The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-07 00:00:00

went to her Majesty's ambassador, at Paris, and it could

not be done without the consent of the legislative body.
The French Government found the legislative body not
likely to agree to that proposition, and they were there-
fore unable to carry the intentions they had declared
into effect. The honourable and learned gentleman,
however, proposes that we should set at nought
our obligations and the treaty because the
French Government have not done that which they volun-
tarily proposed to do. According to this rule there is no
treaty which you could not get rid of by some quibble of
this kind. (Hear, hear.) Then comes the right hon. gen-
tleman the member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), who re-
fers to what was done with regard to the duty upon hops.
The right hon. gentleman has represented that we have I
finally settled that there shall be a differential duty on hops
with the view of our obtaining protection thereby. The hop
interest represented their case to the Government, and con-
tended they ought to have some time allowed them in order
that they might be enabled to compete with that duty, which
was exactly equivalent to the excise duty. My right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to put on
an additional duty for a certain time, after which it was to
cease, and it will therefore cease at the time mentioned in
the resolution, and will be exactly equivalent to the excise
duty. (Hear, hear.) But my hon. friend the member for
Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller) says that if we propose to com-
ply with the terms of the treaty, this is not a fit time to do
so. He will not tell us what the proper time is, but he says
we ought not to comply with the treaty until the French
Government have done something which is not in the
treaty, and we are to hold ourselves free from our obliga-
tions until they have done something. What I say is, that
an indefinite resolution like that proposed by the hon. gen.
tleman would be construed in France and in other countries
as a declaration on the part of the House of Commons that
they will not comply with the treaty, and that they wish by
evasion to get rid of that obligation and to place themselves
before Europe as a body which is regardless of treaties.
(Hear, hear.) That appears to me, therefore, to be the state
of the case. The French Government has said, and most na-
turally said, that they do not press for an immediate settle-
ment of this article. It was, therefore, a question of policy
with her Majesty's Government as to the course they should
adopt. I think the right hon, gentleman who spoke last said
that the papermakers have been placed in jeopardy by the
various propositions which have been made, and that the
question ought to be set at rest for their sakes. Well, that
is exactly what her Majesty's Government think upon the
subject. (Hear.) But will anybody say that that intention
will be fulfilled if the resolution of the hon. member for
Hats is carried ? This amendment is an indication that
the question will be opened again in February, perhaps de-
ferred till April, and deferred again till June or July. In
short, these paper-makers ' could never be free from alarm
and jeopardy if the hon. gentleman's resolution be carried
(Hoar, hear.) But with regard to the arguments that have
been used against the policy of this measure, they appear to
me exactly the same arguments which now for a great num-
ber of years I have heard in this house, showing that free
trade is an excellent thing, but that that class which is pro-
posed to be effected by it has particular claims for exemp-
tion. I remember when this question was debated—not 20
but 40 years ago—when Mr. Huskisson intended to take
the duties off silk. Silk is not a production of this country,
and it was naturally argued, how can you admit silk under
a very high duty when it is not a product of this country,
and you have to contend with French and Italian manu-
facturers—how can you compete with them and admit
foreign silk into England ? But you not only admitted
foreign silk, but from that moment the trade began to flou-
rish, and has continued, in spite of all those arguments, to
flourish by competition, on free trade principles. Then we
had the great question of the corn duties, and arguments
were used of great plausibility, because it was said, " You
are putting the food of the country at the hazard of a sup-
ply from foreign nations." The same arguments were used
with regard to navigation; both the men who ploughed the
land and who ploughed the sea were to be placed under
protection ; and the great authority of Adam Smith was
cited to protect navigation, and to show that it could
not withstand the competition of free trade. But that
was not a question of £6,000,000. Agriculture and
navigation involved a sum much nearer, I should
think, £200,000,000 than £6,000,000; but the house
of Commons had the boldness and the wisdom to expose
both the farmers of this country and the seamen of this
country to competition, and that competition has resulted
not only in the increased wealth of the nation, but in the
great prosperity of those interests themselves. (Hear.)
Then, is it not too much to say that we are to have the same
predictions over again, which the hon. member for Hert-
fordshire has given us, that our machinery will be taken
from us, that our men will go abroad—(laughter)—and that
there will be no paper-making in this country, and that the
House of Commons at the end of these 40 years of free
trade is to be frightened by such hobgolins as these, and
that property and trade cannot withstand competition?
(Cheers.) But an hon. gentleman (Mr. Childers) who spoke
early in the debate, gave us important information which
ought, I think, to influence the result of this debate. With
regard to cottons, woollens, and silks you may be afraid
that these foreign manufactures may successfully compete
with you in your own markets. But the sure test is to go
