The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-09 00:00:00

IFIE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 9, 1860.

with France, as it was at present. The navigation laws with
regard to the French trade were divided into four heads.
There was the direct trade between this country and France,
in which the ships of either country might load in our ports
the manufactures and produce of England for F. ance with-
out being subject to any differential duties. Then there
was the French coasting trade, which was confined entirely
to Freach ships. There was also the indi ct trade, viz.,
that between our dependencies and France ~ d the trade be-
tween those dependencies and the mother country,into which,
so far as we were concerned, the ships of France were per-
mitted to enter freely, as they were permitted also to com-
pete in our coasting trade. They might go to Calcutta or
Australia and load upon the same terms as English ships to
English ports, and under their own laws for their own ports,
although British ships loading from the same places were
prevented by high differential duties from loading for the
ports of France. And, next, there was the indirect trade as
between foreign countries and France. Under the recipro-
city treaties, an American ship might load from any port of
America to any port of France; but when a British ship
loaded a cargo from an American for a French port, the
duty charged in France was so high as to be practically a
prohibition. This restrictive course of commercial policy was
no gain to France, but was was in fact more injurious and
unjust to her own people than to us. This was proved by the
results, for while the general trade and commerce of France
had increased at a greater rate than that of any other coun-
try in Europe, not excepting even England, her shipping
had remained almost at a stand-still. From 1827 to 1836
the trade of France had increased as compared with the
previous ten years by 10,000,000,000 f. In the next ten
years, from 1837 to 1846, the increase was 15,000,000,000 f.,
and from 1847 to 1856, the increase had been
22,000,000,000 f. And this was in regard to the special com-
merce of France only—that was to say, the commerce in
articles imported for the use and consumption of her own
people, or for their own manufactories for after export. If
they turned to the general trade, the increase was still more
astonishing. Yet her shipping remained without progress.
In 1830 France held 14,852 ships, and in 1857 the number
was only 14,845. True, they were of larger tonnage to some
extent in the latter years, as compared with the former.
(Hear.) But compare the total tonnage of the French mer-
cantile marine with ours. France did not possess one-sixth
of the tonnage of England, or more than two-thirds that of
New York. In 1787 France had engaged in the trade with
San Domingo alone 527 ships, embracing 167,000 tons, and
employing 8,500 seamen; while, in 1830, engaged in the
trade of all her colonies she had only 407 ships, comprising
100,000 tons, and employing 6,000 seamen. He was fully
justified, then, in saying that the people of France had the
greatest right to complain of laws which produced results
such as this. But we had also reason to complain that,
although we had thrown open our ports to her ships, and
had allowed her to share freely with us in our coasting
trade, she had not made to us the slightest concession.
(Hear, hear.) And it was essential, if the treaty, which he
hopedwould be confirmed, was to produce the beneficial re-
sults expected from it, that some change should be made by
France in her navigation laws. If those laws remained as
they were, and the trade between the two countries increased,
as they hoped it would under this treaty, large quantities of
silk and wine would be exported from French ports to Eng-
land, and of British manufactures to French ports—mostly,
he apprehended, in steamers. A French ship might load
from any English port, and carry her cargo part to one French
port and part to another ; but if an English ship loaded a
cargo at Liverpool for France, part of it consigned to Havre
and part to Bordeaux, she might go to the one port, but
when she attempted to go on to the other and land hergoods
there, both ship and cargo would be confiscated. Then again
the wine and silks of France would not always be paid for in
our manufactures, but sometimes by the sugars and coffees of
India. But a French merchant, if he sold his wine or silk to
a London house—shipped in a British ship, and to be paid
for in Calcutta sugar—could not bring the return cargo to
the port of France in an English ship. It was obviously
necessary, therefore, that there should be some change in
the law as regarded the indirect trade, more so than in the
direct trade, or the commerce between the two nations
would be unduly impeded and restricted. He had placed on
the paper a notice which according to the rules of the house,
it being an addition to an address, he believed must be
taken as an amendment, though he had not intended it as
such. He wished to see the treaty ratified, but was at the
same time anxious, in justice to the English shipowner,
that some change should be made at the same time in the
French navigation laws. With that view he desired to
pass a resolution expressing the feelings of the House of
Commons on the subject of those navigation laws, believ-
ing as he did that such an expression of opinion would have
due weight with the Emperor of the French. He did not
ask that English shipping should be placed on the same
terms in all respects in France with French shipping, but
that the colonial and indirect trade should be placed on the
same footing as the direct trade. He was, however, most
desirous to avoid going to a division on the question, the
result of which might be misunderstood, and he thought he
should best consult the interest of the shipowners of Eng-
land by accepting the offer made by the noble lord (Lord
J. Russell) the other night, of the opportunity on some
future occasion to bring forward a question in the shape of
a substantive motion, in which he hoped to have the noble
lord's support.
Mr. PEACOCK was opposed to the treaty because he
did not think our commercial relations with foreign coun-
tries ought to be made the subject of treaties, and that we
should not make remissions of duties unless such remis-
sions could be justified on their own merits. Had such a
proposition been brought forward by the Conservatives it
would have been denounced by Mr. Bright and his friends
as opposed to the principles of political economy, and as
throwing back free-trade principles in France by at least
twenty years, as he (Mr. Peacock) firmly believed would
be the case. He objected to this treaty because it put it
out of the power of Parliament to revise this treaty for ten
years. He was glad that he had the authority of Mr.
Canning to support him in the view of the matter which he
took, for when upon a former occasion the Dutch had en-
deavoured to treat us as we were now treated in the case of
France, that great statesman had humorously embodied his
opinions on the subject in the following lines in his well-
known despatch :
" In matters of commerce the fault of the Dutch
Is giving too little and asking too much.
With equal advantage the French are content,
So we'll clap on Dutch bottoms a twenty per cent."
(Hear.) 'lt was an excellent treaty for France, but there
was very little reciprocity in it. The three most powerful
interests in France were the priesthood, the army, and the
manufacturers. They knew what the feeling of the army
was ; the feelings of the priesthood they had all gathered
from the articles of M. Veuillot, in the Univers ; and he
believed that this treaty alone was wanting to unite the ma-
nufacturers with the other classes in hostility to this country.
Mr. CLAY rose to add his approval, however little it
might be worth, to this treaty. In Hull, one of the last
places in which it might have been expected it would be re-
ceived with favour, it had been warmly approved. It was
the first step which had been taken in France towards free
trade, which had long been the Englishman's creed, and it
was impossible that that step should be taken without pro-
gress being made in free trade, which might extend to Eu-
rope generally.
Mr. B. COCHRANE did not see how we could have a
commercial treaty without a bargain. The authority of
Pitt had been quoted in favour of a treaty with France. He
would quote the words of Fox, which ought to have more
authority with the noble lord opposite. In 1787 Mr. Fox
said the object of France was to put us off our guard, and to
prevent our cultivating alliances with other States. He re-
gretted that the noble lord did not avail himself of the ne-
gotiations of this commercial treaty to throw greater obsta-
cles than he had done in the way of the annexation of Savoy
to France. There was a greas difference between 1860 and
1787. In 1787 there was a surplus of a million and a half ;
in 1860 there was a deficit of 10 millions. In 1787 Holland
occupied the position in reference to the two countries that
Savoy did now. It was proposed by France to interfere in
Holland, and in 1787 it was proposed that there should be a
mutual disarmament of the two countries. In 1860 we had
double estimates. It had so happened that all the protesta-
tions of Napoleon 111. had been falsified by the result. This
treaty bound us to a certain extent to his policy, and he be-
lieved the result of it would be that we should be left with-
out a single ally in Europe.
Mr. W. EWART said the hon. gentleman's allusion to
Mr. Fox's authority was a very unfortunate one, because,
while Mr. Pitt was making that extraordinary voyage into
the realms of sound principles, to which reference had so
often been made, Mr. Fox had not read a single page of
Adam Smith, and was profoundly ignorant of politicafeco-
nomy. He (Mr. Ewart) should support the treaty both be-
cause it was a measure of peace, and because it was a mea-
sure for the extension of commerce. (Hear.) It was only just
to the Emperor to say that the principles on which he now
acted were principles which he had professed when he was
President of the Republic. In 1852 a witness who was a
large wine grower, told the committee which sat to consider
our eommercial relations with France that he had had an
interview with the President, and that he (the President)
had remarked that the best treaty that could possibly be
entered into between France and England would be an ex-
tended trade. (Hear, hear.) It was said that the English
people would never drink French wines, and that might be
quite true, so far as regarded vin ordinaire and piquette,
but there were extensive districts between the Rhine and
Bayonne, which produced wines peculiarly suited for Eng-
lish consumption. Besides, it must be remembered that the
people of this country used to like French wine, in proof of
which he need not cite so well-known a writer as Chaucer.
In the first act of William and Mary, it was declared that
the trade in French wines was "a common nuisance;" but
the wants of in inkind would always defeat the ingenuity of
opv,thr,aze
seleesdsgttritiselhllyaeetend;xe,i, and accordingly they found in another act,
year, a complaint that quantities of French
in, and that it was not " staved, split, burnt,
as haeertdiew as
been
against Portuguese
by the previous enact-
ment. -When the celebrated Methuen treaty was made
athmeornegwstereotmhearnithptton Portuguese wines ; and
signeor
by
the now port-drinking
University of Oxford,
) H :3‘ Ht
Dr. Aldrich,
the composer
of the well-known round,
merry Christchurch
y the licensinge hane
qcouuerldhnaodt dsoeneewwheyllatgo
°raves:lolu,
bells." (Hear, hear.
11orsyosftenthi e;
for instance, should
nfEoorxt chbheee able to refresh herself with a glass of wine at a con-
fectioner's. He thought, too, that the treaty would bLifound
to have a very beneficial effect upon'the taste
of
manufacturers. Much had been done with a view to 4 inabout that desirable end ; but no plan could be adopteds'o
likely to prove efficacious as to bring them under the influ-
ence of free competition. (Hear, hear.) It had been well
sail that there were no persons so interested in the put-
ting down of monopolies as the landlords, who were the
great consumers of the public, and he (the hon. member)
hoped, therefore, that they would now come forward and
vindicate their rights as English freemen by joining in the
attack that was being made upon the monopolies that re-
mained. (Hear, hear.) As a friend of peace, he rejoiced
that the treaty had been sigded. A poet of the last century,
who was not now so much read as he deserved, told us that—
" Gaul in times of antique story
Was closely linked with this now adverse strand,
And Frank and Briton in those ages hoary
Tred with unwetted foot from land to land."
He trusted that though the two countries were no longer
linked together by a physical tie, they would long be bound
to each other by mutual feelings, by mutual interests, and
he hoped hereafter by mutual freedom. (Cheers.) He con-
gratulated his hon. friend (Mr. Cobden) on the part he had
taken in bringing about so important and gratifying a con-
summation, and he was sure the hon. gentleman would feel
to his last moment that he had done good not merely to
France and to England but to mankind. (Cheers.)
Mr. MAGUIRE, as an Irish member, should give his
most cordial support both to the treaty and to the budget of
which it formed a part. (Hear.) He did not apprehend any
political inconvenience from the treaty, but, on the con-
trary, he believed that it would prove highly beneficial to
the whole of the United Kingdom. No doubt it was an in-
consistency to have a war budget and a peace treaty; but
it was one for which the Government was not in the least
responsible. They had done no more than act in obedience
to the feelings of alarm and suspicion which seemed to per-
vade all classes in this country with regard to the present
oo(rnr
betyahre.‘yhulbleattirm.)oat_e policy of the Emperor of the French.
D.,Tevertheless, it was not by improved rifles
w rth. alld &matron guns, by uew lice-of-bat-

