend that her Majesty's Government have no intention to introduce any bill for the purpose. It is generally con ceded that any unnecessary interference with the arrange ments of the commerce of the country is inconvenient, and as there is no precedent for such a measure as the hon. gen tleman suggests, it is not the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce one. (Hear, hear.) ;IRON-CASED VESSELS. Mr. LAIRD asked the Secretary to the Admiralty when the iron-cased ship Royal Oak was expected to be ready for sea ; and whether, in order to test the sea-going capabilities of a wood built vessel cased with heavy armour plates, the Admiralty intended to commission her as soon as she was ready. Also, when the Royal Sovereign was ordered to be cat down and altered into a cupola ship, the probable time of completion for trial, and what armaments she would carry. Lord C. PAGET said the Royal Oak was expected to be out of the hands of the Dockyard by the 19th of March. The Royal Sovereign had been ordered to be cut down on the 3d of April, 1862. He trusted she would be ready by the end of the year, but her armament had not yet been de cided upon. 77 hatiw Irmo a a 9 - dcf " + . B 11, confer any substantial public benefit. Ho hoped the house would throw out the bill, and thus prevent a useless waste of money and time in opposition bet ween the cc ntending lines. The whole matter had been set at rest by legislation in 1861. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. C. GILPIN supported the bill, and contended that it was a far superior line to the one opposed to it. The line, although opposed by a few of the landowners, and some of the inhabitants of Folkestone, was never theless an excellent one, and would confer great advantage in time and speed, on the public. The bill ought to be carefully investigated upstairs in committee. The bill had successfully passed that house, but was lost in the House of Lords through the oppositien of landowners. Mr. M. MILNES deprecated the practice of bringing forward these kind of bills year after year, and thus putting the landowners and others to enormous expenses. Mr. NORRIS would, as in 1861, vote in favour of the bill. The house ought not to permit landowners to stand in the way of the construction of an important public work, Mr. MASSEY said it was quite true that the bill was carefully investigated by that house in 1861, and ultimately thrown out of the House of Lords, but surely that house was as competent to judge of the necessity of the bill as the Upper Ho Ise. Since 1861, he understood the opposition of one of the most important of the land owners had been withdrawn. He considered that the bill ought to be referred to a committee up stairs. The promoters were, he thought, specially entitled to the favour of the house. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LYGON explained, as one of the members of the committee of 1861 on the bill, that it met the approval of a large majority of the committee. Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN said his name was on the bill, and he desired to say it was not exactly the same bill as 1161. Since that period the company had made ar rangements with some of those who had heretofore opposed it. The bill should be referred to a committee up stairs. Col. KNOX opposed the bill. He could not understand how 20 minutes could be saved in three-quarters of a mile. (Laughter.) He thought the house ought not to let rich railway companies tire out legitimate opponents in the way it was asked to do. The promoters ought to pay the expense to which opponents had been put before they were allowed to proceed. Sir B. BRYDGES denied that the bill would be of any real public beneit. The landlord who had not agreed with the company was not residential. The opponents had al ready been put to an expense of £6,000, and it would be too bad to make them pass again through the ordeal of opposi tion, and to incur the like expenses. (Divide, divide.) Mr. CORBALLY intimated that the case before the house strongly indicated that a new mode of legislating with respect to private bills was desirable. The President of the Board of Trade intended to-night to move for a select committee on the subject, which would remedy, he hoped, the evils complained of in the course of this discussion. The house then divided, when there appeared— For the second reading .. 111 Against Majority ll The bill was consequently lost. PRIVATE BILL FEES. SHAREHOLDERS' PROXY STAMPS. Mr. GRIFFITH asked whether proxy stamps for voting in public companies required a 6d stamp; whether commit tees of shareholders seeking reforms in their companies were not placed at a great disadvantage in having to pay for proxy stamps, while the directors could charge that expense to the company ; and whether the principle of a penny stamp, as now applied to cheques and other instruments, might not be sufficient. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said proxies did require a 6d stamp, but no representation of the spe cial inconvenience mentioned had been made to him; and he thought the remedy was in the hands of the shareholders themselves. The proxy stamp had already been reduced from 30s to 2s 6d, and lastly to 6d. THE BLOCKADE OF CHARLESTON. Mr. BENTINCK—I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government are in possession of any official information on the subject of the reported defeat by the Confederates of the blockading squadron at the mouth of the Charleston river; and if so, whether that information is of a character to raise the question of the legality of the future blockade of that port ? Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, her Majesty's Government have no information with regard to that transaction more than has been conveyed by the telegrams which have been received, and which are known to everybody. Those tele grams simply state that the blockade was raised in the morning of one day, and re-imposed the succeeding day. (" The same day.") The same information states the rais ing of the blockade and its renewal. With regard to the applicationof the gen era l l aw o f na ti ons to a transact i on o f the kind, I would abstain from giving any opinion, because the application of the law depends so much upon the cir untilbethimatprwophei cumstances of the case that, happened is well known, it would crhferhasherremalely. t 's Government to Ma jesty's y commit themselves to any binding opinion upon the transaction. FINSBURY CIRCUS. Capt. JERVIS asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he had received a deputation of the inhabitants of Finsbury-circus, to solicit his support against the proposed extension of the Great Eastern Railway; if so, whether he had promised that support ; and, in such a case, if he will state what supervision his department possesses over pro jecti of a similar nature within the metropolis ? Mr. COWPER said a number of gentlemen who walked in Finsbury-circus, and appeared to attach much import ance to it as a rural spot, did him the honour to call upon him, and ask for his sympathy upon the proposed innova tion. That sympathy he gave them. (A laugh.) He thought that persons who came forward to represent the public mischief which might be caused should be heard before a committee upstairs. This matter had now assumed a very grave character, seeing there were no fewer than 21 bills affecting the metropolis before the house during the present session. In answer to the deputation, he had stated they should present a petition setting forth their grievances, and that probably it would be referred to the committee, who would make inquiry into the allegations. DANISH AFFAIRS. Mr. S. FITZGERALD wished to ask the Under-Secre tary for Foreign Affairs why the Danish papers presented to the house had not been delivered to hon. members ? Mr. LAYARD said he would make inquiry, but he knew the papers had been printed, and, so tar as he was aware, had been sent from the Foreign Office. Mr. ROEBUCK I°wllsiheNd to i at A• th N e D no B b . le lord at the haed of the Government the question which he p ut to him on Friday, but which the noble lord had sa id he could not then answer off-hand—a rather remarkabl e answer for the no b le lord. (A laugh.) He wished to know wily no despatch rece ived from foreign Governments respecti ng the affairs of G re ece had been put into the papers laid on the table of the house. S w T h O e e s r a a id n y h e d tehs despatch autgchht had t h e b q e u e e e n ti r o e n . the V other s eo un e t v F e n A i w E a Is THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY ceived from the Austrian Government with respect to the cession of the lonian Islands. No such despatch had been received from the Austrian Government, nor from any other Government, on that subject. (Laughter.) MESSAGE FROM HER MAJESTY.