into a third market, and see what is the effect of trade there ;
to Canada, Australia, and India. There the French have
had all the advantages of this protective system. Ws are
told that by virtue of this admirable system—by this plan
of nursing and fostering manufactures by artificial heat and
nourishment, French manufactures must be introduced
into the third market and defeat our own. But the fact is,
that out of £78,000 worth of paper, £50,000 is manufactured
in this country, some £lo,oso in the United States, and only
£l,BOO comes from France. And so of £300,000 of paper
imported into India, £227,000 is of British manufacture.
Such is the effect of competition upon a system which has
been fostered and dandled by protection. No doubt it will be
the same in England. There will probably be improvements
introduced into the manufacture, and men will be led into
more useful and less wasteful application of their capital.
If those paper manufacturers are not unlike the rest of the
country—for we know the energy and industry which have
enabled our manufacturers, our farmers, and our sailors to
compete with their rivals all over the world, whatever ad-
vantages they might have—l don't think they will suffer
by these changes. I ask this house, therefore, on the
ground of the obligations of treaties, and on the plain and
simple meaning of the article which I have read, on the
ground, too, of wisdom and policy, not to give the descre-
ditable spectacle to the world of endeavouring to evade a
clear obligation. (Hear, hear.) Let us rather rely upon
that principle which has been tried for a number of years,
and has proved to bo so beneficial to the commerce of this
country, and let us not again resort to prohibitions and
protection as the means of securing our prosperity.
(Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI The resolutions and amendments
which we are now discussing have assumed so many shapes
that I feel some perplexity in addressing myself to this
question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us
a very able summary of the advantages of free trade , but
I shall commence by at once clearing the subject from all
that surplusage. I do not conceive that any question of
that kind is now under consideration—(hear, hear)—and
the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to
me to have been framed and fashioned to answer another
amendment of Mr. Puller's, which stood for a considerable
time on the paper, and which probably would not have given
rise to a controversy so interesting and important as the
present, which I think must be felt to be unexpected and
unnecessary at this period of the session. Concluding, as
I do, that the principle of unrestricted competition was ac-
cepted by the house seven or eight years ago, I do not think
it necessary to comment on, or differ from, the observations
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I conclude that those
who adopt the principle of unrestricted competition as the
principle of our commercial system are also of opinion that
that principle should be applied with discretion and pru-
dence, and that those who apply it should at least have a
knowledge of the subject they have to deal with, and of the
circumstances of the different trades. I know that there is
another school of economists who take what I may call a
more extravagant view of the principle of unrestricted
competition, and of the mode in which it should be ap-
plied. They say that we are not to consider what are called
exceptional circumstances, nor in any way to regulate our
' conduct by the conduct of foreign countries. I don't go so
far as that opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I
have before me the words of an eminent statesman, who ex-
presses in language much better than I could employ what
ought to be the aim and object of free trade. He says,
" Some persons say that the chivalry of free trade is de-
graded when it becomes a matter of bargain ; whereas it
appears to me that bargain is the end and aim of the whole."
Those were the sentiments and observations of the right
hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear.)
Therefore the house must have been somewhat surprised to
hear him lay down to -night, in a manner so perfectly unre-
stricted, that we were not to consider in any degree the
policy and legislation of other countries on matters of re-
venue and commerce. It may be supposed that these ob-
servations were made years ago, when the right hon. gentle-
man was a stout protectionist. Quite the reverse; for this
was a quotation from his budget speech of the present year.
(Cheers and laughter.) How he can reconcile the opinion he
has given to-night, on the unadvisability of regulating our
own trade by any reference to the regulations of foreign
countries, with the sentiments so glowing and favourable
which he then expressed, I confess it is totally out of my
power to conceive. At the commencement. the year a
variety of measures affecting the commerce and trade of the
country wore laid on the table of the house, and recommended
to our sujport. The trade under consideration was indepen-
dent and irrespective of the treaty of commerce so far as we
can be guided by the papers before the house. We have heard
so touch and have had so little explained that the right
hon. gentleman cannot blame the House of Commons if
they have been under the impression that the question of the
paper duties was to be dealt with irrespective of the treaty
with France. The right hon. gentleman brought forward
the case of the manulacturers of paper independently of
the treaty of commerce in q cli.sar and intelligible proposi-
tion, If the object was to cheapen the price of paper and
to stimulate its manufactuse, the Government ssatl not
have introduced a more beneficial proposition than that for
the repeal of the excise duty on paper. But there are batter
and more important:things than even Cheap paper, and the
opinion of Parliament, after long discussion and debate, was
that the measure of the qoyeruvaeut for the repeal of the ,

