The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-03-20 00:00:00

TUESDAY.

Lord CUELM‘FORD, in introducing a Bill to amend the
law relating to Sunday trading, explained the scope and
object of the measure, which was not sir f coercion, but
of protection, and would not prevent Sunday trading
before the hour of Divine service. The necessity of such
a nieaaure he deduced from numerous petitions from
tradesmen on the subject, who complained that in self.
defence they were oblige.' to open shops on Sonshiy,
and were so prevented from attending Divine service.
The Bill was read a first time.

THURSDAY.
Lord TAUNTON. in mowing 'to agree with the Com-
mons in the Address to Her Majesty on the subject of
the treaty of commerce with France, and to fill up the
blank in that Address with the words 'Lords Spritual
and Temporal,'" said he felt jugified in requesting the
assent of the House k, his motion on the grounds that
the treaty bad been brought up with the almost unani-
mous consent of the House of Commons and the hearty
concurrence of the.industriousand manufacturing classes
. .

-
from all parts of the United Kingdom. The C11111111Cr•
cial relation', unfortunately, of France and England hat
not hitherto been in proportion to their relative
resources, and he conaidered that if the treaty could in
any way promote the further development of those
resources, it would be the duty of their Lordships to
agree to the Address. Although he did not believe
that treaties of commerce would prevent nations from
from going to war, still, where great and common
interests existed between two. countries war was not ao

likely to break forth upon slight and petty initations.
Having reviewed the treaty in a commercial view, he
considered it in its political and social consequence*, and
expressed his opinion that it would bind France and
Euglead in closer bonds of amity, and that, while it
conciliated France, it equally conciliate I all other
nations, by extending to them the smile advantages. In
the present disturbed state of Europe, when it was im-
possible to predict what might occur in a given period,
it was particulary necessary for this country lads all it
could to maintain friendly relations with all nations, lint
particularly with France ; and what Letter niemm could
be adopted for such an end than to prove by the
example of England that iirosi,crity would mutually ensue
by following the principle* laid down in the treaty ?
The Earl of CONK seconded the motion

Lord GREY sa—ii—tlTai7;l6;o-u.g-LI;O--iii not intcnd to

oirdtuct the progress of toe treaty, he could not give
his vote in favour of the motion. This treaty could not
. .