it reminded him of Swift's story, when he talked of the fears
of the people of Laputa, who, although they enjoyed many
advantages of soil and climate, yet were perpetually troub-
lingthemselves with the apprehension that some day or other
therays of the sun would be excluded, and they should be
unable to derive any warmth or light from its rays.
(Hear, hear.) Bearing on all the objections which had been
urged, he would ask the house whether they believed the
treaty was right in principle, and if carried out fairly and
honourably, would conduce to the advantage of the two con-
tracting parties. Did they believe it had been entered into in
a sprit of friendship and in the hope that a cordial alliance
might be concluded between the people of the two countries,
and that it would bear the scrutiny of time and the judgment
of posterity ? if the house could return an affirmative on
these points, he asked them for their co-operation in the ad-
dres he was about to place in the Speaker's hand. They
had all probably consulted the precedent of 1787, but they
thought the address moved for at that time deserved a pass-
ing notice. The right hon. member for Bucks took a techni-
cal objection to the words of that treaty, but he (Mr. Byng)
• found, upon reference, that it breathed the same spirit of
to alty to the throne which animated the address ofto-night.
ear, hear.) But he felt he had another duty to perform.
f it were true that'the man ought to be considered a bene-
factor of mankind who made two blades of grass spring up
where only one formerly grew, he (the hon. member) thought
a man was not less worthy to be considered a wise and useful
citizen in his generation who gave up his time, health, for-
tune, and the mere precious treasures of private interest, to
carry out what he believed to be for the benefit of his coun-
try. They had seen such a man, and seen him rewarded in
the successful results of the efforts he had made. But not
contented with his position, he sought a wider scene of
action, and wished that other countries should receive the
benefits which had accrued to his own. There might be dif-
ferences of opinion with regard to this treaty. On the one
hand people would be found to over-estimate its
advantages, and, on the other hand, some would
underrate its benefits, but he believed they were
all united in thinking that, during the last few months,
a wise and practical part had been played by the
hon. member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden)—(cheers)—and if
the commercial treaty bore the good fruits which many an-
ticipated, he did nut think it would least redound to the
credit of the Commons of England that these negotiations
have been entered into, and this treaty has been in the main
concluded, by one of its own number. (Cheers.) In con-
clusion he would respectfully appeal to hon. gentlemen on
the Government side of the house not to allow individual
discrepancies of opinion to prevent their joining with him in
this address. To those who sat opposite he would hold a
different language. He would ask that great historieal
party—the conservative gentlemen of England—to approach
this discussion in a spirit and tone worthy of the importance
of the subject. He would ask them to lay aside private in-
terest and partyprejudice while they discussed the question.
It would be impossible to stifle discussion in that house, and
it ought never to be attempted, but he would ask hon. mem-
bers to give a vote upon the present occasion which they
ceuld hereafter look to with genuine pride and lively satis-
faction. (Hear, hear.) If they object to the treaty finan-
cially, commercially, politically, morally, or sociallylet them
return an indignant negative to his proposition. (Hear,
hear.) If they believed that in these negotiations the honour
and dignity of the English Crown and English interests
had suffered, and that the Government had shown them-
selves inadequate to their position, let them displace the Go-
vernment; and although he thought the country would not
ratify such a proceeding—(hear, hear)—still the people
would understand the manliness and straightforwardness of
that step. (Hear, hear.) But if they believed, as he was
confident the great majority of the house did, that the treaty
would be beneficial to the interests of both England and
*France, then he would ask them to approach the sovereign
with the proposed address, and to express with him by their
votes a hope that, under thei blessing of Providence, those
two great nations might yet be more firmly united by com-
mon bonds, resting on identity of interests and reciprocity
of benefits, and that they would continue to act as they
had hitherto done, as the pioneers of civilisation and pro-
gress in all parts of the habitable globe. (Cheers.) The
hon. member concluded by proposing the address to her
Majesty.
Mr. BAINES, in seconding the motion, said he had great
satisfaction in joining his hon. friend in asking the house
to give its approbation to a treaty which was framed to
unite in ties of friendship, and to advance the prosperity of
the two greatest nations in the world. He felt that her
Majesty had conferred another great boon upon her sub-
jects by entering into the treaty ; and it was due to her
that they should express their grateful thanks to her for it.
History would mention the treaty as among the memorable
events of her bright and ;happy reign. (Hear, hear.) In
expressing, as he did, the sentiments of his constituents
upon that treaty, he believed he was speaking not merely
for a great town possessing a considerable variety of impor-
tant branches of industry, but also for allthe great branches
of industry in Yorkshire, Lancashire, and generally for the
northern and midland counties of England. He might
venture to say that by all those engaged in the manufac-
ture of cotton, woollen, worsted, linen, leather, porcelain,
cutlery and hardware, and, in fact, all the great branches
of English industry, the treaty was regarded as a means
for opening new markets for their several commodities,
and as a new pledge for the maintenance of peace. (Hear,
hear.) He might mention that, although many articles of
English manufacture ware displayed in the French Exhi-
bition of 1855, none of, them were permitted to be sold.
The customs laws of France prohibited their intro-
duction, and they had only been admitted by special license,
as samples for the inspection of French manufacturers.
That circumstanee alone showed that there was not that
perfect alliance between the two nations which ought to
exist. No one could deny that commerce was the best
guarantee for peace, and the present treaty had been nego-
tiated for the express purpose of remedying the defect he
had pointed out. The exports to France were disgracefully
insignificant compared with the vast commercial resources
of the two countries. In 1859 the total exports from England
to different parts of the world amounted to £30,440,000, of
which France, their nearest and wealthiest neighbour, only
took £4,740,000, and it was that inequality which led her
Majesty's Ministers to seize upon the first opportunity for
placing their commercial relations with that country on a
better footing. In 1858 the imports into the United King-
dom from France were £13,271,000, but the exports of Bri-
tish and Irish produce to France did not exceed £4,863,000,
or little more than one-third. While in 1859 their exports
of British manufactures and produce to France amounted
to £4,740,000, in the same year their exports to other coun-
tries were u follows :—United States, £22,701,000 ; Nor-
thern Germany, which had a much smaller population than
France? £11,777,000; Australia, with a population of one or
two millions, £11,255,000; Holland, Ve,379,000 ; Turkey,
£3,762,000 ; Russia, £3,493,000 ; Brazil, £3,386,000 ;
Egypt and Arabia, £2,190,000. Therefore the mutually
beneficial intercourse between England and Prance was im-
measurably below what ought to be expected, considering
the natural advantages of both countries. Pitt's celebrated
treaty with France of 1786-7 worked well until hostilities un-
happily broke out between the two nations, their trade with
each other having in that interval continually and rapidly
increased. Since that period we had had two kinds of ex-
perience ; first, twenty years of desolating war, by which
the two countries were greatly affected, and civilisation and
Christianity seriously retarded ; and, next, forty years of
commercial reforms, which had now their close in this
treaty, which threw open England to the industry of the
whole world. (Hear, hear.) It did not throw down all the
barriers in France, but, in proportion, the French advance
was greater than ours. Did not experience prove that they
could take that step in favour of commercial freedom with
perfect safety, and did they not by taking it encourage other
nations to follow their example ? (Hear.) The various in-
terests in England which had been deprived of protection
had, with some partial and temporary exceptions, been in a
much more flourishing condition than they were under pro-
tection. (Hear, hear.) The rent roll of landlords had in-
creased, the farmer had more abundant produce and a larger
income, the manufacturer a greater extension of his opera-
tions, and the merchant and tradesman a great increase of
prosperity. In fact, every interest had greatly benefitted
by the change. There were also social and constitutional
results. The population was much more contented than
when under protection, and those dangerous conflicts of class
against class, of the bread eater against the bread grower,
had entirely ceased. They had also been enabled to enlarge
the basis of the constitution, and it was a singular honour
and felicity to the noble lord the member for the City of
London that he was able to present himself to the house, and
to
receive the appropriate reward of a long course of consis-
tent patriotism by holding in one hand the treaty with
France, and in the other the new Reform Bill. (Hear.) The
French, it must be admitted, possessed great advantages,
and were pre-eminently successful in some branches
of
manufacture. They had great naturalsin ttaste, were very in-
genious, and were remarkable for Some English
manufacturers were ignorant and conceitedns, enough to think
they could bear away the palm from the rteoengcho,tobuFtraithiecye
were utterly mistaken, they would have
and learn how to improve themselves. confessed that
he thought our competition with French manufacturers
would be of infinite advantage to us, because we had
mous substantial ad vantages on our side. We her ary;
immense accumulated capital —we had iron of
excellent quality in abundance ; we had coal, which with
most
iron was one of the main agents of manufacturing industry,
and in mechanical invention and in the construction of ma-
chinery we were unapproached by any other country. There
was also no labourer that excelled the English labourer,whe
was remarkable for skill, industry, and endurance; and,
further, that spirit of self-reliance was evinced on the part
of the British manufacturers and their labourers which
could not be found in any other country in the world. With
perfect freedom of commerce and of political institutions, we
had an impregnable position in a country open to all the
ways of the commerce of the whole world, and protected by
an invincible navy. The population among whom he chiefly
moved had an earnest and true wish to cultivate a spirit of
harmony and friendship with the great French nation, and
to forget old antipathies. He believed that the treaty was
entitled to the general and complete approbation of the pee-
ple of England, and, in conclusion, he would say that the
utmost reach of their historical and political experience
brought them to appreciate the old doctrine and simple in•
junction which might be taken for the motto of a treaty 01
"Thou halt love thy neighbour as thy self."