excise duty on paper was not expedient in the then state of
the finances of the country, and I may say in passing that
was a resolution which subsequent events justified. (Hear,
hear.) That plan of the Government having failed, what
was the state of this particular trade ? Was it one that had
never been reformed or revised ? Was it one the regulation
of which had been exempted when the general subject of the
regulation of duties had been dealt with, and when those
revisions which were prevalent during the last quarter of a
century took place ? Quite the reverse. This very branch
of manufacture included amongst those which underwent
that scrutinising examination, adjustment, and arrange-
ment to which I have referred ; and the Minister by whose
advice and counsel this critical examination took place hap-
pened to be the same Chancellor of the Exchequer who now
brought it forward. (Hear, hear.) Therefore the Govern-
ment at the commencement of this year having failed in
their policy with regard to the manufacture of paper, could
not turn round and say, we have not had our measure carried
as we intended, it is absolutely necessary to consider the
state of a trade the condition of which is disgraceful to the
country, and is not in accordance with the commercial prin-
ciples which prevail in this country, because the Govern-
ment had examined and considered the circumstances of this
branch of industry, and had adjusted it to those principles
which the house had examined and sanctioned. (Hear.)
That being the case it is somewhat extraordinary that on
the 6th of August we are now called on to consider the
position and circumstances of this particular branch of in-
dustry, and that the paper manufacturers, harassed by
what has already passed in the session, should have their
condition suddenly brought before a jaded House of Com-
mons to the surprise of everybody, and that a great Parlia-
mentary debate and struggle should take place upon the
condition of a branch of industry which had already been
revised according to the new principle of our commercial
system. (Hear, hear.) What is the cause of this strange
proceeding ? It is supposed that we are bound to do this
under and by virtue of the commercial treaty. Are we quite
clear that there is a stipulation of that kind ? Every one
will agree it is highly desirable that public documents
should be drawn in language so clear and so precise that
there shall be no doubt as to their meaning. That that is
not the case in the present instance no one will pretend to
say. I have listened to the discussion which has taken
place upon the question of our engagements under the
treaty; and I confess that as between the arguments of the
rival expositors it does appear to me that the case set up
by my hon. and learned friend (Sir H, Cairns) has not even
been encountered. (Hear, hear.) The most remarkable
observation that has been made throughout this debate is
that which has just fallen from the noble lord the Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, who of all others should be
careful in expounding a public treaty. The noble lord,
when he dealt with the 7th article, in which foreign mer-
chandise is admitted on payment of a duty equal to the ex-
cise, felt that it was impossible to vindicate the conduct of
the Government on the subject of hops; that subject on
which, according to the Attorney-General, there was so
much unfortunate vacillation. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord therefore found fault with the motion of the hon.
member for Hertfordshire, on the ground that it did not
propose any ultimate result. He said, "If you had pro-
posed that the duty should fall a shilling a year, as was
done in the case of hops, I could have understood that;
but the motion as it stands is too vague. But the proposal
which the noble lord makes is one that is just as much a
violation of the treaty as was the regulation respecting
hops.

Lord J. RUSSELL—I did not make any such propo
sition.