—THE ROYAL MARRIAGE• Viscount PALMERSTON appeared at the bar and brought up a message from her Majesty, which was read by the Speaker : " Her Majesty relies upon the liberality and affection of her faithful Commons, and on the cordial interest which they have manifested in the happy event of the approaching marriage of the Prince of Wales and the Princess Alexandra of Denmark; and that they will be ready to concur in such a provision as they may judge ne cessary, to enable her Majesty to settle an establishment for the Prince and Princess suitable to their rank and dignity." Viscount PALMERSTON said : The house has already been informed by the Speech from the Throne of the in tended marriage of the Prince of Wales ; and in their ad dress they have expressed the sentiments they entertained upon the subject. All that it becomes my duty to do is to ask the House to agree to an address in answer to the mes sage which has just been read, assuring her Majesty that this house will, at the earliest possible time, take that message into consideration, with the view of making such a provision for his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and the Princess of Wales as may be suit• able to their high rank and station. lam quite sure the house will feel pleasure in adopting that course, and I now give notice that on Thursday next, the earliest order day, it will be my duty to propose a resolution to the house on that subject. The house will of course understand that, in agreeing to the address I am about to propose, there is no pledge either implied or expressed as to any particular arrangement, and it would be unfitting for me to go now into details which I shall have occasion to explain to the house on Thursday next. I shall, therefore, content my self by requesting the house to do that which has been usual upon similar occasions, namely, to agree to an address to the following effect : That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, to express to her Majesty the thanks of this house for her most gracious message, and to assure her Majesty that this house will immediately proceed to the consideration thereof in such a manner as will demonstrate their zeal, duty, and affectionate attachment to her Majesty, and with due regard to the rank and dignity of the Royal family. (Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI said—l am sure the house will agree to this address with a unanimity not only of the voice, but of the heart. (Hear.) lam sure the House of Commons will seize upon every occasion of testifying their affectionate loyalty to the Sovereign under whose reign not only has the greatness of the empire been sustained, but the happi ness of the people has been also increased. (Cheers.) Nor can we ever forget that one of the most august of Sove reigns, during the long period of a quarter of a century, has undeviatingly exercised an influence which has refined the taste and elevated the sentiments of the whole community. (Cheers.) The country, sir, takes a deep interest in the happiness and order cf the household of the Prince of Wales —and I am sure the house will support every reasonable proposition brought forward by her Majesty's Ministers, the object of which is to secure those results. (Cheers.) In reply to Sir H. WILLOUGHBY and Mr. WILLIAMS, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that a statement of the accounts of the Duchy of Cornwall was laid on the table of the house that night. The report of the council of the duchy would also be produced, which would give a full account of the proceeds of the duchy. The address was agreed to nem. con .1 ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.—COMMER CIAL TREATIES.: On the motion that the house should, at its rising, ad. in asserting that the Foreign-office had nothing to do with the French treaty. The Foreign-office took up the matter warmly, and the hon. member for Rochdale had himself ac knowledged the hearty and valuable co-operation he received from Lord Cowley in the negotiations on the subject. (Hear.) When the hon. member for Rockdale went to Paris on that mission the first thing he was asked—what had he to offer ? If he had gone to Paris with his hands empty, it was not probable that he would have succeeCed in obtaining the concessions which the French Government made to him. Fortunately, however, the hon. gentleman had much to offer. There were heavy duties on wine and other articles of French produce and manufactures, and in consideration of a reduction in those duties the French Government con sented to various changes in their tariff which had proved very beneficial not only to this country but to France. It was necessary to bear in mind that in our domestic legisla tion we differed from France. We at once gave the whole world the benefit of the concessions which had been made to our ally. France, on the other hand, withheld from others the privileges she had conceded to us. and thus retained in her hands the means of bargaining with other Powers for mutual commercial concessions. When one nation sought any favour from another nation, there were various grounds on which the request might be blued. An appeal might be made to the generosity of the other Power, but it was doubt ful whether that would have much effect ; or an appeal might be'made to a treaty which gave the applicants the privileges of the most favoured nation, and a claim advanced for certain privileges which had been granted to another State. Therefore it was, above all things, desirable that when one had no concessions to offer in return for the ad vantages sought, some other Power, which possessed the means of bargaining, should commence the negotiations. That was the reason why France had been allowed to pre cede us in the present instance, and every concession which was made to her gave us a right to claim the same. If we had taken the initiative, the Italian Government would very naturally have said, "You have nothing to give us in ex change for what we give you, and if we freely concede your demands we shall be placed in a bad position in making terms with France." So far from her Majesty's Govern ment not having endeavoured to make treaties of commerce with other nations, the fact was that there was scarcely a Power in Europe with whom negotiations had not been opened during the last year or two. Treaties had been con cluded with Turkey and Belgium. The treaty with the former was a very important one. The Turkish Government, always adopting a very liberal policy in its commercial rela tions with other nations, had reduced its export duties to the very lowest scale, and had placed the import duties on a fa vourable footing. (Hear,) The remarks ho had just made applied with peculiar force to the case of the Belgian treaty. The Belgian Government were asked to make a treaty of commerce with us, as they had done with France, and it was pointed out to them that it would be an unfriendly act, hav ing entered into a treaty with France, to refuse to negotiate one with England. They replied by asking what we could give them in return, and they suggested that if they gave to us what they had given to France we should consent to capitalise the Scheldt dues. Now, the capitalisation of the Scheldt dues had nothing whatever to do with a treaty of commerce, and our Government at once refused to admit the principle of purchasing a treaty. Again and again they in sisted upon the unfriendliness of refusing to us what had been given to France. Eventually that argument prevailed, and in the end the Belgian Government made