(Cheers.)
Mr. LINDSAY said that the treaty with France in 1786-7
was in all respects a treaty of reciprocity, both as regarded
commerce and navigation, and, therefore, it differed from the
present treaty. They had been often invited to accept the
latter treaty as a guarantee of peace between England and
France, but they must not forget that within four years of
the ratification of the treaty of 1786-7, which bound the two
nations together by a much stronger tie, a most fearful war
broke out between the two countries. Nevertheless, he felt
be'und to accept the treaty now before the house, and he
omffr. hiserec!_
best thanks to the Government, and especially to
Cobden, for the way in which they had negotiated it.
shornh...
did_ not contain all he desired—it was very far
B:casne—wbinut it placed England in a better position than
give larger sources of employment to
her people, andwo'lld
He therefore feltru%
the
r:,t new markets for her commeto call their attention
to ptort the treaty. But he wished
n
maritime be *rd article, and to refer, more
especially, to the
of the question. Article
one provided that certain artiealrengimported from the United
Kingdom, but hitherto practicall r(;)uhitited, should hence-
forth be admitted on payment of in no case exceed-
ing 30 pericent.,and taking that article in conjunction with
differential
the third article, which had refereneeint
seem that
duties in favour of French shipping—it wootulli
this third article was especially directed again
shipping. The fact, however, was, that it did not alliegltish
present position of British ships in any way. By firsttherhe
article France allowed certain articles to be imported at a
duty of not more than 30 per cent., but did not define the
country of the importing ships, leaving the importer open
to send the goods m any bottoms he pleased. But for this
third article of the treaty, therefore, Dutch or American
ships would have been able to come to our ports and load
our produce and manufactures for the ports of France. The
article in question was consequently necessary to continue
to our shipping iJ2 the main points, as regarded the trade

dlesex. He thought the treaty would be the means of giv-
ing great advantages to this country and the country oppo-
site to them, and ho thought it would by degrees bind
together in bonds of amity and friendship the two peoples,
so that in the course of time they might be as one nation.
Sir H. CAIRNS said he did not rise to express dissent
to the motion of the hon. member for Middlesex. He
should regret very much if the motion were not carried.
(Hear, hear.) The rejection of the motion would be the
overthrow of this treaty. He did not desire it to be
overthrown. Fearing his assent to the motion of the
honourable member might lead to the supposition
that he approved of the treaty, he would say of it that it was
unwise in its details and ill-considered in its provisions, and
that it was not such a treaty as the trade of the country had
a right to expect. He objected to it because it was a com-
mercial treaty, for he knew that commercial treaties were
likely to lead to difficulties and embarrassments, and no one
could have pointed that out better than the two noble lords
opposite. (Hear, hear.) To say that a commercial treaty
could not be justified would be to apply in an extreme and
violent manner a perfectly good and abstract rule. Commer-
cial treaties must depend upon their special circumstances,
and he would confess that any arrangement which would
tend to draw closer the commerce between the two countries
was desirable, and everything which had been said of the
relative positions of France and England for the interchange
of their products and the little trade which had hitherto been
carried on between the two countries, they all knew and felt
to be true. Ho could recollect when in 1840-41 they tried to
bring about a better state of things, and he knew that efforts
were again made in 1853, which only terminated by a re-
neeval of the Government from office by which those efforts
were being made. In this respect he was entirely ready to
go the full length of giving credit to the Government for
their desire to increase the commerce between the two coun-
tries. But he did not admire the bargain which the Go-
vernment had made for this country. It was said there had
been no bargain ; but he would ask, if no bargain was made,
what was the use of a treaty at all ? What was the mean-
ing of the instructions given to the negotiators, which said
that, provided they could obtain certain reductions, they
might take off certain duties. Was not that a bargain ? His
objection to the treaty was not that it was a bargain, but
that it was a very bad bargain for England. No doubt ar-
rangements had been made which would be beneficial for
certain branches of trade, but other branches were left out
of consideration. The house expected to hear from the hon.
member for Sunderland the grounds upon which he was
prepared to move an amendment to the address, but the hon.
gentleman had deferred them to a future day, and therefore
he might perhaps be allowed to mention one fact upon this
subject. He had been shown the rates of freight on ships
loading at the Mauritius. English ships there loading, to
discharge at English ports, obtained freights at from 10s. to
20s. per ton; and side by side were French ships, which
would be at liberty to discharge at any English ports, or
French ports, and which were obtaining freights at 455.
per ton, or about 150 per cent. higher than English ships.
If this treaty came into operation, French ships would be
greatly engaged in the cotton carrying trade between the
United States and Liverpool. The Government said this
was not a treaty of navigation but of commerce. Then how
came it that there had been inserted in itan article of nevi-
gation.and not of commerce ? What right had their pleni
potentiary in negotiating a treaty of commerce to insert an
article of navigation ? If the Government said he had that
• right, had he not also a right to ask for a reduction of these
differeetial duties ? Well, did he ask fir and press for the
abolition of these duties ? (Hear, hear.) What he com-
plained of was that those who negotiated the treaty had not
shown that they made any suggestion on this subject, or
that they had that object in view. No effort had been made
to obtain any alteration of these duties, and apparently with-
out remonstrance and without a struggle, French shipping
obtained an indirect and tacit assent in an English treaty
to these obnoxious and excessive privileges. (Hear, hear )
• He would next refer to the way in which a very important
staple manufacture—the all-important staple of Ireland—
' was dealt with in this treaty. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer on the financial night described the importance of
this manufacture, and they might have expected that the
negotiators would have exhibited some proof that the cir-
cumstances of the trade were understood and appreciated
by them. (Hear, hear.) But this was what has happened
with regard to the linen duties, and it was a matter of a most
singular kind. In the first despatch from Lord Cowley which
referred to the subject, he said there had been a proposal to
establish a treaty of commerce, and that the proposal was
favourably entertained by the French Government, and he
desired to know whether the gentleman who had made the
proposal was to carry it out. (Hear, hear.) He said further
that the duties on British manufactures would be at a
maximum of 30 per cent., but that the duties upon linen
would be reduced from 30 to 15 per cent. That was
the proposal entertained by the Fe ench Government, and
subsequently the treaty appeared, and the maximum duty
was 30 per cent., and not 15 per cent. ; and he did net find
from the correspondence that the government had drawn
attention to what had taken place on the subject. (Hear,
hear.) He would ask whether they were aware of the
amount of duty, and did they think it would be such as to
lead to an extension of trade. He was assured that before
the treaty the duty on fine qualities of linen was not more
than 20 per cent., and that in the case of linen yarns it was
still lower, and in some cases as low as four, three, and two
per cent. He was also assured that in future the French
manufacturer would compete with the British, and in this
way, take the linen manufactures of ordinary kinds, two-
treirds of the price of the article represented the raw mate-
rial, and one-third represented the capital, the cost of pro-
duction and profit. The raw material France could supply
and consequently the field of competition remained on the
cne-third, which represented capital, &c. He was assured
that the duty of 30 per cent. would be virtually a duty upon
the one-third part of the value of the article, and conse-
quently that would be a duty not of 30 but of 90 per cent.
(Hear, hear.) He should like to know whether the Board of
Trade was consulted on this subject. In 1840 when the
Board was engaged in negotiating a reduction of duties en
our linen manufactures, what not merely the French Go-
vernment, but even the French manufacturers, said at that
time was, that they would be perfectly satisfied With an im
port duty of 10 per cent. provided England would allow the
free exportation of machinery. The exportation of machi-
nery was now free, and yet the duty on linens imported into
France was to be 30 per cent. The Board of Trade, which
ever since 1840 had been in constant communication with the
linen manufacturers, ought to have laid before the negotia-
tors of the treaty the circumstances of the case, and pointed
out to them that a stipulation for a maximum duty of 30 per
cent. would be nugatory. The dates of the despatches af-
forded no explanation of the matter. The first communi-
cation to the Government on the subject tookplace on the
17th of January ; the treaty was concluded at Paris on
the 23d of the same month, and consequently no time was
allowed for the Board of Trade to interpose, or for the
right hon. gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) to apply his mind to
the question whether the proposed arrangement with re-
regard to the linen manufacture was a suitable one. (Hear.)
Tne manufacturers regarded it as mockery to tell them
they had obtained a boon, when all that was done was to
secure that the import duty shotild not exceed 30 per cent.
The other night the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the
Government entertained strong hopes that the Emperor of
the French would soon take measures for a return to the
moderate duties which prevailed some years ago. He
should be very glad to hear now from the right hon. gentle-
man that there was a prospect of those hopes being realised.
[The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here made an ob-
servation which was inaudible in the gallery. He was very
glad to hear that remark. If, however, a few weeks after the
negotiation was closed the French Government had inti-
mated that they were prepared to reduce the duty on linen
manufactures, and to return to the low rates which for-
merly prevailed, why, he asked, was not that reduction in-
serted in the treaty ? (Hear.) Surely a slight remonstrance
on the part of the English Government would have ob-
viated the necessity for now giving assurances that might
never be realised. There were too reaeons why he could net
feel sanguine on that point. In the first place he was struck
by the manner in which the 15 per cent. originally pro-
posed was exchanged for 30 per cent. That must, he thought,
have been done through the instrumentality of some of the
French manufacturers, and if so short a time ago they
had the:power of getting 15 per cent. turned into 30 per
cent., it appeared very doubtful whether the 30 per cent.
would be at all reduced now. (Hear, hear.) Secondly, he
saw the other claya memorial addressed by French manufac-
turers to the Minister of Commerce, in which not only was
the French Government urged not to consent to any reduc-
tion below 30 per cent., but it was suggested that as there
was going to be a commutation of duties by a supplemental
treaty, the English Government should, if possible, be
over-reached and the duty on linen made somewhat higher
than 30 per cent. The reply of the Minister of Commerce
was by no means indicative of what the Chancellor of the
Exchequer now anticipated. He said in effect,—Gentle-
men, your minds may be perfectly tranquil ; France will
always take care that the manufactures upon whom she re-
lies shall have full and ample protection. But the case
with regard to the linen manufacture did not rest there.
France was no doubt the greatest linen consumer in the
world. But the next greatest was Spain, and there was no
part of the world in which a Spanish settlement or colony
was founded where there did not immediately spring up a
demand for linen. How was it that the Government did
not offer Spain the same boon that it had offered to France,
stipulating for a reduction of the duty on linen ? It might
be that Spain would have refused to assent to the terms,
but at all events the thing was worth a trial. As regarded
future negotiations—and this led him to another part of the
treaty—very great obstacles were pladed in the way of suc-
cess. It had been pointed out, and the objection had not
been answered, that in the arrangements with regard to the
duties on wine, the Government had virtually con-
stituted a differential duty against Spain. A certain duty
was to be applied to wines of low strength. Spain had no
wines of that class to send to this country, and the conse-
quence was that the reduction of duty was more favourable
to France than to Spain. Indeed, in a despatch of the Se-
cretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Lord Cowley, dated
the 17th of January, the noble lord took credit for that pre-
ference for France. He said, "A scale thus adjusted would,
it is hard ty needful to observe, be eminently favourable to
the introduction of wines from France, as the lower wines
from that country would enter at a duty of Is." (Hear.) A
still more singular portion of the treaty was that part of it
which related to the duty on French spirits. The house
would recollect that the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) first
proposed a duty of 10s. and afterwards reduced it to Bs. 2d.
But what were the grounds on which the noble lord thought
that 10s. was the proper amount ? In his instructions to the
negotiators of the treaty he began by saying that the object
of the Government was to make an equitable adjustment of
burdens as between commodities which more or less directly
competed with one another in the general market. Having
set out with that principle, he said, "The feeling of her
Majesty's Government is that 10s. for any British purpose
would be the proper duty upon brandy." " But," he added,
" if you see, that is, if you should find that by making any
concession beyond what I have named you can obtain from
the Government an early reduction of duties on some im-
portant commodity, you are authorised to reduce the duty
on brandy to Bs. 2d." This was, he must say, a most sin-
gular instruction. They had all heard, no doubt, of rob-
bing one interest in order to pay another, but he, at all
events, never before saw so open and unblushing an in-
stance of that kind of robbery as this. (Hear.) The noble
lord admitted that the manufacturers of British spirit 4 were
entitled to a duty of 10s., but if the negotiators could ob-
tain some concession, not in favour of that trade, but of
some other trade, they were to sacrifice the manufacturer
of British spirits and to reduce the duty, which, he said,
commodity
ooho
mnoasumurl;lotddabuitetei
yotlni 00 snw. ,
iottfhot
htBhes
e.
d2undto.yb Aloencicoorrdd Frenchi
hgel Accordingly,
rni tdhyo
negotiatorsut
ota
Bs.n furtherconsented
u e
question arose,did they what
obetaarilny
n reductionretrn ? en
neon
hadint important
in vain for any case of that kind except coal, and with
regard to that the noble lord remarked in one of his des-
patches that such was the extent of the market for it both in
this Country and abroad that no public) interest would be