Mr. DISRAELI—But the noble lord said it would be in
accordance with the treaty. (Cheers.) It would, however,
have been as much a violation of it as any that has been
made in the course of the debate. (Hear, hear.) But after
all what is this treaty ? The circumstances connected with
its execution are remarkable. One would have supposed
from the language of the noble lord that we were preparing
to 'violate an engagement into which the country had en-
tered in the most complete and public manner. But I find,
looking at the papers before us, that a treaty of commerce
was negotiated and ratified, and that when it was laid on
the table and explained by the Minister, it appeared that it
was to be followed by a supplementary convention, which
was in fact to regulate the details of the measure. I find that
a specific date was mentioned by which that supplementary
treaty was to be completed, namely, the Ist of July. On
that day, however, the supplementary treaty was not exe-
cuted. On the contrary, instead of a supplementary treaty
I find that there is no arrangement between the English and
the French Governments by which these separate conven-
tions were to be successively concluded. One of them is to
refer to bar and pig iron, machines, tools, &c. The second
is to have reference to yarns and manufactures of flax and
hemp ; and the third, to all other articles of British pro-
duce and mannfactures, enumerated in the first article of
the treaty—the time for the completion of these three con-
ventions being extended to the Ist of November. Now what
security have we that when the first of November comes
these three conventions will be completed ? (Hear, hear.)
You now have taken five or six months to negotiate this
supplementary treaty, which you have not completed, and
who can tell that the three conventions will be finished
within the time specified P Well, then, sir, I say this is not
a complete engagement betweenthe two countries which we
are now proposing to violate. This is.aa incomplete and un-
finished negotiation, and there is nothing unreasonable, or
dangerous, or unjust in our suggesting to the Government
that it is quite unnecessary to arrive precipitately at any no-
solution on the subject of the paper duties atter the country
had been greatly disappointed in regard to the matter of the
raw material; but that it is wise and expedient that we
should avail ourselves of the same delay as the French
Government has done, and that we should have
negotiations with the French Government in order that we
may arrive at a fair adjustment of this question. (Hear.)
The motion of the hon. member for Hertfordshire proposes
merely that the Government should not call upon this house
to consider at once a questiort which may be postponed by
the French Government. (Hear.) It appears to me that
not only is the motion of the hon. member for Hertford-
shire one which is fair and reasonable, but that it is one
which indicates a course which it would be, I believe, wise
on the part of the Government to follow. But neither the
speech of the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs
nor that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the
amendment of the member for Hertfordshire. They have
totally avoided the real merits of the case, which may recom-
mend themselves to all men of temperate opinions. Let the
Government recollect fora moment the great disappointment
of the country at the manner fa which this treaty has been
negotiated. (Hear, hear.) I have no doubt the difficulties of
the negotiation are very considerable ; but at the same time
expectations were held out to this country as to the mode
and time at which the treaty would be negotiated, and as to
the advantages which this country was to derive from it,
which have certainly not been fulfilled, and which is a source
of great disappointment, and the reasons never have been
explained to the people of this country why the engagements
promised were not fulfilled. It appears to me, then, under
these circumstances, that the Government can be scarcely
surprised if a particular trade should hesitate before they
conclude an arrangement which they think will be highly
injurious to their industry and without receiving any of
those advantages on the part of France which were held
out to them by the Government of this country. Every-
body recollects that when this treaty came before the
house various commodities were enumerated which caused
alarm, and among which paper was one, and everyone will
recollect the interest and satisfaction caused by die an-
nouncement twice made by the Government that the French
Government had resolved to reduce the duty upon the raw
material for manufactures. (Hear, hear.) Under these
circumstances it is not unreasonable to call upon the Go-
vernment to obtain a boon necessary to the profitable exer-
cise of the paper trade, and which is a sound principle of
commerce, and which the Government more than once an-
nounced their intention to accomplish. (Hear.) Under
these circumstances I trust that the Prime Minister will,
instead of taking an exaggerated view of this matter, such
as I think has been taken by the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, feel that it is a question in which the Go-
vernment may fairly interfere, and without violating the
engagements of the country under treaties of which we have
heard so much, that he will prevent the necessity of a divi-
sion on this subject by accepting in the spirit the amend-
ment of the hon. member for Hertfordshire. The noble lord
may in the interval that will elapse between this and next
meeting of parliament use that influence which I have no
doubt he possesses with the French Government, in order
to obtain the result which is sought by the amendment. I
myself would much prefer this than that we should be
dividing on the 6th of August—have been dividing the
house on an object which of itself is not of first-rate impor-
tance. It is not like the constitution of the country. It is
the legitimate interest of a thriving trade which is still un-
der the disadvantage of an excise duty. It is all very well
to say you will get over that by a farthing or two, more or
less. I defy any one to tell the disadvantage of an excise
duty on a trade. No doubt when you compensate a trade
for an excise you should make not only an adequate but a
liberal allowance. Considering that this subject has been
brought before the house on what I believe to be an erro-
neous construction of the treaty—considering that the treaty
is an uncompleted document and an unfulfilled engagement
—and considering that the French Government has in con-
sequence of this great difficulty, in a spirit of great eoncilia-
tion, expressed its willingness not to press us to cora° into
this engagement, I think it would be the wisest and th(
most conciliatory course to the trade whose interests
are at stake, and to which I myself - would apply the
commercial principle which we have adapted; I
think that considering the French Government have
not been able to fulfil their engagements although
they are desirous of fulfilling them, that more than
once they have expressed their desire that our fulfilment
should be deferred till we can make more equal terms, and
hon. by
maeemcebpetr-
mutuallx 2attil our engagements—l say that considering
all these circumstances I wish that the noble lord would
prevent at this moment
would
uunnecessarylda
o w recommended
th s
question to be so
by divisionthe
elfino!:llribiewris.ttflii that spirit
tihee'd
the policy
noble lord should use his influence with
the French Government, so that they should allow the raw
material to be exported, and that we may have the satisfac-
tion of feeling that when the paper trade is called upon to
enter into competition, it will enter into it with all those
advantages to which it is entitled. But if the noble lord
will not do that, the only course I can take is to support