a treaty of commerce with us, abandoning their demand for the capi talisation of the Scheldt dues, which formed the subject of a separate negotiation. The right hen. member for Horsham had been misinformed with respect to the Italian treaty. Last year the French Government, desiring to place their com mercial relations with Italy upon a better footing, proposed a treaty of commerce. The British and Italian Governments were equally desirous of a treaty being negotiated between Italy and this country. The Italian Government accord- journ until two o'clock en Wednesday, Mr. S. FITZGERALD called the attention of the house to the question of some late commercial treaties, and espe cially to the commercial treaty pending between this coun try and the kingdom of Italy. No one could deny the importance which had been attached of late years to com mercial treaties with other countries. Not long ago the noble lord at Southampton had expressed his sense of the value of a commercial treaty between this country and Austria. He believed that the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, when in that house, had expressed an opinion that the alterations made in the Spanish tariff were favourable to this country. It was their duty, then, to con alder the principle hitherto adopted by the Government in their negotiation of commercial treaties. He thought that the Government had proceeded on a radically wrong prin ciple. They had allowed, in every case, the French Go vernment to take the initiative, and had only bestirred themselves to secure a treaty similar to that obtained by France. That was unfortunate, because a tariff which might be favourable for France might be quite the reverse for this country. The treaty with Belgium was a proof of this. At the present moment France was negotiating a treaty of commerce with Austria. Now Austria was de sirous of reforming her tariff, and the opportunity ought not to be lost as to the treaty between this country and the kingdom of Italy. In the course of last year a distinguished member of the Italian Government, Signor Mariani, the Minister of Commerce, came to this country to negotiate a treaty of commerce between Italy and England. That gentleman was never put in communication with the Minister of the Board of Trade. Some time afterwards the Board of Trade obtained the fullest information from the chambers of commerce throughout the country on the sub- ject. The manufacturers of Lancashire and Yorkshire were buoyed up with the hope that there would be a perfect commercial treaty between Italy and this country; but they soon ascertained that the tariff was almost identical with that which had been adopted in the treaty with France. They were told that a treaty was to be made with Italy, in which were to be embodied the same conditions as were stipulated between that country and France. But they had never seen the French treaty, and were utterly ignorant what the conditions of that treaty were. It seemed to him that this was only another example of the objection which he and his friends had taken to the course which appeared to be adopted by the Government, to allow the French to proceed in those matters, and instead of acting indepen dently, to be content with accepting the same terms which had been obtained by the French, and to attempt to render them applicable to the requirements of English traders. That had been . met by saying that the reason they were in the position of having no concessions to offer was, because we had given up every advantage already. That was the answer given to a deputation which had waited on the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It was an answer which came with a very bad grace from those who had given up all the advantages referred to; and the want of which was the alleged reason why we could not obtain these trea ties. But he did not admit that it was a well-founded an swer. They had heard much about the moral influence of England, which they were told had, in political matters, ope rated more effectively than arms. And he believed if repre sentations were made in a friendly spirit, and if there was always a desire on the part of those who represented this coun try to cultivate the most friendly relations with other Powers and not to write despatches in that epigrammatic style, which very oftenconveyed an offensive significance, though in words which were in themselves innocent—that moral in fluence which did so much good in political matters would also secure great advantages in those commercial matters upon which the hearts of the commercial classes in this country were so fairly set. There was no more important function could be performed—no more important service which could be rendered to the country, than by making nse of that ability which had always marked our diplomatic service in negotiating these treaties ; and the Foreign Office would thus be better engaged than in writing those de spatches which had lately so much irritated official persons abroad. In a recent correspondence between the noble earl (Earl Russell) and the Prince who conducted the foreign affairs of Russia, it seemed as if the noble correspondents vied with each other which could convey in the most hidden terms, the most pointed sarcasms against the policy of the other. He must also remind them that Brazil was one of those countries with which we might, by a judicious policy, have secured the most advantageous relations, though he did not say that a commercial treaty was necessary in that case. He hoped they would receive an assurance that Go vernment were alive, as he believed they were, to the im portance of negotiating these treaties, and that they would not for the future confine themselves to treading in the footsteps of France. Mr. FORSTER regretted the position in which _ the country stood with regard to the treaty with Italy, which position they had not been able to discover until now. In the early part of last year a circular had been sent out to the different chambers of commerce in the north, to which replies had been received stating how the present Italian tariff was working for English interests, and how it might be improved. No further communication had, however, passed with regard to the pending treaty with Italy. They had heard through the papers that Signor M ariani, the Italian Commercial Minister, had come to England to give and obtain information on the subject of how trade between Italy and England might be increased. The chambers of commerce had been most anxious to give him that information, but, on account of the want of organisation and agreement between the Foreign-office and the Board of Trade, they had been unable to do so. That being the case, it was not surprising that the manu facturing constituencies were thunderstruck at learning that a commercial treaty was on the point of being signed between this country and Italy. If there was a treaty, the Government had during the past year been conducting their negotiations with the Italian Government, without obtain ing information from those who were best able to give it, or they had been satisfied with getting for this country the treaty which France had got for herself. He trusted they would hear that negotiations between Italy and this coun try had not been following the uncertain footsteps of French negotiation, but that we had been proceeding pari-passu, though the Government had not taken the means of obtain ing information which it would have been advisable to adopt. As protectors of British interests, it did not become hex Majesty's Government to hand over to the Government of France the direction of that movement of free trade which this country had originated. 