The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-03-16 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.—YEsTERDAy.

•
Lord TanNrorr moved that the House agree with the
House of Commons in an address to her Majesty on the
subject of the commercial? treaty with France. That
treaty had been almost unanimously assented to by the
• Commons, who, in so doing, reflected the opinions of
the country.. British statesmen had long viewed with.
deep concern the small commercial intercourse between
the two countries ; and England, at this moment,
exported less to France than to Holland, and but little
more than to Turkey-and Sweden. The treaty would.
greatly lessen the chance' of hostilities, and, if they. did 4
occur, would diminish their rigour. Their lordships I
should recollect how largea step this was in advance of
the present prohibitory protective system in France ;
the appOrtnn,ity of • altering that system should have
been seized whenever the opportunity occurred, without
regard .to the financial position of the moment.
We were perfectly justified, for such an object, in
sacrifieinfr, revenue:. He believed that British ship- I
'ping would greatly benefit from the treaty,' as it
could not , but profit by the, extension of our trade. -
In its 'political aspect he saw much good, and feared no
miScbief. There were none of the stipulations made by
the country to which, on their own grounds, he could
not consent. He defended the eleventh and other
articles of the treaty which had been challenged, and
declared that, there never was a, compact between two
nations with a fairer prospect of mutual advantage.
• The Earl 'of Cortic.'seconied' the address, declaring -
that all the great interests of the country had already I

expressed their approval of the treaty.
Earl GREY, though he felt that matters had gone too
far to oppose the treaty, felt bound to oppose the.address.
It was unnecessary and useless for its avowed purpose.
It expressed an approval Of the treaty as a whole, to
which he : could net consent ; and as the treaty was
I bound up with the hndget, committed them to the
' financial' scheme of the Government, to which he
objected, as effecting great changes without a fair pros.
pect of advantage. The arguments for reduction of
taxes, founded on the :falling in of the long annuities,
were purely painful. He adverted at length to the
deficit, which next year would be still greater than at
present, involving _an income-tax of at least a shilling
in the pound. They were told that next•year they were
to have a parliament elected under a new Reform 'Bill,
chosen in great part by those who did not pay direct
taxes of any kind. Was it prudent to leave to such a
Parliament in the first year of its existence the task of
deciding the principles upon which . our future financial
legislature was to, rest ? The budget,, in his opinion,
was a dangerous one ; and that treaty, which rendered
necessary the most objectionable of its arrangements,
was not entitled to their lordships' approval. He then
adverted', to., Savoy,. blaming Government, for having
signed the treaty without first obtaining fruni
France a distinct disavowal of her intention to
annex. that territory. The Government having been
distinctly warned, of the, contingent probability of
the annexation they incurred a' heavy responsibility.
Foreign nations believed that our only object :was to sell
our cotton, and tbey regarded thti commercial treaty as
a sop to induce us to submit to theannevatien of Savoy,
andthat the resistance of Government was a imp pFe.:-
tence. .! Under these circumstances he could not give his
vote iu favour of the address.
Lord WODEROUBE defended the treaty, entering into
details to Skew that the tariff of France was now closely
assimilated' to America.
• The Earl of fi1,41.-mnsnuny said that some years ago,
when he held office, attempts were me 4 t,q p duce
France to entedato a commercial treaty, but the tertp
offered, by that Power were not considered satisfactory.
He could not consent to a one-sided measure. He con-
sidered the treaty as politically a mistake, and blamed
them for hastily concluding it ; when, by waiting
another year, the French Emperor could have proceeded on
more equal, term's, fn Prance the treaty was considered
not as a. concession to this country, but to the Govern.
merit of Lord Palmerston, Which was the explar4o94 9f'
the indecent haste with which the treaty was concluded,
Earl DE GUEY AND Rli.ON hoped that the House would ,
not separate itself from the other House in the work
now so nearly completed, and WIWI offered mutual
advantages tp , both countries. Nothing was given to
France by , the treaty which was not in itself7aelvaptar.
geous to ourselves. It could only be considered a
political treaty—in that it afforded a Guarantee for the
maintenance of. peace.
' Earl STAN4OPE was most anxious for friendly rela-
tions with France; but did not believe the present treaty
calcUlated to effect that object ; still he would not desire
to see on sluch a subject that House in collision with the
COmmens, and hoped that the opposition to the address
would be Withdrawn;
Lord: OVER.TON objected to .the 0414 of the treaty,
especially 'to the article affecting coal, a yokel*
exhaustible, which could not be reproduced, and which
was becoming more and more important as a munition
of war. •

The Duke of ARGYLL defended the policy of the
Government, and the able scheme which had been pro-
duced out of difficult circumstances, The opponents of
the treaty had failed Jo propose any plan which could
be adopted in its stead.
The Earl of DERBY remarked that the most powerful
arguments against the treaty had come from the ordinary
supporters of the Government. The, question now before
them was not whether they were to oppose the treaty,
but whether they were to express direct approval of it.
He believed the address to be unnecessary, and to
involve neither acceptance nor rejection of the treaty
itself. He declared that our finance did not admit of the
sacrifices imposed by the treaty, and considered the future
estimates of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be alto-
gether fallacieus. He criticised in detail the financial
schemelif the 'Government, asked how we were to meet
th.c_deficit of the coming year, and declaredthe policy of
theßovernment to be in. direct :opposition to that of
Sir R. Peel. lie saw nothing in the plans of the
`Government to enable him to hope fora reyiyal of
revenue. The plans now adopted were in direct
'Variance 'with the declared Opinions of Mr. Glad-
etene in former times, and with the proposals of
the Whig Government itself in preceding sessions.
They were taking the first step towards a large
and permanent income-tax. Even if the treaty was as
advantageous as he believed it iqjudicioes, he would
not, under present circumstances, take it at the sacrifice
of revenue. The treaty bore on the face of it marks of
haste and want of ,consideration. Ile agreed with the
opinion of the French them Selves, that the measure was
a sop to , indnce England to wink at the annexation of
Savoy. At all events, the coincidence of the treaty and
regretted'the measure taken by the Emperor of the:
French, which would diminish the credit hitherto given
to his declarations, and would entail upon Europe the cost
of increased armaments. Still, although he objected to the
address, he would not oppose it, and considered it
unadvisable at snob a time to take the sense of the
House.

After some remarks from the Lord Chancellor, Lord
Chelmsford, and the Earl of Hardwick,
The Duke-of NEWCASTLE, at great length, and at one
o'clock in the morning, vindicated the commercial policy
of the treaty, entering into the history of past trans-
actions, and declaring that, having set the example of
free-trade, we had at last succeeded in inducing other
nations to follow it.
The Hpusp then divided, and the address was
carried by 68 to 38.
Their lordships then adjourned at two o'clock.