._................ —....--
the temperate and well-considered amendment which has
been proposed by the hon. member fer Hertfordshire.
(Cries of " Divide.")
Lord PALMERSTON—I entirely agree in the opinion
expressed by the right hon. gentleman that a division on
this question is not necessary, and I think it would be well
avoided by those who sit on the other side of the house.
(Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman has urged me not
to adopt unnecessary and exaggerated opinions. Now,
undoubtedly, if I have the disposition to adopt such
opinions, I think that the course followed on the other side
has been such as to warn me to avoid the example set by
them ; for I think that not only have their opinions been
stated with unnecessary energy, and exaggerated . ex-
tremely, but, as I will beg leave to show, their opinions are
inconsistent with former opinions expressed by those very
gentlemen. The question before the house is whether we
will fulfil the conditions of a treaty concluded with a
foreign power, and whether we will, with regard to this
manufacture, apply the principles of free trade which has
been adopted by all sides of the house. (Hear, hear.) Nosrs
I really am surprised, I will not say at learned gentlemen,
because they are in the habit of using refined arguments,
and what is called splitting hairs and finding difficulties
where unlearned men find none—l am not surprised that
learned gentlemen should be inclined to argue away tlse
7th article of the treaty, but that unlearned men who
look at the matter with plain common sense, look at., words
according to their ordinary meaning, and at er.gagements
according to the spirit as well as the letter—Ts am surprised
that gentlemen not belonging to the /earned profession
should entertain any doubt as to the, obvious intention of
the 7th article of the treaty. Nniling can be plainer. It
is stated in the article that the duty on merchandise coming
from France shall not esseeed the excise duty levied on the
same articles produced in this country. 'What can be
clearer and more precise than that engagement ? It is said.
that paper was not supposed to be included originally among
the provisions of the treaty; but my right hon. friend has
explained how it happened that at that time it was antici-
pated that the excise duty would be repealed, and that the
article would not apply to paper. But when the course of
events prevented the duty from being repealed the 7th
article of the treaty came into operation. It is alleged that
the French Government--not by treaty, but by diplomatic
communications—offered to do its utmost to change the law
in France with regard to the exportation of rags, and it is
said that because the French Governinent have failed in
their endeavours to procure that change, the English Go-
vernment ought also to fail to carry into effect a solemn
engagement entered into between the two countries, and
ratified by the Sovereign of each. No doubt the French
Government in the most handsome manner stated that if it
was inconvenient for her Majesty's Government to carry
out the stipulation they would waive its execution for the
present, but is such handsome and liberal conduct to be met
by conduct 'diametrically opposite? I cannot believe that
a British House of Commons can ever assent to such *
course. The right hon. gentleman who had just addressed
the house had stated that conventions are to be signed
regulating the duties on iron and other things, and he says
we can, under those circumstances, readily postpone the
paper duty. But the right honourable gentleman is con-
fusing things totally different in their nature, be.
cause that which is the subject matter of the convention
is the conversion of duties ad valorem into specific duties,
and therefore that fact has no bearing whatever upon the
question under consideration. What has the house already
done in reference to the treaty ? It has unanimously voted
the address approving of the treaty and engaging to sup-
port the crown in the performance of its stipulations ; but
yet we are now called upon to evade indefinitely the execu-
tion of the engagements into which we have entered. It is
said to be a very trifling matter, but I should be glad to
learn if that was the light n which it was represented to the
, arious gentlemen who have been called up from different
parts of the country, and even from foreign lands, to take
) part in this unnecessary division. (Laughter and cheers.)
I will undertake that to them the matter was represented
in a very different light. I trust that the house will look
at the question in a plain, straightforward English manner,
and I have no doubt they will see that there is an obligation
and will take the earliest opportunity of fulfilling it. With
regard to the bearing upon this particular trade I must be
allowed to say that I really thought we were all free-traders:
I remember a time, not very far distant, when hon. gentle'
men on the other side of the house raised the standard of
protection, and that was the rallying cry of the party. Buts
if I mistake not, in 1852 Lord Derby stated, when he dis-