tle ships, or by impregnable fortresses, that we could obtain
the security we sought—we could only do so by endeavour-
ing to enlist the sympathies of the French people in favour
of kindly relations between the two countries. He did not
believe that we were nearer the end we had in view now
that we were spending £30,000,000 on our armaments
than when our expenditure was only £20,000,000; nor
did he think that, by the gallant display thathad been made
in the streets of London on the previous afternoon, we were
likely to enlist the sympathies of the French people so as
to influence the policy of the Emperor is the direction of
peace. He placed himself no trust in the Emperor, but
that was not the question with which he had now to deal.
What the house had now to consider was, how they could
lead the people of France to see that their interests were so
much in favour of friendly relations with this country that
it would not be in the power of the French Government
to cause a rupture with us ? (Hear, hear.) It was not right
to blame the Emperor for not going further than he did in
the treaty, for he had to deal with the most obstinate and
impracticable people in the world—the monopolists and
protectionists. (A laugh.) It had been said that Ireland
would not benefit by the budget, but he (the hon. member)
denied the justice of that remark, Ireland had already
benefited enormously by free trade—not so much indeed
from the advantage she had reaped to her manufactures,
but from the higher prices she had obtained for the produce
of her soil. (Hear, hear.) Take the important article of
butter, of which a million and a half pounds' worth passed
every year through Cork market. Well, the prices obtained
at Cork on the sth inst. were £6 10s. per ton for the first,
and £5 15s. for the third quality—higher prices, in fact,
than it had fetched during the war. (Hear.) Wheat, too,
was selling at more than 50s. per quarter, which was a far
larger sum than the protectionists had ever expected to get.
Free trade had saved thousands—he might say hundreds
of thousands—of human lives. In 1848 the coarsest India
meal fetched £2l per ton. He knew a parish in Kerry
where, till a supply of it was received, there had been no
food whatever for 24 hours. In that case it had cost £34
per ton, whereas it had since been imported at from £6
to £7 10s. If they had not had open ports, it was hardly
an exaggeration t') say that the people must have perished
by millions. (Hear, hear.) To show how things had
changed, he would mention a district in Cork from which,
in 1856, £70,000 worth of produce was sent to England ;
whereas now, not only was nothing exported to Eng-
land, but £lOO,OOO of articles were actually imported from
England. (Hear, hear.) The farmers and the gentry of
Ireland were never so flourishing; nor were rents ever bet-
ter paid than at this moment; and the reason was Irish in-
dustry was remunerated. (Hear, hear.) An hon. friend of
his had unv ittingly endeavoured the other evening to im-
pose upon the house the notion that Ireland would have a
very small share in the contemplated remission of duties. He
(Mr. Maguire) held in his hand an able article in the Irish
Review, in which it was shown that Ireland did not get
credit for the whole of the amount which she contributed to
the imperial exchequer. In fact, it was proved that she
paid a million a year more than she was supposed to do.
The hon. member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy) said
that out of £300,000 charged on the article of currants only
£720 was paid in the Irish custom-houses; and then he
argued that the gain to Ireland by the reduction of the duty
would be infinitesimal. But was it reasonable that Ireland,
which contained a population of six millions and a half, con-
sumed less than a four-hundredth part of the currants im-
ported into the United Kingdom ? (Hear, hear.) The ex-
planation was that the wholesale grocers of Dublin, Cork,
Belfast, and other towns in Ireland, traded with the mer-
chants of Liverpool. and thus Liverpool go` the credit of all
the duties on those trades. In the article of refined sugar,
£150,000 worth of it was imported into Ireland, for which
' all the customs duty was paid in Plymouth and Liverpool.
(Hear, hear.) I hen, again, with regard to ladies' wearing
apparel and artificial flowers, for which Ireland was set down
at an infinitesimal portion, he could state that the ladies of
Ireland were even fonder of dress than English ladies, yet
while England got credit for paying a duty of £20,452 upon
those articles, Ireland was set down as paying only £2 duty.
(A laugh.) Ii is assertion was that those articles paid duty
through the great houses in London, and were afterwards
sent into Cork and other towns in Ireland. Therefore he
said that the people of Ireland would have their fair share in'
the advantages of the remission or total abolition of duties.
Neither
fromth w i
sma was
ahseuar
efr. a i dHoef
believedany injury h
aatris
Irishin g toh 0
n elrishsty butterwouid
more than counterbalance the cheaper roguery of the foreign
makers.
Mr. DISRAELI—Tkat is a part of the budget ; we are
speaking now of the treaty.
Mr. MAGUIRE—It was a provisional part of the treaty.
There was great apprehension expressed about coal, and
• again about Irish linens. He believed that under the clauses
of this treaty Irish linens could more than compete in
France with Belgium, and he was informed that a steam
company was already being got up for the conveyance of
Irish linens from Belfast to France. (Hear) He believed
the advantages of this treaty to France would be great, and
those to England would be no less. (Hear, hear.) He
hoped to see the day when they would not have war esti-
mates in a time of peace. (Hear, hear.) If the benefits of
this treaty were realised, no minister would have the cou-
rage to stand at that table and ask for the same amount of
money which was demanded this year. (Hear, hear.) Why
was there such a close connexion between this country and
the United States ? Was it because they were of the same
religion and the same race? No—it was because the two
countries were bound up by the ties of commerce. He be-
lieved this country would yet bless the man—would yet
bless Mr. Cobden—for the promotion of this scheme, which
was calculated to effect vast good for France and for Eng-
land. He denied the truth of the assertion of the hon.
member for Maldon (Mr. Peacock) that there existed any
antipathy to this country among the two great classes in
France—the clergy and the manufacturers. The French
soldiers might want war; but he maintained that the clergy
of the great church of France, though they might and did
feel the insults which diplomacy cast at their religion, were
nevertheless anxious for peace. He did therefore firmly be-
lieve that this treaty would confer immense advantages on
both countries.
Mr. RIDLEY rose for the purpose of giving his hearty
support to this treaty, and to the financial measures of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believed that in doing so
he was acting in accordance with the wishesof the vast ma-
jority of his constituents. He thought the house might look
upon the speech of the hon. member for Dungarvan (Mr.
Maguire) as an indication that they should have an
unanimous assent to the address from the representatives of
the United Kingdom of England and Ireland. (Hear, hear.)
He was one of those who did not look for reciprocity in this
or any other treaty, but he looked at it as a great step on
the part of France in favour of free trade, which we so much
wished to extend. He had received a vast number of letters
from persons engaged in manufactures, who stated that
though they did not see any immediate or large advantage
to their own particular trades, nevertheless they gave their
assent to this treaty and the principles upon which it was
founded. Besides the iron and coal trades, there were other
trades in the north which would derive advantages from
this treaty. There were large proprietors of chemical
manufactures who were of opinion that this treaty was
only wanting to complete the perfect following out of their
manufactures, by admitting them at a low rate of duty into
the French markets. 'With respect to coal, he believed there
was considerable misapprehension existing as to the effect of
this treaty upon that trade. As regarded the extent of the
coal fields of England, a well-informed authority had as-
sured him that at the rate of 80,000,000 tons a year, there
would be a duration of 1,975 years. Perhaps the house was
not aware that the waste in the coal fields of Durham and
Northumberland alone was no less than 500 or 600 tons
per day, a waste which would be to a great extent saved if
France took our coal in the manner proposed by the treaty.
It was said France wanted coal for purposes of war, but the
truth was she wanted them much more for the purposes of
commerce. Coal, some held, ought to be considered contra-
band of war, but by the same rule so ought the cloth and
leather with which the soldiers were clad. (Hear, hear) He
agreed with the hon. gentleman the member for Sunderland
that the shipping advantages between the two countries
ought to be mutual, and that our Government ought to im-
press upon the Government of France the necessity of alter-
ing their navigation laws. At the same time he did not think
it I ight to resort to the sy stem of reciprocity treaties. Per-
haps he was too sanguine in his estimate of the treaty,
yet he could not help expressing a firm conviction that it
would tend to the permanent interests of peace. (Hear.)
They had a habit of thinking that if a revolution broke out
in Paris revolution must also break out in Berlin, Vienna,
Naples, and Rome. Then, he asked, why should not the
reverse be the case when France set so good an example ?
Why should not other states pursue a free trade policy,
and the advantages be made general throughout Europe ?
Foreigners printed to our numberless statutes and asked us
why we did not adopt the Code Napoleon. He thought it
would be well for us if we did, but when we consented to
this treaty we could return a triumphant answer by pointing
to the simplicity of our tariff.
Lord A. V. TEMPEST had waited to hear an enuncia-
tion of the policy of thosewho sat onthe oppositionbenches.
He had felt it his duty to support the proposal of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, and did so because it was a con-
tinuance of that wise course of policy inaugurated by the
late Sir It. Peal, which had contributed so much to the
prosperity of the country. He coincided entirely in the re-
marks of the hon. gentleman the member for Newcastle as
to the benefits which the treaty would confer in developing
our coal trade. He wished as much as anybody to see the
commercial alliance between England and France esta-
blished to promote the prosperity of both countries, and
knitting together their sympathies of peace and goodwill.
(Hear.) He would that his thoughts were equal to his
hopes, but frankly confessed upon this head he could not
speak so sanguinely. It was very likely ho would be
charged with inconsistency in voting against this motion,
having on a previous occasion voted with the Government
in reference to the financial propositions of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer; but he thought it was quite possible for
the Government to enter into commercial arrangements
with France which did not necessitate the conclusion of a
state treaty. He had been in doubt whether the House of
Commons ought to consider the treaty or the budget first,
but considered he was now fully justified in the vote he was
about to give, and that the British House of Commons was
entitled to say to the Emperor Napoleon —" Thus far shalt
thou go and no farther." The only two speceles he had
heard which seemed to express the feelings of the English
people were the speeches of the hon. members for Sheffield
and Horsham. He had heard them called indiscreet, but
believed they were true. His reasons for voting against
the motion of the hon. gentleman the member for Middle-
sex were to be found in the despatches of the noble lord at
the head of the Foreign-office. The noble lord then quoted
1 itf,wroi from the
ph:
rhf
ehte despatch
siesieistaEsiopinion
pgitlnhiEnglish
nf Lord
pF
eooofrpet
people. 'Was
Foreign
,_nbn
Secretary
atsi
nthu iesd t
affectionh Russell,eti
expressedJm anef.
oa2rnBdt
h,
calhe 8, in
t 60
e
of the Emperor of the French? Could wo goodwillappreciate the
high-sounding phrase of the Emperor about "barren con-
quests," and" moral influence," when they saw he cared
neither for their protests nor their remonstrances, nor their
11 i s
real
avowourselves despatches,des ig:bnu sth.
ithrewsTahffee
c iEmperor offo
nt
ah ,ee Voi aef
ill
France
s ars
a• declaredolvnes in tosonkr eitehmrmightoa ssoau n
br
ourselves
e
visit-
ing terms with us, but that was no reason why wo should
his arms. He wished to see a treaty of amity between
France and England—a real treaty of amity—he had no
objection to shake hands with a man who had a glove on, but
amendment upon the motion of the
ienmgber for Midilesex, but would be glad
gentleman the member for Hors-
he did not wish it to be an iron glove. (Hear.) He begged
gentleman. the member for Sheffield had
ham,
nnN i
rpii.: got
oipeirdno srttellhiewetniiliaeitlnoli.nfot hl.ti ehoinho n
proposed anything to a similar effect—after theword "that"
to add these words : this house approaches her Majesty with
great devotion and respect; whilst fully appreciating the
advantageous results to be obtained by increased commercial
intercourse between this country and France, and estimating
the present friendly connexion between Great Britain and
France, this house yet declines to express any opinion on
the treaty until such time as the Emperor of the French
makes known his final decision as to the annexation of
Savoy."
Mr. BOVILL seconded the amendment.
Mr. SLANEY hoped the noble lord would forgive him if
he did not enter into a discussion of the amendment which
he had proposed to the house, but ho would simply say that
he Should vote for the motion of the hon, member for Mid-

