The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-02-21 00:00:00

MOUSE OF COMNIONS.-YESTERDAY,

The Speaker took the chair at four o'clock.
Lord J. Russell presented a petition, from merchants of
London representing a capital of ten millions, approving
the propositions of the Chancellor of the Etcheeptei as
-
calculated greatly to improve the trade of the COW*
Mr. Crawford presented A petition Prorn
merchants to the Smile eitett, •
An immense r►ntrtbev 4 petitions were presented
against the &Apt and the Commercial Treaty, occapy-
irg nearly an holt". • •
On the order of the day for going into committee on
the Customs Act, •

• Mr. LANIGAN asked the ebief S':,:Zie'tary for Ireland
whether the Government hale heed informed of the dis-
tress that at prettiit prevails amongst the agricultural
labouring Masses in Ireland, who are left unemployed
tobsequence of the unwillingness and reluctance of
the. tenant farmers in that country to employ labour (:)r

invest capital in the permanent improvenicnt of their
farms, as long as the landlords posted 16 power of
eviction without componsatir‘h *hether there are any
funds at the disposal of the Government to meet such a
case; and 'hut ther there is any intention of introducing
such h 'bill this session as will have the effect of remov-
ing the cause of this distress.
Mr: CARDWELL replied that the information he bad
received gave a very different account of the state of
agriculture in Ireland, which was, he was happy to say,
in an improving and thriving condition, He lied
already given notice of his intention to bring in a bill
regulating the law of landlord and tenant in 'rebind.
Mr. JAmrs asked the efiaototior of the Exchequer
whether he is prepared to state the course her Majesty's
Government intend to pursue with reference to the
granting of licenses for the sale of beer and wine by
retail, to the keepers of refreshment houses, as indicated
by resolution No. 15, to he p-oposed in committee of
ways and means, and whether he still intends to pro-
pose that resolution to the committee.

• The CIWeCELLOR of the EXCIIEQUER said he had
already had a deputation which waited ni)oti him on
the matter—that he could tot It the wine licenses in
their present state IlricW the alteration now contempla-
ted in the wino duties ; but as to the mode in which
this was to he done, it was a matter of detail, on which
he was ready to receive suggestions. But: the
question would not come on till the budget
was far advanced, and a bill would he placed on
the table in the first instance respecting which, if further
inquiry was thought. necessary, he was ready to have it
referred to a Select committee ; at all events, ample time
would be given for the full consideration of any definite
measure before it was carried out,

In reply to Mr. NA •
Lord J. itirssma, said that he had been 'asked if he
would give n guarantee as to the occupation of the Suez
Canal, supposing it to 'be completed ; 'he had de-
clined to do so.

On the question for going into committee on the
Customs Act,
Mr. T. DUNCONEE asked if. there . was any arrange-
ment between this country and that of France for the
modification of the treaty in the eirentOf certain portimis
of that treaty being rejected by the honse.
Mr. Du CAM:, considering that the resolution of Mr.
Disraeli ought to have precedence 'over his own, post-
poned it to that of the right hon. member for Bucks,
reserving the power of bringing it forward at a future
time:

Mr, lAtqusAy also postponed his resolution.
Mr. DISRAELI said he should not, in moving his
resolution, give any opinion on the. merits of the treaty
or of the budget. He would say, however, that after
giving fair attention to the terms of the budget, he and
his party felt that after the profeesions they had so often
maintained, especially on the subject of the iucome-
tax, they would 'not shrink from maintaining those pro-
fessions, and joining issue in the form of a reso-
lution, like that proposed by Mr. Da Cane, with which
he expressed his full approval ; they further felt
that the expression of their opinions should not be de=
layed beyond the time of the question being pat that
the Speaker leave the chair to go into committee on the
Customs Act. There arose, however, a conversation
on Friday as to the form in which the treaty was to be
considered, in which the answer of the Government was
so ambiguous, and respecting which, on looking into
precedents, lie found the position of affairs so extra-
ordinary, that he had no alternative but to undertake
the task of bringing forward the resolutien he was
about to move. It could not be considered as a party
move, as, from the state of the house, he had bad no
opportunity of conferring with any of those with whom
he was in the habit of acting, except with Sir H. Cairns.
In no previous session had matters of so much importance
been so early brought forward before the house, and in
none where the opportunities of discussion had been
so limited and abridged. He had been placed in a most
unfair.position by the difficulties which had been raised
against the due examination of these matters. Unless
the course he proposed was adopted, the commercial
treaty, as it never ❑aa been netore the House, never
coulil be before the House for purposes of debate. lie
proceeded to show this by analysing the process of
discussion which would follow if they went into com-
mittee on the Ctistorns Act. tinder the Constitution, the
House of Commons had power to give or to refuse its sane-
tion to treaties—they were not binding without its con-
sent; and, therefore, if the only opportunity of discussion
given them was in the Customs Act, how werethey to
debate the article affecting coal and others not connected
with the customs ? He entered into the subject of the
article binding her Majesty not to prohibit the export
of coal, contending that it had no analogy with the
Russian treaty negotiated last year by Lord Malmesbury.
Was this a matter which ought to escape the due con-
sideration of the House of Commons ? This argument
alone was sufficient for the purpose he had in view to ,
show that the entire treaty ought to be considered before
they went any farther. In what other form could the
treaty he brought before them. Was it to be in the form of
an address to the Crown. Such a course would be unpre-
cedented, when the Crown had not first addressed the
House. On all former occasions the Ministers had
brought down a message from her Majesty. If, again,
the Prime Minister were to propose a day for the
consideration of the treaty, what form would that pro-
posal assume ?—they could not take upon themselves to
offer to ratify the treaty. He repeated, that if the course
he proposed were not followed, the treaty would
never come constitutionally under their notice.
The only means of extricating themselves from
the humiliating position in which they were
placed was by following the precedent of the treaty of..
1786 when Mr. Pitt, on the first meeting of the ensu-
ing session in 1787, after giving ample time for con-
sideration, brought the treaty before 'Parliament in a
committee of the whole house, and in the form of large
and general resolutions, which were amply discussed,
and passed after several divisions. Those resolutions
were then sent to a branch of the legislature which
seemed to be forgotten on the present occasion—
the House of Lords. He called on the House
to follow a precedent so much in point and
warranted by such high authority. Adverting to the
treaty, he declared it to have been a most unwise
selection to have appointed Mr. Cobden the secret agent
to the nogotiation of the treaty. It was not free from
the idiosyncrasies of the negotiation. It involved the
reckless destruction of revenue. Mr. Cobden would be
at no loss how to supply it with his views on the re-
duction of expenditure. Again, the treaty was either
one of reciprocity, or not; if it was, he never knew an
occasion where reciprocity was less adroitly managed ; if
not, he could see no reason for the treaty assuming
its actual conventionaVorm. If the principles of free-
trade were good, those of constitutional government
were better, and, he would add, much older. This treaty
was devised so as to silence the voice of one branch of
the legislature : let it not deprive another branch of the
legislature of its privileges. He imputed nothing but
inadvertence to the Ministry, and called upon them to
adopt the course he proposed, which they could yet do
both with dignity and honour. He concluded by mov-
ing, as a resolution, That this House does not think fit
to go into committee on the Customs Act with a view to
the reduction or repeal of the duties referred to in the
treaty of commerce between her Majesty and the
Emperor of the French, until. it shall have considered
and consented to the engagements in that treaty.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that
the present question was one of procedure, and he,
therefore, protested against the extraneous subjects in-
troduced into his speech by Mr. Disraeli. If it was
true that the Ministry had been guilty of a gross
breach of duty to the House, it appeared to him
that the leader of the Opposition might have taken
broader ground, and he had to thank him for imputing
to them nothing worse than inadvertence ; but, he QM-