solved Parliament, that he referred the question of free
trade or protection to the decision of the country. When
the general election was over, Lord Derby and its Govern'
ment stated that they felt the country had decided in favour
of free trade, and that henceforward they adopted franhll
and fairly the principle of free trade. (Hear.) But nor
this free-trading Parliament is called upon to break a treaty
for the sake of retaining a little fragment of protection in
one particular trade. My honourable friend the member
for Pontefract made an important statement to-night as
to the way in which the paper trade of this country beats
the paper manufacture of France from third markets,
in which no protection operates, and in which they
start on fair and equal terms. By their superior
skill and the better article they manufacture, they gain the
predominance in third markets, to the exclusion of the
manufacture of France. That shows, even on the narrow
ground that protection may be wanted to foster a manufac-
ture which cannot stand on its own legs, that paper does
not want that protection. Even if you admitted the rule
that it was sound policy to make the consuming public buy
a dearer or a less good article merely that the persons who
manufacture that article should have a profit which they
would not otherwise gain—even if that false and exploded
principle were a good one, it would not apply, because it /0
demonstrated that the paper manufacturers of England are
capable of meeting all the difficulties of getting raw mate'
rial and competing successfully and advantageously
with the foreign manufacturers. Therefore, whether 'lr°,
take it on the principle of the treaty or of free trade and
protection, I have not heard a single argument which he°
any weight in it. lam pursuaded the House of Commons
will feel that it is bound to maintain the honour if the
country by fulfilling our obligations, of the nature and et.
tent of which no reasonable man can doubt, and also that
they are too far advanced in the principles of free trade 0
retrace their steps now. To make this an exception t°
that general rule, the application of which has tended 00
greatly to improve the industry and increase the prosperiti
of the country, would be a dereliction of the duty of the
House of Commons, and I cannot believe that by all al.e
ingenious arguments which have been used the house will
be persuaded to do so. (Cheers.)
The house then divided :
For the resolution
For the amendment 233-33
The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud and prolonged cheering.
The resolution was then agreedto.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then mooed
" That in lieu of the duties of customs now charged on the
articles undermentioned, other duties of customs shall, °ll
and after the 16th day of August, 1860, be charged theroa!
on importation from countries other than France and
Algeria. He presumed that as between the first and this
resolution the difference was so simple and so well under-
stood, and the committee had so amply discussed the sub-
ject of free trade and protection, and the question of the
treaty, that the committee would go forward and take WO
question at once.
Mr. PULLER did not think it necessary to make another
speech to-night, but there was an important distinction be;
tween the two resolutions, and all the arguments upon the
faith of the treaty had no application whatever to this vac'
lution as regarded the interests of that class of mends°
turers whose case he had supported ; it was of vital imps="'
tance to them that this resolution should not be agreed t°'
He therefore begged to move an amendment,.
"that, with._
out desiring to prejudice the question of a reduction at
future period of the customs duty on books and paper, thus
committee does not think fit at present to assent to such
reduction."
Mr. DISRAELI could not support the amendment. The
question at issue in the first resolution was of great impor-
tance, and the house had well and fully discussed it. This
resolution would, if carried, involve this country in great
being
i ng
pl:
trouble with those countries under the name of favoured
nations. The hon. gentleman must not, therefore, colt
t the the
resolution amendment.
on his support if he went to a division.
Mr. NEWDEGATE supported
should not be doing his duty to his constituents if he did
not vote for it.
othueAt
amendment
a iv ddivisiisin. oonwaswacs withdrawn,alledforpu
and it was agreed to with'
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER nest
moved a resolution increasing the rate of duty chargeable
on wine, from the Ist January, 1861, so as to adjust the
duties on the stronger kinds of wine to meet the late increase
on the duties on spirits.
After a few words from Mr. AYRTON, this resolution sr°
agreed to, and the house resumed.
The Refreshment-houses and Wine Licenses (Ireland)
Bill was read a third time and passed.
The second reading of the Plea on Indictments Bill Ws/
moved by Mr. DENMAN, and agreed to.
The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the
1 house adjourned at half-past two.
Le I