excited by the amount of duty charged upon it in France or
by the postponement of a reduction ef the duty. And now
let him see whlft equivalents we had got in this treaty.
There had been an observation of some weight with regard
to our national staple, beer. It had been said that, whilst
tipulating for a reduction on various beverages, why not
have stipulated for a reduction on the national beverage of
this country. (Hear, hear.) He knew it was said that hopes
were entertained on this subject, but he must add that he
never had heard of a negotiation so supported by hopes as
that of this commercial treaty. (A laugh.) When any point
was started the answer of the Government was, " We have
the greatest hopes that something may be done." He did
not blame the Government so much forward of success as for
not b aving exerted themselves to procure as fair an equivalent
as possible. Neat let him 10 .k at the way in which raw mate.
rial, upon the supply of which this country was dependent
for its manufactures, was dealt with. The noble lord the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had laid down an ad-
mirable principle in his despatch, when he said that the duty
of the negotiators was to make an equitable adjustment of
burdens upon articles in which the two nations competed in
the general market. There was no burden so difficult to be
dealt with as that which affected the supply of the raw ma-
terial to three cases of which he should allude. With respect
to the first (silk), the hon. member for Shrewsbury had
told them of the picturesque zones in which France
was divided, and which supplied the mulberry trees
upon the leaves of which silk worms were fed. Now we
admitted the manufactured silk of France free of duty,
whilst the Government knew that we had a manufacture of
silk in England which depended for the supply of its raw
material-upon France. He wished to know if any question
had been asked. the French Government respecting the
raw material. He saw no traces of it in the instructions
given to the plenipotentiaries. (Hear.) He took another
raw material respecting which there had been a very inte-
resting conversation in committee--he meant the article of
cork. He did not mean to say that we depended upon France
for cork, but at the same time we were negotiating the treaty,
one of the results of which was to be the admission of corks
free of duty, we were bound to have obtained some conces-
sion from the country from which corks were obtained—he
meant Spain—in return for our remission of duties on Spa-
nish wines. The third and last of the raw materials to
which he should allude was that from which paper was
made, and of course he assumed that when Government
commenced negotiating the treaty they had made up their
minds on the reduction of the excise and import duties.
They were now told that the French Government meant to
remit the import duty ; he was glad to hear it, but he said
if France was so willing,awhy not have introduced the re-
laxation into the treaty as a matter of right, and not have
subsequently asked for it as a matter of favour ? (Hear,
hear.) How different had been the conduct of the French
Government with respect to the article coal, about which
there had been so much discussion. They had not trusted
to assurance, but had asked our Government to come
under an undertaking not to prohibit exportation during
the whole period of the treaty. Why not have asked for
similar stipulations from France ? This brought him
to coal, of which he should merely say, in addition to
what he had before said, that up to the present moment
they had not had from Government any explanation of
their views with respect to the object or effect of the coal
article. The Attorney-General had certainly favoured
them with his view of the law of the question, but as
he (Sir H. Cairns) did not expect to hear the Government
endorse that view, especially as, in another place, a view
directly opposite to that of the learned gentleman had been
pronounced, he presumed that the learned gentleman had
only been treating them with one of his usual interesting
disquisitions. He did not know whether the Government
were of opinion that the 11th article of the treaty permitted
the exp6rtation of coal to France generally, but the differ.
ence was not material to his purpose, because he knew that
we could not permit the exportation of coal at all unless we
permitted it totally, and that any permission given now
amounted to a surrender of the whole restrictive power we
possessed. Now he said that the Sovereign had no commer-
cial power in the matter, but that house had entrusted to her
Majesty a high political power to prohibit the exportation
of coal whenever it was likely to become stores or munitions
of war. What right had commercial negotiators thus. to,
surrender a political power which had been solemnly depo-
sited with the Crown ? (Opposition cheers.) Had it ever
occurred to our Government to ask what was the object of
this 11th article? A recent answer to this question had
made a material change in the situation. They had been
under the impression that the article was one to which some
importance was attached by the French Government, but
now they were told that that Government attached no im-
portance to it at all, but were ready to give it up. On the
other hand, they learned that her Majesty's Government
desired no alteration. He did not wish to pre-occupy the
ground which was to be taken by the right hon. member
for Stroud, but he said that now this was simply a domestic
question. The French Government were willing to modify.
whilst her Majesty's Government were unwilling; and
therefore it remained for them to hear why the latter per-
sisted against the concessions of France. (Hear, hear.) One
more observation on this point, and that was that he hoped
the House of Commons would express an opinion that this
article ought not to be inserted. (Hear, hear.) He did protest
against the doctrine that a power ef this kind could be sur-
rendered without the consentof Parliament, and he pretested,
on the other hand, against the supposition that if the sanc-
tion of Parliament were required it could be got in any
other way than by Act of Parliament. He had now gone
through those parts of the treaty on which he had been de-
sirous of making a few observations. He found in the case
of Mr. Pitt's treaty, that statesman saying, with very
natural pride, "Here is my treaty, which was published in
September—(he,was speaking in February)—it has been
in everyone's hands, and has been canvassed throughout
the country, and there has not been a single remonstrance
against it from any trade " He asked, could her Majesty's
present Government make a similar remark with respect to
their treaty ? Had the linen trade, the beer or spirit trades,
had the silk, or cork, or' aper trades made no remon-
strance ? He must say that although the right hon. gen-
tleman opposite had spoken of the glory of his negotiators,
he (Sir H. Cairns) doubted very much whether it would
meet with the same success which had attended the treaty
of Mr. Pitt. The cases were not exactly parallel. Per-
haps a nearer resemblance might be found in one of those
Homeric legends of which the right hon. gentleman was so
great an expositor. It was, in fact, the treaty of Glaucus
and Diomed, it was gold for brass, a hundred oxen for ten.
At the same time, he believed that much greater risk
would be incurred by rejecting this treaty than by ac-
cepting it, and he, for one, should not advocate its rejec-
tion. (Loud cheers.) He hoped that they would never
again have to consider a treaty under the circumstances in
which the present treaty had been considered. There
was not merely a responsibility attaching to those who
would impede or thwart a treaty of that kind, but also to
those who entered into it, and who proposed its considera-
tion to the house in a way in which there could be no
free or unbiassed discussion of its terms. (Hear, hear.)
Whenever any member took an objection to any provision of
the treaty, however small, the answer invariably was—" If
you touch that clause you defeat the treaty entirely, and we
cannot answer for the consequences." The same line had
been taken by the French newspapers. In a letter of M.
Chevalier, he said :—" The rejection of the 11th article (re-
lating to coal) would be an unfriendly act, and it would be
taken as tuch by France. The cry would be raised of ' Per-
fidious Albion ; and this would be the case even were the
article struck out with the consent of the French Govern-
ment." (Hear, hear.) They had been called on to discuss
all the arrangements of the Chanceller of the Exchequer
under the same pressure. The right hon. gentleman had
fold them that if they carried Mr. Du Cane's motion it
would be incompatible with the treaty with France. He
(Sir H. Cairns) had felt the force of that argument so much
that he had not voted for that resolution though approving
much that it contained. Formerly a budget was a measure
most domestic in its character. In the present year they had
literally been discussing the budget with the treaty round
their necks. (Hear, hear.) He was disposed to augur every-
thing favourable from the adoption of this treaty, but if its
benefits should prove unsubstantial and illusory—if the
price we were paying to draw closer the bonds of amity with
France did not produce the desired effect—if it should turn
out that this treaty, concluded with equal rapidity with the
treaty of Villafranca, should be equally rapidly forgotten—
if the measures of the right hon. gentleman should leave
behind them only regret for the revenue ,we had lost, and
irksomeness at the burdens we had to bear, it would then be
remembered, and remembered to the disadvantage of their
authors, that these measures were presented to the house
under circumstances which thwarted and checked all free
and unrestrained discussion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. G IBSON—I am glad to hear from the hon. and
learned gentleman tha+, satisfied with criticising the treaty,
he intends to vote in favour of the address which has been
moved by my hon. friend the member for Middlesex. He
says he will throw no impediment in the way of this
treaty; he is a friend to commercial treaties ; he does not ob-
ject to a bargain in the abstract; he only objects to a bargain
which is not so good as it might have been. I agree with
' the hon. and learned gentleman there are many things in
reference to our commercial relations with France which it
would be very desirable to obtain; but, at the same time, I
think what we have obtained is good in itself, is worth re-
ceiving, and will confer great benefits on the people both of
England and France. (Cheers.) The hon. and learned gen-
tleman is friendly to commercial treaties on principle. I
don't quite go that length myself, but I will not reject an
opportunity of encouraging our commercial intercourse with
France simply because the attainment of that object is
sought through the medium of a commercial treaty. He is
friendly to commercial treaties, but I cannot help thinking
he would never be successful in negotiating such a treaty
with any foreign country if he proceeded in the way he
thinks her Majesty's Government ought to have proceeded
with reference to the one now under consideration. The
hon. and learned gentleman would have had us enter into
minute adjustments of every particular duty; he thinks we
should have gone into all the different classes of yarn and
linen, and attached to each the particular duty to be charged
on its import into France. I think if any person were to at-
tempt to negotiate a commercial treaty on the principle of
settling such minute adjustments of duty in every instance,
he would probably fail altogether. If the hon. and learned
gentleman had acted as the negotiator of the treaty now be-
fore the house I don't think he would by this time have got
through the linen duty. (A laugh.) He says the Board of
Trade made no representations on the subject of the linen