tended; thaOlye,:iitrt.t 10,ioitraele gentleman was correct
0, "040'4. kC Cis- facts nor his principles, and that the
Government had adopted a course consistent with general
propriety, with due regard to the priyilegps of the
Rouse, and, what scented to, have been- forgtoent with
regard to those great iireits 0-re roo4eV;,,e.
affected &ea* th. C.'6 0t 16 viii: ireaty of Mr.
Pitt, tie t'f'S'Oldi:CiVis referred to matters of small detail--
L:l'6y were neither large nor general; and, moreover, the
treaty itself referred to other matters than those of com-
merce. With regard to the motion of Mr. Disraeli, he really
did not know what it meant, and believed that Mr. Disraeli
himself did not know. The treaty itself ~,ittesskre
ferred to the only sanction 4Wllich PArl44ditl, 06q1d give
to treaties, tii'64el3; 5, IddislailVe sanction ; and declared
yut Ithe treaty should be binding when that legis-
lative sanction should be obtained. He denied the
proposition of Mr. Disraeli, that, the consent of
Parliament was necessary to the execution of the
treaty. Many of the clauses referred to matters
altogether out of the reach of Parliament. lltr.
Disraeli had not iq atlylaY.poihal tilt how he would
work pnt his t\ Ptil, The Government had followed the
eeean't of Mr. Pitt, making due allowance for change
of time and circumstances. How could Mr. Disraeli,
with his official experience, conceive that a minister
would dare allow months to elapse between the enun-
ciation and the 'execution of a treaty affecting so largely
our revenue and our trade ? Of the niftily treaties of
commerce executed hi the pteseiit Century, mind
were alirtOlintea by Message froth the Cro*n.
What *as the practical ditTbrence betiVetn paftii
presented by conunand and A InesAnite fidril the
provrt§ iii-,§l.lAsitAk titt ttich a subject was puerile.
fi ad •Air. 14itt, lived at the present period of commercial
development he would have used more dispatch and not
have alloW'ed the same delay to intervene ivbieli he
then permitted. Mr. Pitt had pro, os.ed hid treaty
lei
committee of the *h6le IiOASe. The present Govern-
ment had ii4.t4Ply Considered the matter, and hail come
t.. 4 the conclusion that Mr. Pitt had acted right
under his circumstances, and that they should
act Wrong if, under present circumstances, they
adopted- the same course. Mr. Pitt negotiated a
treaty exclusively referring to France. The measures
now intended to be taken In Cqnsetitipo,e dt tl±d treaq
were general ; they did ti'at apply to any one country in
Orttelliar, and therefore would not have been deter-
mined in committee on a French treaty. They had
adopted the spirit of the proceeding of Mr. Pitt,
without following his precedent with a blind super-
stition. He declared, on the part of the Govern-
ment, that if the House assented to those parts of
the treaty which required legislative sanction, it Was
their intention to bring the treaty as a whole before the
House; not that a treaty could be sanctioned eortstitiv•
tionally by the House) hitt in order that such an instru-
ment might have all possiblenioral sdpport. AAVertibtd
to tlit) otlectiOris that viii Government had niited up
thh treaty and the budget, his answer was, that they
had done so in the first place, to avoid exclusive pro-
ceedings, and secondly with .a view to public interests
which would have materially differed if the terirs of the
treaty had been carried out without being' connected
with the general arrangements of the year.
Sir H. CAIRNS urged that there were points in the
treaty requiring the assent. of Parliament which conld
not he considered in cointhittet: On Mid diistonis Act
he quoted lht Miele affecting coal as well as others.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL repeated, as Mr. Gladstone
had done, that the 'objections of Mr. Disraeli were
futile and puerile, and called on the House to proceed at
once to the important discussion of the budget.
Sir P. KELLY objected that there was no pro Vision for
modifying the treaty in case any one article was rejected
by the Howie. The treaty was one which the- Miaistry
ought not to have entered into witluutt the previous
approval of the House and of public opinion.
Mr. NEWOEGATE lamented that fitiiher time had not
been given for the oonsideration of the tieAtYl Tbefe
Was no reason N'Aiateier sVlij'r it Shoilid have been put
tints early. Mr. Cobden had, he declared, got the
House into a very pretty fix. The House was trapped,
in fact, and he thanked Mr. Disraeli for interposing, if
only for a few hours to allow more time for reflection.
Mr. AYILTON said that, in this present proceeding, the
Government had forsaken all precedent, and entered
upon a course altogether new. He demanded that' the
treaty should be substantially brought, in the first in-
stance,-before them, and he therefore should vote for the
resolution. The various interests affected by the treaty
had A right to be heard before MO pledged themselves
to a definite course with regard to the duties affected by
it

Mr. MALINS said the treaty had excited the apprehen-
sions and jealousies of the people, and it was not a
puerile proposition to demand that the opinion of Par-
liament should be taken before they pledged themselves
to serious reductions in the revenue.

Mr. BRIGIL r reprobated the resolution as attempting
to do by a side-wind what wonid have been done in a
more manly and straightfontard tome. tegditi-
tion of M. Dd. ethic. As a free-trader, he should give
the budget his decided support.

Mr. S. FITZGERALD took Up the coal question. lie
said that a steam fleet was useless without good coal ;
that it could only be got from England; and that we
were depriving.oursolves et' the advantage voikieil nature
had given us. Were the)', or Ai-e0 thOi ridt; td liOe the
opportunity dr eipibssiiig their opinions on this article?
\V were they to' be able to express their opinion on
the clause having reference to shipping.