[ADVERTISEMENT.] Pills and medicine invariably sr
t:ravate and perpetuate diseases; their annoyance, die-
aPpointment, and expense may be avoided by persona
in indifferent health sending only their address to 0
S. Barry, Esq., 77, Regent-street, W., London, and the
will receive gratis and free by post the " INVALIDS' 00%
GUIDE," or Natural Restorer, without medicine or el;
pence, of perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, Oil
refreshing sleep, to the most enfeebled, insuring the removal
of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver complaints+
nausea, epilepsy, paralysis, debility, nervousness, palpitation
cough, asthma, consumption, dropsy, flatulency, diarrhoea'
dysentery, biliousness, fevers, sore throe's, catarrhs,
noises in the ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities, eruption!,
hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessness, acidity, palpt-
talon, heartburn, headache, despondency, cramps, sPasuict;
sinking, fits, bronchitis.—" Unquestionably the safest Guide
to health."

LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO yoUNGI
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sus Dffice, No. 222 i
Strand, in the Preoinot of the Savoy, in the count/ of
Tuesday, August 7, 1860.

Ltion of
er. It
coming
on the
can be
is said
• among
Lnd has
antici-
hat the
mrse of
the 7th
;ed that
aomatic
the law
aid it is
'ailed in

Lish Go-
, solemn

ies, and
French
that if it
to carry
I for the
o be met
eve that

o such a
ddressed
signed

he says
pone the

a and 0'
also that
e trade to
-,.eption 0
tended 00
prosperitY
aty of the
by all the
1011S0 will

266
233-33
ived wial

Len mood
;ed on il°
shall, °II
thereon
.ante and
t and thin
ii under-
the sub-
on of the
I take thig

co another

action be'

upon 016

this reace
manufac
tal fraP°r°
'greed toe
at, with'
.ction at

.
sper, CIO
It to such

lent. The
at impor.•
it. TWO
r in great
favoured
>r e, count

)nt. 10
if he did

being put
to with-

;IR no3Et
largeabl°
djust tilt)
) incresio

ition W

:Ireland)

Bill ivsl

and tllO

ably air
me, dis•
persona
to
tbei
)8' 010
or el;
nos' and
remota,'
tplatota,
pltation
iarrlicga'
s,
option!,
y, palpi-
spasms,
st Gulch/

111
DUNG,
No. 112,
mar of