31 r.LAYARD was rather surprised to hear the complaints which had fallen from his hon. friend opposite, but pre sumed that his enthusiastic zeal for the cause of free trade was due to his being such a recent convert. (A laugh.) He believed he should be able to remove the grounds of the hon.. gentleman's objections. But first he wished to correct an; error into which the hon. member for Bradford had fallen ingly sent an agent to England, Signor Mariani, who was now a distinguished senator, to negotiate a treaty. It was not true, as had been stated, that Signor Mariani had no communication with the Board of Trade or the Foreign office. On the contrary, he had many interviews with the President of the Board of Trade, while the Foreign-office introduced him to some of our leading traders, and fur nished him with all the information he required. What, however, was his invariable language ? He always said that he could not negotiate a treaty with us until he knew what had been done in Paris, because, he argued, if Italy gave us concessions for which we could give her nothing in return France would insist upon the same advantages without Italy obtaining the equivalent which she was then trying to procure from the French Government. The treaty be tween France and Italy was not concluded until recently, and hence up to the present time no treaty had been nego tiated between Italy and Great Britain. It was almost un necessary to say that before any treaty should be made with the Italian Government the tariff would be referred to the various Chambers of Commerce throughout the country, and that our Government would be only too well pleased to receive reports from them on the subject. While on the subject of Italy, he could assure the house that our Govern ment were fully alive to the great importance of increasing our trade with Italy. Italian trade was growing every day, promoted by liberty and unity—a proof of which he had just presented to the house in the shape of a report from our Consul-General at Naples. During the recess the hon. and learned member for King's County made, through the newspapers, certain assertions relative to Neapolitan trade which filled him with amazement, and induced the Foreign-office to write to our Consul-General at Naples for an explanation. The explanation thus obtained was so im portant, and so completely refuted the statements of the hon. and learned member, that he hoped the house would permit him to give a few facts from it. The number of Bri tish steamers to Naples had increased between 1859, the last year of the Bourbons, and the end of 1862, from 66 to 119 ; and the tonnage from 41,675 to 95,292. Sailing vessels showed the same enormous increase. Foreign steamers of all nations had risen from 656 in 1859 to 1,303 at the end of 1862, and the tonnage from 192,378 to 442,832. The actual trade from Naples in 1859 amounted to £476,821; in 1862 it was £850,708. An equally satisfactory account was fur nished by the Board of Trade with respect to Tuscany. But to return negotiations with foreign countries to with h he re s s u p b e j o ec t subject of ucoomkerce, the house was aware that last year the French Government were negotiating a treaty with Prussia and the Zollverein. As soon as that fact became known, our Government applied to Prussia and the Zollverein to make with us a similar treatyof commerce. The reply was precisely the same we received from Belgium —that negotiations could not be entered into with us until those in progress with France were concluded. " France," it was said in effect, "can give us an equivalent. You can what we h ave given to France.' Our Government ggt na tion, u u s s nwoenseh. shall b h e e n r w e a e d have g ascertainedyou, a w s h e a t friendlye us will - told them that though their tariff might be acceptable to France it might not be so to us. It had been said that a re ference should have been made to the Board of Trade. 'What our Government really did was this—they accepted the offer of Prussia and the Zollverein to make with us a treaty as favourable as that made with France, but they said that the question was a question of tariff, and that the question of tariff should be discussed before the treaty. Prussia and the Zollverein consented, and our Government sent to Berlin Mr. Mallett, a most distinguished officer of the Board of Trade, to communicate with the Prussian Government as to the tariff which England would require. Unfortunately, for various reasons, political and others, up to this moment the treaty with France had not been concluded. The Prussian Government had. consented to the treaty, but the other States of Zollverein, for political reasons had refused to do so. It had consequently been found impossible to negotiate a treaty between this country and the Zollverein. As re gards Austria it was quite true that at the beginning of last year we heard that the Austrian Government were dis posed to negotiate a treaty with this country; and we at once proposed a basis. But we were told, however well disposed they were to a liberal commercial policy with this country, there were political difficulties in the way, and until the question of the Zollverein was settled they could not enter into a treaty with us. He had heard it asked why did wo not insist on the privilege of what was called an in termediate treaty being given to England ? An interme diate treaty was one by which articles of commerce were subject to a different tariff, according as they were, or were not, imported into Austria or Prussia by a conterminous frontier. But that was the result of a mutual arrangement, and we had no chance whatever in present circumstances of such a concession. Then, as regards Denmark, the Go vernment had reason to believe that there were parties, po liticel and commercial, who were willing to enter into a liberal treaty of commerce with this country; and we availed ourselves of the opportunity that offered. The Danish Government accepted our proposal, but what was their first question ? It was this, " What will you give us in return 2" We replied, that Danish manufacturers and Danish ships were placed in this country on the same fa vourable looting as other countries, but at last nothing was done, they would not negotiate with us. But suppose the Danish Government were to negotiate with another Go vernment on a liberal basis, we should have a right to come forward and say our favourable relations entitle us to a simi lar treaty, and that argument would have its weight. He might say the; same with regard to Spain and Portugal. What they wished from us was the reduction of the ditty on their wines, but that they obtained from the French treaty, and it was hopeless at tne present moment to obtain either from Spain or Portugal a treaty of commerce on liberal terms. But certainly, if an opportunity offered the Govern ment would take the necessary steps. His hon. friend the member for Bradford had adverted to the advantage which he thought would arise from bringing the Foreign-office into immediate connection with the Board of Trade. His hon. friend had often spoken to him of the necessity of having in the Foreign-office a special department on trade. Now, he had considered that point, and he had come to the conclusion that his hon. friend's plan was not feasible. To , be at all useful and important:that special department:would occasion very great expense; there would, in fact, be a double office and a double staff. L Mr. W. E. FORSTER had wished that there should be a commercial officer in connection with the Foreign-office, to be in constant communication with the Board of Trade. Mr. LAYARD assured his hon. friend that on all com mercial matters the Board of Trade was referred to by the m Fo a r t e te ign rs Foreign-office, office, just as the Home-office was referred to in within its immediate cogn izance. He tho ught he had said enough to show that the comp laints made by the hon, gentleman oppogto were not well founded, He EVENING, FEBRUARY 18, 1861 could assure him that the Government were anxious to do all in their power to enter into treaties of commerce on a liberal footing with foreign countries,and the last complaint which could be addressed to them was, that they were not fully aware of the vast importance of these commercial treaties. (Hear, hear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE asked whether the conditions of the treaty with France ware not such that the fifth article of the treaty applied to the produce of all the world, and not only to the produce of England and France. He also wished to have the text of the Belgian treaty laid before the house, that they might see whether in that treaty the danger he had just alluded to, and