manufacture; that it could not have considered the import

anco of that manufacture, or it would have used its influ•

ence to obtain a better arrangement in respect to it with the
French Government. I had the honour, not long ago, of

receiving a deputation from Belfast in reference to the linen
trade, which was introduced by the hon. and learned gen-
tleman ; and what did those gentlemen say ? They said,
if the Government would only put them on the same foot-
ing as the Belgians they would be satisfied. (Hear, hear.)
I say they are put on the same footing as the Belgians—
(hear)—from June, 1861. (An ironical laugh.) Until that
time the treaty obligations existing between France and
Belgium prevent the arrangement taking effect earlier—.
(hear)—but the first moment it can take effect the linen
manufacturers of Belfast are to have an arrangement which

they state will be satisfactory to them. (Hear, hear.) it;

not to be assumed that because the maximum of duty is
mentioned in the treaty, every duty now below that maxi-

mum is to be raised to the maximum. (Hear, hear.) It is
unfair to tell the linen manufacturers of Ireland that, with
respect to some classes of linen now paying 2f per cent. on
being imported into France, thoduty may be actually raised
to 30 per cent. (Hear, hear.) I think I may say nothing of
that kind will take place; I am sure that all the correspon-
dence in reference to future arrangements breathes an en-
tirely different spirit. With regard to coal, that being a
legal question, I don't profess to offer any opinion upon it.
I think it had better be left to be discussed by itself on the
amendment of the right hen, gen,tlemail tin member hr