be considered by itself alone, as it was a fort, and a
most essential part, of the financial arrangements of the
country, and be should therefore review it in connexion
with the budget of the present year. The repeal if
indirect taxes to the amount of 0,900,001.1 a year, in
the face of a deficiency of 1-'9,000,000 • year, was a
hazardous and ambitious experiment, and it was his
opinion that such changes of taxatiou ought not to be
lightly attempted. Successive Chancellors of the
Exchequer had concurred in pressing upon Parliament
the expediency of uieddling with these taxes, yet, in
spite of this, because the public had calculated mein some
advantage by the falling in of the Long A nnuities, and
because the sum saved by the Lung Annuities had been
more than counterbalanced by new expenses, it was
thought necessary, in order not to disappoint the people,
to gratify them by • larger remission of indirect taxes.
Such a scheme was fanciful in the extreme, and it was
to treat the people of this country like children.
Lord Woneeuese defended the financial scheme of
Mr. Gladstone, which. he contended, was neither ambi-
tious nor fanciful. The budgets of Sir H. Peel in 1e42
and 1845 were fully as wide in their range as that of
Mr. Gladstone. In 1845 Sir H. Peel converted • surplus
into a deficiency, whereas the present budget merely
left things very much as they were. He regretted
extremely that Lord Grey had introduced the question
of Savoy into the discussion. The annexatioui of Savoy
had nothing whatever to do with the treaty, nor was
there, as had been hinted, any collusion between the
English and French Gimernments in connexion with the
annexation of Savoy. The treaty ought to be tested
upon commercial principles, and to stand or fall by
them alone.
Lord MLUZSBURT concurred with the opinion of
Lord Grey, but said lie was not opposed to commercial
treaties, as seven years ago he himeelf, when a member
of Lord Derby's Government, hail entered into negoti-
atione with France with a view to extend the com-
mercial relations of the two countries. Those
negotiations did not succeed, owing to tic unwillingness
of the French to make inutual concessions. It wmi
that this treaty was wit a bargain ; but, if it were not
what was it? The treaty was not only a commercial
disadvantage to this country, but a political mistake.
He condemned in usimeaaured terms the conduct of the
Government in eigning this treaty pending the question
of the annexation of Savoy, and s i eeeeeeeee regretted to
see the Emperor if the Fratibli departing from that
policy which he had proclaimed at the commencement
of his reign, and entering on the course which bad been
so ruinous to the First Empire.
Lord DE GREY and Wei's denied that the treaty was
a bargain in the sense used by Lords Grey and Balmer-
bury. We have given nothing to France which it was
not advantageous for us to give, •nd the treaty must be
judged exclusively by the bearing upon our own interests
of the fiscal reductions which it effected. It was not a
political treaty except in this respect, that by extending
commercial relations between the two countries if
became a gurautee for the maintenance of peace, which
would not be lightly disturbed when an identity of
interests was once established.
Lord STANHOPE yielded to none in his desire to see a
cordial feeling between France and England, but
doubted whether the treaty was calculated to promote
that result, as it had already excited the hostility of
those Glasses with whose protected interests it interfered.
Lord OVEKSTONE entertained very grave doubts
as to the expediency of entering into any such
Treaty, as such engagements were full of danger mol
full of difficulty. In such inatters each country
would consult its own advantage better by pursuing
its own interests. acting independently, and progressively
reforming its tarriffe without balding itself to this or
that party. In regard to the export of coal, lie thought
it nut a question of depriving foreign countries of that
artiole, but of the propriety of depriving ourselves 1,1 the
fiscal benefit of an export duty. The demand for and
oonsuuiption of coal was increasing annually, and, as it
was an article limited in amount, and with no power of
reproduction, the export of such • commodity was not •
point upon which they were to have no opinion, but
was, to say the least of it, an open question. Ile (wield
not conceal the opiuuioui lie entertained that this treaty
instead of making us friends, was calculated to create
and suspicion of having been mutually over-
reached between the two nations. Reviewing the con-
duct of Br. Cobden, as a negotiator, he pointed out
instances of carelessness to the interests of this country
visible in the Treaty, and then proceeded to lay down
with great clearness the principles of free-trade, which
were not, lie contended, antagonistic to a system of
duties, and concluded by expressing his regret that he
could not vote for the Address.
The Duke of A erirLt defended Mr. CAibden and the
Governiuent from the charges brought against them by
Lord Overstone, and explained, in reply to Lord Grey,
that the reininion of indirect taxes would not increase
the present deficit, hut merely leave it in the same con-
dition as before. Tbe increase in the Income-tax was
not due to these remissions, but to the increased expen-
diture for natal and military armaments ; and the in.
crease of the Income-tax was rendered necessary by the
naval policy of their predecessors. His noble friend
complained that the measures of the Government tended
to alter the proportions between direct and indirect taxa-
tion, but this assertion was at variance with the dif-
ferent items of taxation, for the Customs' duties alone,
in spite of the reduction of J:11,000,000 eince Sir It.
Peel's time, had increased by 0.000,000. Sir R. Peel
had not confined himself to reductions, but lie made very
large abolitions, many of them analulgous to those of
the treaty. As for an export duty on coal, it bah been
already tried, and had materially interfered with the
coal trade of the country. That article in the Treaty on
coal was • guarantee that France was Milli:Mg to
peaceful purposes, and if France was to become to a
great extent dependent upon us for coal it would be all
additional guarantees for peace. He concluded by
adverting to the triumphant manner in which this
matter bad been carried in the House of Commons.
which was, he considered, • very strong argument in its
favour.
Lord DERBY was in doubt as to the precise points upon
which they were asked to give an opinion. If their
assent did not bind them to the approval of the budget,
why were they asked to vote an address? So far as the
purely commercial parts of the treaty were concerned,
he was disposed to agree with Lord Grey, who coil•
aidered that the consent of Parliament would be suffi•
Meetly given by passing the measures requisite to carry
it ont. To carry out the llth article. however, an Act
of Parliament would be necessary. The addrese, there-
fore, could not have the slightest effect upon either part
of the treaty. But, supposing the treaty to be a good
one, was the present the proper time for adopting it,
when a deficit of £9.000,000 had to be provided for?
He should be only too glad if the deficit were no greater.
but he thought that the expenditure was underrated and
the income over-estimated. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, having remitted taxes to the amount of
£9,000,000. in order to reimburse the public purse was
compelled to reimpose the war duties On tea and sugar,
to raise the income-tax to 101. in the pound, and to
collect 000,000 by small duties on commerce. How
was this deficiency to be met? Why, by anticipating