which he had pointed out in 1860, had been avoided or perpetuated. He thought it was unjust to blame the Foreign-office for what had been done. The hon. member for Rochdale was the independent negotiator of the French treaty. Whatever credit belonged to it was due to him ; and if this country was so bound hand and foot by it that we were incapable of negotiating subsequent treaties, he must be held responsible. Mr. HENNESSY said there was a variance between the statement of the hon. gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Board of Trade re turns—the former said our trade with Italy was in a most flourishing condition, whilst the last Board of Trade re turns showed a decrease in every article of trade, and also in the number and tonnage of shipping. He was inclined to take the statement of the Board of Trade as the most correct on this point. The hon. gentleman then read from the return the various articles of trade, with the amount of business done, in comparison with the previous year, and showing the amount of decrease. The decline arose in con sequence of the enormous customs duties imposed by Pied mont. That country was suffering from financial depres sion. There was a deficit of 17 millions sterling on the lasl year, ard the Piedmontese Government were desirous of negotiating a loan of 700 millions of francs. It was only by putting on heavy duties, which would press heavily on our trade, that she was able to raise a revenue. He instanced the extinction of the mixed silk and woollen trade between this country and Italy in consequence of that country, as shown in the despatches that were printed last session. Mr. S. A. BEAUMONT thanked the hon, gentleman the member for Horsham for bringing this matter before the house, but he was unable to go along with him in all that he had said. He could not say that the intefests of the country had been neglected by the present Administration. He had every reason to believe that the trading commu nity, as a body, were satisfied with the Belgian treaty. Mr. LIDDELL said that notbing could well be more un atisfactory than the statement which they had heard that night from the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He had always believed that free trade could never be the act of one man or one nation. It was not in the power of this country at present to carry out the principle for which it is so zealous. He accepted the present commercial policy of the country, and would admit that it had been attended with advantages; but he believed that the Foreign Office did not take sufficiant opportunities of bringing the benefits of a literal commercial policy before other Governments. Mr. LEVESON GOWER said there was no use in ap pealing to feelings of generosity with reference to commer cial treaties. (Hear, hear.) He should like to know what chance of success a statesman would have who came to that house to advocate a measure unless he was in a position to convince the house that it was for the interest of the country especially that they were bound to legislate upon it. What they;must appeal to was the self-interest of other nations —(hear)—and show that it would be for their benefit to adopt a free trade policy. He would urge upon all who were engaged in diplomacy to keep that in view. Mr. DISRAELI—I think it very much to the credit of this house that at last we have heard from the hon. gentle man who has just sat down a Free Trade speech. I shall not offer any observations in vindication of those rags and shreds of Protection of which the house has just been re minded, but I think an opinion on that subject has been expressed in a manner which cannot be mistaken, and our sincerity as to the course of policy which it is the wisdom of this country to pursue has been manifested by as great a sacrifice as could be made by public men. But on the other side of the house, where members either are or are supposed to be in some degree advocates of Free Trade and Parliamentary reform, I did not expect fo hear this discussion commenced almost by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs with a personal and violent attack on my hon. friend near me, whom he accuses of being a late convert to Free Trade, because he now advocates the policy of commercial treaties. I never heard that commercial treaties were at all connected with the abstract principle of a free exchange of commodities between nations. I believe there is nothing very modern in the invention of commer cial treaties, nor am I aware that the Tory party have ever shown a disrelish to support a commercial treaty, if, as we are told to-night by a member of the Government, commer cial treaties are to be accepted as a test of sincerity in the belief of the principle of Free Trade. Commercial treaties even with France have bean negotiated successfully by Tory Administrations many years before our own time. The commercial treaty of Mr. Pitt was only a reproduction, and an imperfect reproduction, of the commercial treaty which Lord Bolingbroke, a Tory Minister, success fully negotiated more than 150 years a.,,() for ,n terchange of products between England ond :neo, terms much easier than those which at pre.-Pnt exist. In what way was that treaty—negotiated but not ratified — defeated ? It was defeated by the opposition of the Whig party in this house. Mr. Addison, one of the most dis tinguished members that ever sat among us, who was afterwards Secretary of State, exerted all his wit and un rivalled powers of humour and composition in ridiculing the arrival in this country of that distinguished foreigner called Count Tariffe, whose mission it was to introduce habits of exchanging commodities between the two great nations. And those powers of wit and humour exercised by that considerable writer, and supported by the inveterate prejudices of the country, defeated that treaty. There can be no supposition more unfounded than one which presumes that we, at this side, who are in favour of commercial treaties, are at all deserting those principles which have been supported habitually—l might almost say for centuries —by the Tory party. There can be nothing more opposed to the abstract principles of Free Trade or unrestricted com petition than those regulations or conventions by which re ciprocal advantages are sought in the exchange of commo dities by different nations It is you who are departing from those principles which you take every opportunity of praising —you who are quitting that ground of pure truth and inex orable logic, the moment that you consent to negotiate the terms on which commercial exchange shall take place. (Hear.) In the case of the French treaty we came forward with certain advantages which we proposed to exchange for others. I have always believed that anything which fa voured commercial exchange between England and France was a policy that each countryought to favour ; but it was en tirely contrary to those principles of abstract exchange which you have always upheld. Nothing therefore can he more in consistent than the reproach which has tonight been levelled at a gentleman upon this side of the house. I remember a great man years ago introducing into this house the subjec, of commercial treaties. The hon. member for Rochdale who shows, and has shown, on all subjects great capacity, and for whom we have all high respect, at that time was not yet a member of this house. Having supported the system of commercial treaties as one that would on the whole promote and increase the commerce of this country, I remember being attacked out of this house by the hon. member for Rochdale. Ido not know whether the words were uttered aloud, so that we can find them in the authentic record ; but I know from experience that no less a personage than Sir Robert Peel exclaimed, " Don't you think we have heard the last of commercial treaties ?" Noll, we have not heard the last of commercial treaties. (ILar, bear.) So shrewd, so sagacious, and so experienced a statesman. as Sir R. Peel, who was always so cautious in expressing his opinion, was mistaken. That remark was made probably in 1844, and since then a most important commercial treaty has been negotiated. By whom ? Why, by the hon. gentleman the