Lord J. Russ-Era, said that the effect of the resolution
was to declare that the rights of the Crown were not
valid without the consent of the House. How could
they propose to go through every article of a treaty,
half of which depended upon the prerogative of the
Crown and half upon the consent of the Le,gislatoro
Mr. Pitt, in the year 1787, only asked the assent
of the'llonse of Commons to those articles *Ma *ere
within its competence. He assmicd that the right Course
was the one noW adopted by the Ministry to bring
forward first those articles requiring the assent of Par-
liament. and thus giving an opportunity to the House
to express their opinion on the whole. There were
those who declared whenever France mado a movement
that she meant war. llis belief was that the Emperor
now felt and recognised- the advantages of free trade.
He agreed with Mr. Bright that the more easy coarse
was that proposed by Mr. 1)u Cane, and reprobated tht
attempt to embarrass the house by tlin tains Of the
resolution now before theni.
Mr, .mTzett when the 7Atth article nt
the treaty especially required the assent of Parliament,
to hear that the article was to bear the limited construc-
tion now put upon it. He declared the conduct of Mr.
Pitt to have been respectful to the country and to the
House; while the secrecy on the present occasion—first
in the negotiation, and then in the execution of the
treaty, and present postponement of the treaty—to the
budget, showed that there was something ill the trans
action which would not bear the light. He protested
against the advantage that would he given by this treaty
to t military and already too predominant power. How
were they to take in all the political considerations in-
volved upon a discussion of tire budget—in itself a most
important one, and demanding separate examination ?
Tie compared the budget with the financial reforms of
Sir R. Peel—saying that Sir R. Peel was like a gentle-
man who spent money on his estate to obtain a large
r.,turn ; while th© Chancellor of the Exchequer spent
the estate itself, and then went. upon the highway and
robbed the first coining, He ended by prOtesting against
the present state of things, involving the expenses both
of peace.and war.
LOta PALM RALSTON, with much warmth, said that if
the proposal of the resolution was that they were to go
article by article through the treaty, it was unquestion-
ably unconstitutional. It was only in committee on the
Customs that the articles could he discussed that were
the foundation of the treaty. The resolution ought to
he withdrawn at once as a childish interniptioti of
business. It was the intention of the Gavernment, he
repeated, to bring the treaty by address under the
cognisance of Parliament, as Mr. Pitt had-- done
in 17874 In reply to Mr. Heilman, he said that his
arguments went to forbid intercourse with France al-
together. He asserted that Mr. Gladstone in his budget
had strictly followed the precedent of Sir Peel.
The House divided, when the amendment was re-
jected by 293 to 230.
Mr. Du LAYS gave notice that in committee on the
customs, this day, he should move a resolution,, in ternis
as nearly similar as possible to the one of which be had
already given notice, as the forms of the House would
allow.
The Heine then went into committee on the Customs
Act pro formi, and immediately resumed.
The report of the Committee of Supply was then
brought up,
The House adjourned. at five minutes to one.

A SUICIDE'S GHOST LAID.---The case of Scully v.
Ingram, of which our readers may have observed fre-
quent notices of late, has just been settled. It is curious
enough that on the very anniversary of Sadleir's death
acase arising out of one of his frauds should be under
discussion in an English law court. The plaintiff was
Mr. Vincent Scully, member for the county of Cork ;
the defendant, Mr. Herbert Ingram, the mem-
scnily £9,000. In that year an
ber for Boston, and proprietor of the well-known
illustrated weekly paper. In the year 1851 John
Mr.
srilie Castle Hyde Estate, in the county
vhStneliceauretlst(l)hyfae't e back
eoS;*at(l3Citicoe'rrkk,lolw:waedsil for sale. Mr. Scully had £lO,OOO at his
disposal, which sum, together with the above debt of
£9,000, made £19,000. For this the Castle Hyde Estate
could be bought, and Mr. Scully gave directions to John
Sadlier accordingly. Sadlier bought in the estate as
directed, but he was not ready with the £9,000, and it
was resolved to resell the estate. This, too, was done.
some
1 11l i d negotiate with Mr. Ingram
satentlieyasdt,esiSraeddliteor
Mr. Ingram was the purciih:3:lslsde2r,
i—nMst°rh'e county. Sadlier
Early in 1853 it
bittnhoe feelio:rumntrloecelhadtahshi:efi otrnt;
was agreed that Mr. Ingram should convey the estate
hack to Mr. Scully for £25,000. Mr. Ingrain held
himself forth as the owner of the estate. Two
afterwards Mr.
or three days Ingram had re-
solved to raise the price. He afterwards evinced
an apparent disinclination to part with the property on
any terms. Matters remained in this unsatisfactory con-
dition until after Sadleir's suicide, when it appeared that
Mr. Ingram had never actually become the purchaser of
the estate, and that Mr. Scully haul been the subject of
a very gross mystification. , The only question *as
whether Mr. Ingrain was really aware of what had
been done; was he particeps crintinis or co-dupe with
Mr. Scully ? The decision of a jury was ad-
verse to Mr. Ingram, who obtained a new trial ;
but the charge of fraud against 111. r. Ingram has now
been withdrawn, and the pecuniary question between
the parties is left to arbitration ; 50 the ghost of John
Sad& has been laid once more,