Stroud. But I have been told that anything that could be will increase our commercial intercourse with France, to
done in England, before this treaty, according to interne- the advantage of both nations.
tional in., reference to prohibiting the export of coal, Sir S. NORTHCOTE sincerely ageed with the right
may still be done; and that no other surrender has been. hon. gentleman in one respect, namely,r in hoping that the
made except the surrender of the right to prohibit the
question raised by the motion of the noble lord wouldnotbe
ee. mixed up with that of the commercial treaty. (Hear, hear.)
port of coal in a commercial sense. On the question rK He had scrupulously abstained from throwing any undue
spirits the hon. and learned gentleman quoted a passage impediment in the way of the treaty; but when the'y were
in the correspondence between my noble friend the Secre- invited to receive it not only with approbation but with
tary of State for Foreign Affairs and Lord Cowley, in which laulsoe, thought that hon. members were entitled
the
Hto
it is stated that 102. on foreign spirits would be the most osey at its provisions. With regard coal,
olt\n. gentleman said it was a legal question, and yet
desirable duty for the English revenue ; but that .the nego- that it vas to be interpreted in a commercial sense. He (Sir
tiators would agree to Bs. 2d. if some early reduction could S. Northeote) confessed he could not see the force of this
be obtained on some article to be introduced into France. disd he
wished to inquire what the Emperor's motive wastinctiou. It must have been inserted with some object,
And then, asks the hon. and learned gentleman, what early
reduction did we. obtain? I can tell him that olio of the Now, he did happen to remember the controversy which
arose last ear asto the hi which was issu re .
early reductions obtained was on this very article of linen. specting goods contrabanp roclamatio nw d of war, as he was at that time
The reduction of the duties on British linen going into 4 Secretary of the Treasury. By that proclamation it was
France was brought nearer by a considerable period, viz., announced that persons who exported goods of that cha-
racter would be liable to the penalties of maritime law: He
to June, 1861, and it was one of the early reductions oh- thought very evident that the meaning and intention of
rained by the concession in regard to spirits. (Hear, hear.) the article was to prevent us taking any step to prohibit the
Sir H. CAIRNS said in the first letter:from Lord Cowley exportation of coal to France in case of war. That might be
to Lord John Russell the Ist of July, 1861, was stated as said to be all nonsense, as France could in such a case have
the date.
supplies of coal from Belgium and other countries; but
Mr. M. GIBSON (resuming)—I have not the despatch supposing it was a war in which Belgium was also inte-
by me at this moment, but I think I am correct; at all rested, so as to desire to prohibit the exportation of her
events the reduction of the import duty on linens going into coal—supposing she trembled for her security and wished
France would have taken effect at a more distant period to cripple France ? There might be many cases in
but for the concession made with ree-ard to the duty on spirits. which it might obviously be desirable for this country
Again, iron and machinery were also to be admitted at an to exercise that right to prohibit the exportation of coal
earlier period in consequence of that concession. The hon. which the Government had gratuitously and for no pur-
and learned gentleman used the expression that this agree- pose whatever surrendered. If he had not rightly de-
ment for a smaller import duty on French spirits was a scribed the real object of the treaty, what was its object ?
sacrifice of English manufacturers of spirits for some poli- An hon. member had said that this article was superfluous
tical object. The hon. gentleman, lam sure, has uninten- because the English Government was not likely to prohibit
tionally misrepresented the case, because it was always in- the exportation of coal. No doubt they would never pro-
tended and always understood by the French Government hibit its exportation for commercial purposes, and if they
that a sufficient difference should be maintained between looked at the article in the treaty in acommercial sense, the
the duty on foreign spirits and that on British manufactured article was entirely useless, as the Emperor of the French
spirits to cover the disadvantage under which the British must know perfectly well. The French Government has
• manufacturer was placed by being under Excise survey. No suggested that article for no other but a political design, as
intention therefore could exist of sacrificing his interest. No her Majesty's Government had—he would not say been en-
doubt he was to lose a protective duty, but under no conceiv - trapped—but induced to insert it, thus placing themselves
able circumstances was he to, be put on any terms of inequa- in a position which it was undesirable they should hold,
lity with the French manufacturer. With regard to the because it interfered with the free exercise of their judg-
question of wine, the hon. and learned gentleman has given ment. The treaty had many good points about it, but it
utterance to substantially the same sentiments which were fettered their hands for ten years and took away their
expressed by the hon. baronet the member for Stamford. liberty of action to regulate their affairs for their own good
He seemed to think this treaty placed a differential duty during that period
on Spanish wines, and gave those of France an advantage, Mr. HORSMAN moved the adjournment of the debate.
and that we had placed ourselves in a very difficult posi- Lord PALMERSTON hoped the house would divide
tion, if we were hereafter inclined to propose a commercial upon the amendment, and then allow the debate to be ad-
treaty for the admission of British manufactures into that journed upon the original motion.
country. It must be remembered that this arrangement is Mr. HORSMAN withdrew his motion.
one which does not in the least arise out of the treaty, but Mr. WALPOLE suggested that as the word " system "
is mado solely in reference to our own laws relating to in the original motion was an analogous term which must
spirits ; and, as lam informed, it will be found much easier mean free trade, reciprocity, or something else, the words
to get into consumptiona greater quantity of spirits through "the treaty " should be substituted.
the importation of Spanish wines at these duties than to Lord PALME ItSTON considered the word system a
attempt the same operation through the importation of proper one, but if greater preference was expressed in favour
French wines. Therefore, in that sense, with a view to the of the word treaty he did not know that there would be any
consumption of alcohol, you are to some extent favouring objection. But, to do that, it would be necessary that the
Spain at the expense of France. I cannot see any ground noble lord should withdraw his amendment, as the motion
of
wines. compla I
think the case is not a int whatever in das arran
Sganishement me
with
rel uestion rerd to stood tharont the words proposed te be left out stand part of
p, the m
qrue• st.
because the greater portion of the German q
wines, lam in- _ BOUVERIE offered a suggestion on the points of
formed, will have the advantage of this lower rate of duty, form.
as containing less than 18 degrees of alcohol. The hon. and Lord A. V. TEMPEST withdrew his amendment, and
learned gentleman has really gone into so many minute on the motion of Mr. Horsman the debate was ad-
details that it is extremely difficult to follow him ; but on journed.
the question of shipping I will tak cleave to make a few The Isle of Man Harbour Bill was read a second time.
observations. Those who have sent memorials to the Board The Spirits (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill was read a
of Trade on the subject of the third article and of the dif- third time and passed.
ferential duty have all, without exception, suggested that, The Oxford University Bill was considered as amended,
unless something could be done for the shipping interest, and agreed to.
this treaty ought to be rejected altogether. My hon. friend The house lose at a quarter past 12.
the member for Sunderland and the hon. and learned gen-
tleman opposite have not taken that view of the question ;
,and the petitioners seem to be under a misapprehension on
the subject of the treaty. I have read their memorials, and
I find an idea prevailing that in some way or other British
shipping will be placed in a worse position than before, and
that the treaty will give some kind of sanction for a period of
ten years to restrictions which might otherwise have been
removed. I contend that this treaty does nothing of the
kind, but that, so far as it affects British shipping, it will
place it in a better position than it occupied before. In
the trade between England and France ships of both na-
tions are on a footing or perfect equality, and if by increas-
ing that trade British ships have no corresponding restric
tions to contend with, it follows that you must confer an
important benefit upon them. What is the state of the case
at present? Of the French direct trade with the United
Kingdom 69 per cent. is performed by the British fleet ;
28 per cent. is carried by the French fleet ; and 3 per cent.
by the fleets of other nations This is the trade to which
the treaty relates, and to no other, and it is this trade which
may be expected so largely to increase by the mutual in •
terchange of products and manufactures. It is clear that
if British ships enjoy 69 per cent. of the carrying trade
there is nothing in any French regulation which prevents
them from deriving full advantage from it, and any increase
of that traffic arising from the treaty must obviously confer
an important advantage on British shipping. (Hear.) I
find that the trade between England and France forms
something between one-third and a-halfof the whole foreign
trade of that country; of this, English v, ss is enj }y 70 per
cent., or in other words betwe ;Jae- third and one-quarter
of the whole foreign train of France. To raise the general
question of diffcreutial duties bearing on the indirect trade
with France is to enter into something quite apart from this
treaty. The hon. and learned gentleman, I think, has
talked of imports from America into France. No doubt, it
would be very desirable if British ships could carry goods
to that country on the same terms as American vessels ;
but this treaty has nothing to do with creating facilities
of that kind—it is simply to facilitate the carrying of
British produce into France. The same argument ap-
plies with regard to the Mauritius ; I respect-
fully submit that when you introduce these
topics into a discussion on the address on this particular
treaty • you are really travelling from the question before
the house. But, as this subject has been mentioned, let me
see the, extent of this great grievance. I should be glad if
the navigation laws of all countries were entirely abolished.
In this country we have removed all restrictions ; and there
are very few nations, with the exception of France, Spain,
Portugal, and to some extent America, which have not reci-
procated our liberality, and given us advantages in reference
to navigation which we did not before possess. It is said
that at the Mauritius we are kept, out of something very
well worth having by these differential duties. I presume
that a certain quantity of sugars are consigned to this
country, which for the most part find their way in English
bottoms, which I presum6 cannot be regarded as disad-
vantageous to British shipping. But I have a return before
me showing the extent of the colonial trade of France ; and
let us see how much we should acquire if every French ship
were prevented from carrying produce from any of our co-
lonies to France—a consummation that the hon. and learned
gentleman, I think, will scarcely hope for. I find that the
trade between France and the British colonies in Asia,
Africa, and America amounted to 108,000 tons of :shipping
in the year. (Hear.) The trade of Great Britain with
foreign countries was 14,438,000 tons; and between the
United Kingdom add her colonies was 4,306,426 tons.
(Hear.) So that all you would gain would be the employ-
ment of 100,000 tons of shipping in addition to the amount
of over 18,000,000 which you already possess I venture to
say if British shipowners had all this trade, of which they
say they are now deprived, they would feel it to be an ad-
dition of comparatively trifling importance. Ido not say it
is not worth having ; but I think more importance is at-
tached to these restrictions than they deserve. The whole
French trade with the British possessions in India and the
Mauritius only employs 81,000 tons of shipping; it really
appears to me yen are attaching great importance to small
matters, and, by continually pleading small restrictions,
are attempting to raise a prejudice against a great and
comprehensive measure of commercial freedom, with which
I am quite certain the country and the constituents of the
hon. and learned gentleman are satisfied. There is one re-
markable fact with regard to English and French shipping
which I cannot help mentioning. In 1858 of all the ships
in the ports of France engaged in the foreign carrying
trade—l, do not speak of the coasting trade—British
ships formed two-thirds of the tonnage. (Hear, hear.)
' Thai is, out of every nine ships in the ports of France en-
gaged in the foreign trade six were British. (Hear, hear.)
All these ships must have obtained employment, notwith-
standing the restrictions that remain. The hon. member for
Sunderland was anxious to propose his resolution as an
amendment to the address. I was one of those who en-
deavoured to dissuade the hon. gentleman from doing so. I
imagine he did not attach much importance to the advice,
because, being a member of the Government, he thought I
was not quite to be believed on such a subject. (Laughter.)
He rather listened to me with a degree of distrust I have
not been accustomed to see. But I really advised the hon.
gentleman to take the course I should have thought best had
I been in his position. When the noble lord at the head of
the Government offered him an opportunity of bringing for..
ward his resolution as a substantive motion, and told him
he would support it, I could not conceive the hon. gentleman
would have a moment's hesitation. And lam quite con-
vinced he has now taken the most judicious course for the
promotion of the cause he has so ably advocated. I have
no doubt when he brings forward his resolution again-4 do
not say in the exact words in which it now stands—that it
will obtain the general support of the house. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. and learned member for Belfast concluded his
speech with some observations about the French export
duty on rags. He said the negotiators of this treaty had
paid no attention to the question of export duties levied by
foreign countries on the raw materials of manufactures. I
dare say they did not ; I am not aware that it has been the
custom to enter into such considerations when dealing with
the import duties of this country. There is scarcely a single
article the duty on which you have reduced or repealed that
does not contain some ingredient that is liablevirtohastomeo
re-
striction as to its export from other countries,
be said ifany one objected to the importation of corn andwld oTuain
from France because the French Government prohibits the
exportation of guano? You repealed the dut on leather,
though the French Government prohibits the exyportation of
raw hides. If you were to act on the principle of repealing
Customs'duties only with regard to foreignil
you would be in a difficulty every time
you export
dealt wut
i ies
with a'
manufactured article. (Hear, hear.) I
do not think the
targumentyour has
ian
py frot rc e
duties ; bde
elpieevnediteiwthilelrbeonfouthned
eixim.sptoelnitciec
or the removal of export duties on raw materials in other
countries. It is most desirable that the export duty on rags
should be removed by all foreign countries, and I was ex-
tremely glad to hear the noble lord announcet to the hous
exported from that the French Government intended
now
tiut ragstehxeisnttenggotoinatosFrance,
anoce remove
(Hear,th the dhear.)uty
of this commercial treaty would have
been to blame if they had gone into the consideration of
such export duties in reference to every article with which
they were going to deal. In fact, we must look to the gene-
ral principle of those measures the negotiators were about
to deal with a great measure of principle, much of the de-
tails of which has yet to be completed. Had they allowed
themselves to travel into considerations beyond the broad
principles of the treaty, they would have failed altogether,
and the house would not have had the treaty before it for
disco scion. I hope the house will give its unanimous Vote in
suppoi t of the address the hon. member for Middlessx has
submitted to us, I cannot conceive that the noble lord
who has moved the resolution relatine. to Savoy will obtain
any support. I cannot believe that he will go to a division.
Why we should refuse to increase our commercial inter-
course with France because some territorial question is
under discussion I cannot understand. (Hear, hear.) There
is nothing in the words of the address to which any mem-
ber can have any objection. I can scarcely csnceive even
the hen. member for West Norfolk objecting to it. Even
if the treaty be as bad as he says it is, at any rate our in.
tentionla good. The existence of the treaty is a proof Of
a desire on the part of the Crown to promote the welfare
of the people. No one will deny that such a treaty must
promote a beneficial intercourse between Great Britain
and France, and tend to the extension of our trade and
manufactures. We all hope and trust that such will
be its result. We do not ask you to say it is
mathematically demonstrated ; we ask the house simply to
congratulate the Crown on thus proving its desire to pro-
mote the well-being and happiness of the people of this
C91111.t171 mac, to Kum Jiope thAt the measures proposed