member for Rochdale! (Cheers.) Now, that is a lesson for all of us—(laughter)—and it teaches us that, whatever way be the value of abstract principles, it is in their wise and necessary application that the prosperity of nations is involved. (Hear, hear.) I think we are very much indebted to my hon. friend for bringing this subject before us, and for the observations which he has made. The subject of commercial treaties has almost got into an impracticable state, but the in teresting debate which has taken place to-night will, at all events, teach the country the position which it r ally occupies. It is most unwise, in my opinion, to hold out generally that the Government has the power of neg,tiating treaties of commercial advantage. The country has accepted the policy of unrestricted competition. If it be dissatisfied with that policy, let it frankly anneuuce its dissatisfaction. But it cannot have the advan tage of a policy of unrestricted competition and at the same time enjoy the benefits, as regards comm erce, of diplomatic arrangement. The country now wants to haveyou were told the double advantage ; but warning enough was given. often and often by members of this house that you were dealing too liberally with the privileges you possessed. It is too late now to inquire whether you were right or wrong in throwing these away ; the p o licy which you then sup ported was accepted, and b y that policy, in my opini on , you must stand. Why, in navigation alone, 1 remember how constantly you were told that you were heedlessly g.ving up a thousand points. (Hear, hear.) The constant answer was , ‘• Only snake the surrender, only endure the sacrifice, and you will see what your example will inspire." (Hear, hear.) I am not aware what satisfactory returns those sacrifices have attained. They appear to me, so far as I can recall them at the moment, very slight and mean. But the policy was adopted. It was adopted after great discussions, after frequent appeals to the country, and!after great political consequences. It is not for you tc find fault with aGovernment because it cannot accomplish those results by diplomatic arrangements which you expected front the sacrifices you made for the sake of unrestricted competi tion. You have yourselves resolved that the means which could alone bringabout those results should be surrendered at discretion. You gave them up without conditions, and it is impossible to resume the position which you lost. If we are painfully conscious, the Government, who are better informed, must be doubly conscious of the difficulties under which they labour in attempting to carry on negotia tions on this subject. They a e pretending to negotiate commercial treaties, and they are holding out the idea of Italian and Austrian treaties, which they must know to be impossible, Having adopted a commercial system, the principle of which is unrestricted competition, to my mind it would be more dignified if they were to hold aloof, and did not pretend to negotiate these treaties. (Hear, hear.) Every day we are told that we have had a success ful commercial treaty with France, and we are asked why not with Austria—why not with Italy ? You cannot have the same result with Austria and Italy as with France. You had something to give to France. You had the prin ciple of reciprocity to act with, which no man in the present day can claim the merit of discovering, but which was the means looked to for the accomplishment of these objects by some of the greatest statesmen who have ever existed. It is past. (Cheers.) The age of commerciel treaties is past, because you have no means and no materials for negotia tion. (Cheers.) All that you can do is to exercise that moral influence of which we hear so much with the various countries with which you are placed in communication, to induce them. from your own example, from your own pros perity—(ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches)—tor the old as well as the present system of commerce has equally brought prosperity to this country—from your own prosperity, and from the conviction that must grow in those countries that they are not raising a revenue in due relation to the resources with which nature has endowed them, to adopt the principle of reciprocal exchange in commercial transactions. (Hear.) But you will gain that as soon, if not sooner, without the embarrassment of commercial treaties as with those conventions. I regret that, through the con duct of the Government and through the extraordinary be haviour of the Free Trade party in pa' ronising artificial agreements of exchange, there has arisen in this country the impression that the best d most politic mode stimu lating commerce is to have recourse to that method. That was a good theory twenty years age, and not only a good theory but a good theory which could be put in beneficial practice. (Hear, hear.) I will not enter upon the barren controversy whether if, 20 years ago, you had fol lowed the principle of commercial exchange you would have derived more advantage than by suddenly adopting the principle of unrestricted competition. You have adopted unrestricted competition as the principle of your commer cial code. By accident certain articles were excepted, and two years ago you used them as the means of negotiating a treaty of commerce with a great country. having a large population and rich and tertile resources. You have played all your cards, and to attempt at the present moment to assist and Support commerce by commercial treaties is a mere de lusion. No doubt the Government may make use of its legitimate influence to obtain commercial advantages, but to obtain treaties on commercial and political principles are two different subjects; and my hon. friend is perfectly right in pointing out how important it is that the Govern ment, when holding out the principle of commercial treaties as one highly advantageous to our allies, should not follow at the same time a general policy which irritates the feel ings and offends the pride of foreign Governments. (Cheers) In taking that line my hon. friend is highly to be com mended, and no doubt what he has said will lead to sug gestions in the public mind which will be very advanta geous. (Hear.) I regret very much that the hon. gentle men opposite, who have held with so much tenacity abstract opinions on commercial exchange, should now seem to foster a policy of artificial arrangements which is not only not founded on right principles, but cannot practically be carried into effect, because any commercial treaties which England now negotiates must be negotiated by political in fluence, and not by the influence of commercial principles. (Cheers.) Mr. M. GIBSON said—l rise to make reply to those inquiries which have been addressed to me, otherwise I should have very little to add to the speech of my hon. friend the'Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. We have had a narrative of the proceedings of the Government since the conclusion of the French treaty in reference to making commercial agreements with foreign countries. The debate has been called interesting, and probably is so. But I have been unable to follow many of the speakers, and throughout the discussion I have observed a certain confusion, as if the speakers were thinking of different subjects, and not discuss ing one 'particular motion. There is a remarkable diffe rence between the hon. gentleman who submitted the motion, and the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire. The former reproved the Government for not seizing every opportunity to make commercial bar gains with foreign nations. The latter tells us that the age of commercial treaties is past, and that all we can do is to use political influence or pressure, I suppose, to make foreign countries alter their tariffs. (Cheers.) We have had an account of the French treaty in the time of Mr. Pitt. The French treaty two years ago nearly met a similar fate at the hands of the right honourable gentle in call t t h h e e s e e r d r a o r y s of t t o h h e a v w e h t i a g k s e , n C u p h e w e r h s at m I a u n n , d a e n r s d t a n h e d a h p i p m e a t r o s But the hon. gentleman who submitted the motion en tirely approved the last French treaty, and his whole speech was a comment upon the conduct of the Govern ment since that period. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the Belgian treaty, the hon. member for North Warwickshire asks why the text is nor given. The treaty is to be found in the library, and the hon. gentleman will there see what it was intended to accomplish. I contend that if has accomplished great bent fitl for this country. The Belgian treaty contains first of all the favoured nation clause, which had no existence before in our relations with Belgium—a most important stipulation, because before the treaty France enj' yed a preference in the Belgian market, and since its conclusion France and England are treated with perfect equality. (Hear, hear.) The second advantage is that we have assimilated the British and Belgian flags. (Hear, hear.) Produce, whether carried by a British or a Belgian ship, is to be admitted for the future upon equal terms, and that is acknowledged by the salt trade of this country to be a great benefit, because heretofore salti mported in English ships was subjected to a differential duty. (Hear, hear.) But the moat imi,ortant result of all is the favourer nation cause, because by putting an end to the system of p reference which was given to France ;n the Belgian market we have reduced the Be:gian tariff as against Eng lish productions 50 per cent. (Cheers.) There were many duties which ranged up to 40 per cent--but, taking an aver age, the duties upon English textile fabrics imported into Belgium ranged as high as 30 per cent., and they have been reduced to a rate not exceeding 15. (Hear, hear.) I think, therefore, we have accomplished through that Belgian treaty important results for the benefit of England. (Hear.) It has been said by the hon. member for the King's County that our trade with Italy has not increased, and that the Board of Trade returns contradict those which have been supplied by her Majesty's Consul-General at Naples. I have not seen the returns which my hon. friend quoted as coming from Naples ; but I have no doubt that the figures which he quoted are correct, and they show in the particular articles referred to a probable diminution in the trade with Italy, comparing a certain number of months of 1862 with the same months in 1861. But from what I heard fall from the Under-Secretary (Mr. Layard), I think the Consul- General's returns were made in the gross, and it may be quite true that particular articles have fallen off in 1862. I laid on the table only this evening the annual returns made up to the 31st December, 1862, and they are not as yet printed. I dare say it may turn out that the export trade to Italy in 1862 may be less than in 1861. There are many reasons why that should be the case. The high price of cotton and its diminished production must have had a tendency materially to affect the whole export trade of England. (Hear, hear.) But I think it would b e onl y fair to com p are 1860 and 1861 with 1857 and 1858, omitting 1859, which was a y ear o f war, and therefore not to be taken into the comparison for the amount of trade. Now, the whole value of the British exports to Italy in 1857 was £3,246,261, and in 1858 £3,677,663; but in 1860 it was £4,220,112, and in 1861 £5,333,261. (Cheers.) Such is the declared value in those years of British export to Italy—that is to say, to Sardinia, Tuscany, and the Two Sicilies. I think, there fore, when the honourable member for the King's County looks into the facts of the case he will find that the trade with Italy for the last two years has materially in creased. Now, with regard to the Italian treaty, to which my hon. friend (Mr. Fitzgerald) has alluded, as a case in which the Government were not showing the vigilance which they ought in watching our commercial interests, all I can say is that—as far as my knowledge goes, and it must be considerable—as soon as we found that Italy was about to revise her tariff, and that France was almost forcing from the necessities of the country such a tariff as would be favourable to her interests, her Majesty's Government set themselves to work, and represented to Italy those reduc tions which might be made in our interest, and which might well be considered while the tariff was under revision. But there is no doubt that whatever Italy gave to France she would give to England under the operation of the favoured nation clause. (Hear.) It is quite true we have it in our power to go to different countries and say, "If you make this reduction in your duties we will make that in ours ;" but I am rather inclined to agree in some ob servations which fell from the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks as to commercial treaties. I, for one, never held the doctrine that we should wait before making reductions of duties in !his country favourable to ourselves because other countries would aot co-operate. (Hear, hear.) I have always held we ought to make those reductions which we consider beneficial. (Hear, hear.) I look upon the French treaty as an exception to the general rule, though I would rather not lay down any general rule on the question. Ido not think tariff treaties in them selves desirable, speaking abstractedly, or that any country should shackle itself by engagements with other countries as to the particular mode in which it would raise its own revenue. I think in these matters it must obviously be the interest of this country to act for herself. (Hear, hear.) But because the French treaty has been con cluded, and there has been a stipulation for the reduction of duties on the part of France, and concessions of duty on the part of England, it does not follow that England is to run about endeavouring everywhere to make tariff treaties. (Hear, hear.) That policy has never been recommended, nor has it been encouraged by the recent proceedings of the Foreign-office. All that has been done is to ask, where we have not had the favoured nation clause, to get it, and we have never ceased to urge u2on other countries the ne cessity of considering the duties which affect our interests. I do not think the experience we have had since the French treaty i s a t a ll discouraging- (Hear, hear.) We cannot expect that foreign countries should change their opinions upon protection all at once. We, in this Coun try, were a long time before we were convinced that protection was a bad thing, and I am not certain that all the members of this house are as yet convinced that it is, (Rear, hear.) lam sure the right hon, gentleman the member for Bucks is, but I do not know that the hon member for North Warwick (Mr. Newdegate), for example, is convinced. (Hear, hear.) But, be that as it may, We ought to be indulgent, seeing that strange habits and pre judices are not to be got rid of in a day, and that the course which France has taken in negotiating commercial treaties with other nations is having a great effect in spreading free trade throughout Europe. (Hear, hear.) Whatever re ductions are made to France we must strive to get, either in virtue of our moral claims or by the favoured nation clause. I think, then, we have every reason to be satisfied with that commercial policy which has been pursued by this country, and which gradually bring about in Europe not only the conviction of the soundness of the principle, but the adoption of the practice of free trade. (Cheers.) The motion for adjournment was then agreed to. IRISH POOR REMOVAL. Lord J. BROWNE called attention to the circumstances attending the removal of Patrick Bourke from Leeds to the Westport Union in the county of Mayo, Ireland, and moved for a copy of the report of Dr. Brodie, the Irish Poor Law Inspector, on the investigation which took place into the circumstances attending the death of Bourke. Mr. VILLIERS defended the law from the charge of inhumanity, and contended that, on the contrary, it was marked by humanity. Mr. BAINES corroborated the right hon. gentleman's statement, and defended the conduct of the Leeds guar dians. The motion was agreed to. INLAND REVENUE AND CUSTOMS ESTABLISH- MENTS. On the motion of Mr. HORSFA I L, a select committee was agreed to for the purpose of