Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-02-18 00:00:00

NORTHERN DAIL/ TIMES.

and yet unless this was done, the House would be de-
prived of its greatest privileges. On Monday they were
to go into committee on the Customs Act, which would

give only a limited opportunity of considering the points
of the treaty. There were many with which the Customs
were not concerned. The subject of coal and of the dif-
ferential duties on shipping were in no way connected
with the Cooorns. He wished to know if the Govern-
ment would give the House the opportunity of consider-
ing the whole subject, as Mr. Pitt had done ?
Mr. HousmAw asked Why the Government resorted to
a treaty for what could be done without one. 'Recipro=—
city treaties were utterly antiquated and out of date.
Why should this take this exceptional course and permit
a foreign power to intrude into our domestic affairs. It
was a question whether the Crown in the treaty did not
exceed its powers and fetter the legislative action of the
country.

Mr. AYRTON likewise urged that a due reciprocity was
not carried out in the treaty, and that its provisions
ought to be brought as a whole before the House.

Mr. NEWDEGATE made similar objections to fettering
the future action of the legislature.
Mr. LAING, in reply to a former question, said that
the provision of the budget affecting license to eating-
houses would be essentially modified before it was for-
mally presented to the House.

Lord A. VANE urged that the subject of the treaty
should be brought in its entirety before the House.
Mr. BOUVERIE thought that we ought to discuss our
own domestic interests first, and then discuss the treaty.
We must first pronounce upon the duties to be remitted
on sole regard to British interests, and then to decide
upon the treaty.
Lord J. MANNERS denied that this was the legitimate
course of proceeding. Opportunity ought first be given
to the house to pronounce aye or nay upon the treaty.
Lord J. RUSSELL made some explanations.
Mr. HARDY observed that the present Government
had so mixed up the treaty and the budget as to make
them inseparable. He contended that they ought to
consider the treaty in the first instance.

Vv
On the order of the day for ping into committee of
supply,
Lord PALMERSTON admitted the necessity of the
consent of Parliament to the treaty. The only question
was as to the order in which it was to be taken.
If they had first demanded the sanction
of the house to the treaty they would have been
met by the objections that they asked for one vote
on. a matter comprising many details which
ought to be first considered and determined. This was
the course adopted by Mr. Pitt. The Government
assuredly would not shrink from the duty of giving the
house a full opportunity of saying aye or nay to the
treaty. • •
Mr. DISRAELI said that what he wanted to know was
the form and mode the treaty would be brought forward,
so that they might pronounce upon its details. The course
proposed was inconvenient, as they would part with a
larger portion of revenue before agreeing to the treaty.
On the motion for going into Committee of Supply,
various remarks and observations were made respecting
the disembodiment of the militia, the expenses of the
Chinese expedition, and the article respecting coal in
the commercial treaty. On this last point,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that this article was inserted
without any political motives whatever. By a treaty
concluded last year by Lord' Malmesbury with Russia,
there was a clause virtually engaging us not to prohibit
the export of coal to Russia.. The principle, therefore,
was not a new one. _ _

Sir H. CAIRNS declaimed against our tying our hands
as we did by this treaty.
After some further debate, the House went into Com-
mittee of Supply.
Mr. S. HERBERT moved the Army estimates. The
entire estimate for the present year amounted to
£1,1,842,265, being an increase of £1,982,978 over the
estimates of lasf year. The estimates were the largest;
that had been presented since the Russian war. The
principal item of increase lay in warlike stores,
due to the great expense of rifled cannon. The in-
crease in this item alone was above a million.
He defended the conduct of the Government in disem-
bodying the militia, on the ground that we ought not,
in time of peace to draw upon our resources for the
time of war. He thought, therefore, that the embodi-
ment of the militia in time of peace was wrong in
principle. When they were embodied during the war
with Russia, it was mainly to furnish recruits for the
line. He then went into a multitude of details respect-
ing the proportion of soldiers to the population in
different parts of the country ; the development
of soldiers ; improvements in arms and accoutrements ;
Aldershott; the mode of payment of soldiers, in
which he hoped to introduce great improve-
ments in clothing ; which had already been much.
improved; the Enfield and Whitworth rifles—the com-
parison of which had been referred to a military commit-
tee. He gave a very favourable comparison of mortality
among the army compared with that of former years,
though something was due to the fact that since the Crimean
war the army consisted of younger men. After giving
reason why the yeomanry were called out this year, he
said. that, with reference to the volunteers, nothing
could exceed the importance of their organisation. It
was of more consequence that the various corps should
be permanent than that they should be numerous.
Men who procured their own outfit would be more
zealous and more fond of their occupation. Hence too
large subscriptions were to. be deprecated. Governmant
was anxious to give them all possible assistance in train-
ing (more dificult with irregular than with regular
troops,) this was of more importance than good
shooting. The best skirmishers in existence were
the French tirailleurs and they were also the
worst shots. He then went into a variety of
details respecting the manufacture of artillery, con-
gratulating the country on the progress which artillery
practice had made, and the high point it had reached.
He was well pleased with the success which had
lately attended the trial of the Whitworth gun,
but it should be recollected Sir William Armstrong
had never yet made guns for purposes of range. The
difference between, the two was not in construction, but
in rifling ; but the one could be adapted to the other.
Supplies of the Enfield rifle were now availabe to
all the regular troops, the militia, the volunteers, and
a good stock would remain on hand. He detailed
improvements in our establishments, our arsenal, our
barracks, &c. After again apologising for the amount
of the estimates, which were no more than it was his
duty to propose, he concluded by moving the first vote
of 143,362 men.
A miscellaneous discussion followed, in which
Sir R. PEEL protested energetically against the increase
of the national expenditure. He proceeded, amidst
great laughter, to indicate the way in which the volun-
teer movement was carried out. .

After some further discussion, the vote was agreed to ;
and the second vote of £4,499,636 for pay and
allowances. _ _

After considerable discussion, the Chairman reported
progress, and
The house then adjourned at five minutes to one
o'clock,

PETITION AGAINST THE BUDGET.

MERCANTILE MARINE SERVICE ASSOCIATION
OF LIVERPOOL.
To the Right Honourable the Commons of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament
assembled.
The humble petition of the Mercantile Marine Service
Association of Liverpool

Sheweth,
That your petitioners' association has been formed
with a view to guard the interests and advance the
character and reputation of British seamen, and consists
of upwards of 1,200 members.
That at a general meeting of\ the association it has
been unanimously resolved, that the third article of the
proposed treaty with France, if sanctioned, would do a
flagrant injustice, and be most prejudicial, to the in-
terests of the mercantile marine of this country in
particular, and of the nation in general, by perpetuating
the restriction of the employment of British mariners
in the trade with France, and so curtailing that nursery
for British seamen, the want of which is so severely felt
and complained of at the present time.
Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that Parlia-
ment will please not to sanction such third article of the
proposed treaty. (Signed),
1333NTAMIN SPROULE, Chairman.