COUNTRY MARKBTS

MANCHESTER—MARCH 8.
Wheat in slow request, at the extreme rates of Thursday
last. Flour at former rates, and dull of sale. Oats and
oatmeal a steady sale. Beans and Indian corn were in
fair request.

BIRMINGHAM—MARCH 8.
At to-day's market there was a less quantity of wheat
offering; the trade ruled dull, but we make no alteration
in our quotations of last week. Fine barley sold rather
cheaper. Oats were at late rates, but very little doing.
Beans held firmly.

ON—Mauna 7.
We had a smalls
ST
ll upply of wheat from the wers to-
day, the demand for which was brisk, and at rio
to 2s ad-
vance on late prices. All other kinds of grain sold readily,
except barley.
Wheat, red .38s to 45s Oats.... l7s to 26s
White do .47a to 49s I Beans 38s to 43s
Barley .29s to 39s Peas ....35s to 41s

MARKET HARBOROUGH—MARCH 7.
There was a tolerable supply of wheat, which met a
dull demand, at about former rates. Whits wheat, 41s to
47s ; red, 40a to 44s per 36 stone. Barley, old, 28s to 40s ;
new, 26s to 325. Oats were a fair inquiry, from 24s to 34a
per 24 stone. Beans (old), at 36s to 40s ; new, 348 to 400
per 38 stone.

EDINBURGH GRAIN_MARCU 7.
Wheat on the top is Od up .. ..... average Os 5d up.
Barley on the top 5s Od up...., average Os 9d up.
Oats on the top 3s Od down. average Os 841 up.
Beans on the top Os 6d down average is 7d up.
Averages per Imperial quarter.
Wheat....
Barley 2 0 4 0-12ths
Oats 1 8 8 0-12ths
Beans
Total Supply and Sales. .
Wheat ...1044 qrs Sold 691 qrs
Barley.
Oats .2769 qrs Sold 1659 qrs
Beans 306 qrs Sold 234 qrs

CORK—MARCH 7.
The following were the quotations this morniag :—Red
wheat, 26s Od to 20s Od ; white, 268 6d to 27s 6d; barley 16s
Od to 20s ; oats, 12s 4d to 14s Od.

DIIBLIN—MARcn 7.
Farmers' produce of every description in limited supply.
The stands were cleared of wheat at full prices. Market
generally dull.

o. d. s. d. I
Wheat, white 28 6 to 30 6
Do., red 27 0 to 28 6
Do., new 0 to 01
Barley
Oats
Do., black.... 11 6 to 12 6

s. d. s.d.
Do., new .6... 0 t. •
Bens
Rapeseed
Oatmeal l3 6to 1 0
Bakers' flour
Indian corn

DERBY SMITHFIELD—Magda 6.
There was a shorter supply of fat beasts to-day, with
a fair attendance of buyers; the best quality in demand,
and late prices maintained. Sheep again in very small
supply, and better sold. Fat pigs in good supply. Fat
and store calves not so plentiful.
Beef 6fd to 7d 1 Veal '7i to
MA
Mutton ..
Lamb Od to Od Rough fat, os 9d per stone.
Hides, aid to 51d ; calf skins, 6d to 61d.

DAIRY PRODUCE AND FRUIT FROM FRANCE:-,
gthdeairylattPerred place e and
ther the
London
m a i 1
marketspa c ke
There are now five vessels running between St. Male and
fJniersitelyrom F
employedrance to
,c hiefizersineyc. onFvreoyniin
apnroddluacnedaenddatfrusoituathreamstitpopned en t) ,
Jay the South-Western Railway.
FATAL ACCIDENT TO A CHILD.--On Friday, the
reaching board
17th ult., a little boy, three years of age, named George
Luker, was at play with other children in his father's house
in Charles-street, Newport, When he accidentally fell wilds
holding a pointed stick in his hand, which penetrated be.
tween the nose and the eye, causing a small wound, which
bled slightly. The blood having been wiped off the face of
the little fellow, he resumed his play; but on Sunday fits re-
sult
rcu ed—Bristsi
Xery.
[ADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway's Pills- and Ointment.
Indigestion—Diseases of the Skin—lndigestion in the vari-
able temperature of winter is apt to produce cutaneous com-
plaints, with fever, restlessness, tainted breath, and great
depression of spirits. The cause and the consequences of
these disorders can be speedily and radically removed by the
nse of Holloway's medicaments. The Pills should be taken
in doses sufficient to act on the system without distressing it;
while the Ointment should be freely applied to the parts of
the skin affected, and also rubbed over the stomach and liver.
The Ointment not only cleanses the akin, but acts beneficially
on all subjacent organs, whether superficial or deep. Hollo-
way's Pills purify the blood, and regulate tke liver and kid.
treys.

[ADVERTISEMENT. —The treat injwy inflicted on maw
invalids by drugs increases the intprest the public take in
Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food, which cures without
medicine indigestion (dyspepsia), flatulency, constipation,
nervous, bilious, and liver complaints, cough, asthma, con•
sumption, and debility. We quote a few out of many thou-
sand cases of cures by this delicious food :—Cura No. 180.
—" Twenty five years' nervousness, constipation, indiges-
tion, and debility from which I have suffered great misery,
and which no medicine could remove or relieve, have been
effectually cured by Du Barry's Food in a very short time.
W. B. Reeves, 181, Fleet street, London." Cure 4,208.
"Eight years' dyspepsia, nervousness, debility, with cramps,
spasms, and nausea, for which my servant had consulted
the advice of many, have been effectually cured by Du Barry's
Health •restoring Food. I shall be happy to answer any in-
quiries. Rev. J. W. Flavell, Ridlingto n Rectory, Norfolk."
In tins, at is. 6d. ; 11b., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; 51b., 125.; 121 b.,
265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of post-
office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Rwent-street, London
Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piucadilly ; Abbis, 60,
Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 6.3 and 150, Oxford-
street; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopsgate-
street ; 85, Tottenham-court-road. Also at Dublin.
•13ewley and Draper ; at Edinburgh,, Raimes and Co. ,•
at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; at Manchester, Sharp and
Scott ; at York, Raimes, Blanchard, and Co. ; at South•
ampten. /sandal' and Son