inquiring into the propriety of consolidatingthe Inland Revenue and Customs establish- ments. RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION TO PRISONERS. Sir G. GREY obtained leave to bring in bill to amend the law relating to the religious instruction of prisoners in the county and borough prisons of England* and Scotland. The right hon. gentleman stated that the bill was of course to apply to all denominations, but there was no occasion to disguise the fact that it would mainly apply to Roman Catholics, of whom, he regretted to say, there were nearly 4,000 in the English prisons, and who formed in some countries more than half of the en tire criminal population. Major HAMILTON asked how the money to be paid to the clergymen under the bill was to be raised ? Mr. WHALLEY objected to the sanction which the bill proposed to give to the rainiat ration of Roman C a tholic priests, when the constitution of the country emphatically declared that the Roman Catholic religion was not to be encouraged. The Roman Catholic prisoners had only to ask for a priest now, and there was no one to interfere with such a demand. Priests were in the habit of going to the labourers' cottages, and, taking the children, baptised them and kept a register of their names. (Cries of "Question.") He would feel it to be his duty on the second reading to bring forward evidence of the teaching of Roman Catholic priests. (Laughter.) Mr. MAGUIRE said all the friends of civil and religious liberty must congratulate the Government on the spirit in which the bill was brought forward. But he believed there was an objection to the bill, and it was this—that he thought it relied too much on the discretion of the magic' trate. Sir G. EOWYER had one suggestion to make to the Home Secretary. He was sure he spoke the sentiments of all the Roman Catholic priests in the country whenhe said they were prepared to minister to Roman Catholic prisoners without any remuneration. It might be said that priests had permission to see prisoners, but that was only with rega rd to prisoners who had asked for the priest ; on the other hand, the priest was excluded from the larger class of pri soners who moat needed his assistance. If an Irish prisoner were asked if he wished to see a minister of his own per suasion he would not understand what was said to him• (Laughter.) He would not understand any question but the simple one=-Do you wish to see the priest? The Catholic clergy would not seek for any remuneration. Mr. NEWDEGATE said the bill would be received by the country as a mere concession to the Roman Catholic priesthood, and he hoped that on the second reading the house would express its opinion against it. On the part of the Roman Catholic prisoners—(laughter)— he would op pose the bill on the second reading, although he would not be guilty of the discourtesy of dividing the house at the present stage. Mr. HENNESSY supported the bill. Sergeant PIGOTT entered his protest against the measure. Sir G. GREY said that the case of prisoners shut up in gaol differed very widely from that of persons being a t 1 irge. The bill would be read a second time that day fort' night, PRIVATE ACTS. Mr. M. GIBSON move the appointment of a select coriv mittee to inquire into the present system of legislation With regard to undertakings requiring the authority of pr;va te Acts of Parliament, and whether any improvements can be made therein. Mr. WHALLEY opposed the motion. The motion was agreed to. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL' t This bill, as amended, w as cons id ered, and after a short discussion agreed to. The house adjourned at half-past 12 o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. LEEDS—TunsnAy. There was rather more demand for fine wheat, and Joe, Friday's rates were maintained, and in a few eases slightu a . exceeded. Barley, oats, beans, and other articles sold ov late prices. MARKET HARBOROUGH—TUESDAY. White wheat, bOs to 538 ; red, 44s to 478 per 36 sto ne ' Barley at 36s to 39 s p er qr ., gr i n di ng 28s to 30s per 30 $ l4 Oats, 28s to 308; new, 22s to 26s per 24 st. ; beans, 363 t ° 45s per qr. SHEFFIELD—TUESDAY. Red wheat, per load of 3 imperial bushels...2os Od to 21s 11 1 Ocl. White ...22s Od to 24s 6 1 New red , , ...16s Od to 18s 01 New white ~ 11 ...20s Od to 21s 6 1 Beans 11 11 ...16s 6d to 19s 6 ' Peas, per qr 66s Od to 603 04 Grinding barley, per qr Malting ditto, „ 34s Od to 4„°s. Od Oats 2.5s Od to 3" Flour, is 9d to 2s 2d per stone. LIVERPOOL—TUESDAY. At our market to-day there was a fair attendance of the town and country trade; there was a better b us iness do n e in wheat, but prices were about id to 2d per cental Oats inclined in favour of buyers. Barley, beans, and PO' nominally the same as on last market day. I n di a n corn il l moderate demand, and unaltered in value, Oatmeal very slow of sale ; common qualities rather cheaper. Fl°lll. ra moderate sale, at 3d per barrel lower on the week. MELTON MOIVERAY—TUESDAY. The following were the currencies :—New white whea t 51s Od to 55s Od ; new red, 46s Od to 50s per 36 stone beans, 44s for old ; new sorts, 36s to 38s per 38 13 1'; barley, 34s to 38 s f or ma lti ng , an d 27 s t o 29 s per qr. 1 ° grinding ; oats, 22s to 30s Od per 24 stone. Foreign Mail Packet List. MAILS DUE. • E • h 18 , A.us•eralia and Mauritius, via Southampton. .e-• 0 via Marseilles ... Feb, l'' Brazil and Cape 'Verde, by British packet. Marl Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and Si. H e l ena Mar' i - i. t;bina, Penang, and Singapore, via S out h a nipton Feb. ' 1 ,, via Marseilles Feb. "' r andatid Islands (jibi altar, via Southampton ...... Feb. 10. India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton Feb• . I t 3: India (Bombay), via Southampton ..... Feb. `" via MarP.etiles gar. 6„ Portugal.... Feb. li,Z via Marseilles... FFeelb): . i.,, ,' . Matta, Egypt, and Aden, via Soutbarapb,r • ,Feb I , u g v it: Marr , pii it, Feb. ... .. ewfounfnaEd Oporto and Vigo U. S. and British N. America, by 131 it. Pttcket ....Feb. by U.S. packet.... 1 3, by Canadian pack t.Feb. „" ~' W.C. of Africa,_ Madeira, and Ten e ritl e Feb. 1 i sahamae, via New York ... . F e b. l '", Mexico.. ...• F e b. 2 ' All parsni We r t intlifs, , Lclucling Chili, Vent, IF e b. 10 :f,iifornia, and liritiqi Colunibia _...... Births. BATH URST.—On the 16th inst., at Clarendon •park, Hervey Bathurst, of a daughter. DANIELL.—On the 15th inst,, at Loughton, Essex, DVS' Daniell, of a daughter. Dyso N.—On the 15th inst., at Rothley Temple, the wife of Maj,,r Dyson, of a eon. FEILDEN.—On the 15th inst., at 12, Carlton House-ter lace, the Huu. Mrs. John. R. Falden, of a son. Marriages. hctk.o re, Rßarnst MOILRISON—BLACKMOR E.—On the 16th inst., at St. rxt::: eras Church, Robert Paul, eldest Catherine Ellen, the eldest son of R. J . M or riso j E daughtersq. , i 'or Edwardn der R . Nu 3. . , Esq,, of thir al e ' Devon. _ lit SEDGWICK.—BEDMAYNE.—On 'he 14th inst., a t Si!l i , f Thomas's, oProourtgmhabnridsgqeu,artoe,MLaernyd, London, James a 'S u e g d il gtwerl . c le i p Esq., Of of Taitlands, Se t ' tyhoerlkasthoiTreh.omas Redmayne, Esq., Deaths. ATKINSON.—On the 15th last, at South Kensington, A 13134111 . ...widow of the late Captain Bourne, R.N., the wife of F. R. W. Atkinson, Esq. BOURNE.—On the 15th inst., at Paris, Louisa Helens,ett: third Lord Wallscourt. 0, A. CLARK.—On tho 10th inst,, suddenly, at Portsuol l r 'T Ito J. Clark, Esq., 55th Re teldest James J. —All - E sq., D. ., „ Reg t., son of yon cion .u., of Largantogher House, county derry, aged 23. LAKE. --On 'On"' the 15th inst., at Belgrave House, 31 co d town, Beatrice Ida, daughter of Colonel ll oungest Atwell Lak C B youngest d 1 d 10 ths and sister (:. - an Mon • str ee, RENNALLS.—On the 14th inst., at 13, Devonshire- ve of Portland-place, William Rodon Rennalls, Esq. , ;Set the Benches of the Hon. Society of the Middle T aged 73. ......,...-!?--:, __.------ yi . ~,,,,,. London: Printed and Published by WILLIAM AIN lII' $0 __ o ffice, s i of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at T nE Surf the ego 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the S a v o y , in w of Athicileeez.—Wednesday , February IS, 1804 \