The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON SATURN) AY EVENING, MARCH 10, 1-60.

fact that we lost each year as many mariners as were equal
to the ship's compaity of a first-rate man-of-war, should im-
pel them to immediate and strenuous 'efforts to carry out the
recommendations made to Government on the subject.
Mr. M. GIBSON replied that in consequence of the in-
quiry which had taken place before the committee, and also
of the proposals made by the commission to which reference
had been made, the Government had felt it to be their duty
to give•this subject their most careful consideration. Un-
doubtedly great expectations had been excited upon the
subject by the reports which had been made, and by the re-
_

commendations of the committee and the commission. The
Government had formed their views as to what measures

they should submit to Parliament on the subject, and when
the state of the public business permitted, these views and
measures would be submitted to the house and fully ex-

plained. At present hon. members would excuse him from
entering into any details. He could only assure them and
the house that the Government were fully impressed with

a sense of the importance of the subject.
THE SHRUBS IN HYDE PARK.

Mr. COWPER, in reply to several questions, said—
With regard to the numerous questions of the hon. member
for Middlesex, and other hon. members, as to the shrubs in
Hyde-park, I will state simply what I believe has occurred.
When my late predecessor, whose loss has been so much
deplored by the whole house, had to consider the subject, he
thought it would be better to increase the amount of space
given to the flowers, and for that purpose it was desirable to
curtail *the portion eccupied by trees and shrubs. The late
Mr. Fitzroy seemed to have expressed an opinion that the
mixture of trees, shrubs, and flowers was not altogether de-
sirable ; and though he did not wish to make the place bare,
he did desire to substitute another arrangement. He gave
his orders early in October for the removal of the trees and
shrubs, and it was only at the suggestion of some one else
that the actual operations were postponed until the end of
November. There is no reason to suppose that the trees
and shrubs had not been planted in the very best manner.
They were planted under the care of Lcird Llanover, whose
practical experience in such matters, and zeal, was a gua-
rantee that the work was well and fairly done. But there
certainly were trees placed in that part of the park which it
was thought not desirable to have there, and that was the
reason why my immediate predecessor gave orders to have
them removed. lam not aware that any serious damage
has been done to the trees and shrubs in their removal, and
I am informed that when they shall be placed in the ground
again they will sprout out as vigorously and as successfully
as ever. (Laughter.) I do not desire to express any opiniiin
as to the fact. (Hear.) Time will show whether they are to
grow or not—(laughter)—all I desire is that the ground
should be again planted with flowers as far as can be done
with advantage, and that where the space is too large it
should be planted with shrubs, either deciduous or ever-
green, and I believe it will then be more pleasant to walk
in—when the shrubs are alone—than it was originally. I
find no reason to find fault with the superintendent of thb
parks who originally planted the trees and shrubs. I think
he is the best person to have the care of them, and that the
person who uprooted them is the very best person to plant
them again. (Laughter.) May I add that I hope the last
operation will be as successful as the first. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.) With reference to the enclosure in the park and
the cows, it was in obedience to the feelings of the public
that the cows were prevented ranging over the whole park,
and a fence was put up in order that they might be circum-
scribed in their walks.
_(Laughter.) The only mistake that
seems to have been committed was, that in shutting in the
cows the fence put up also shut out the pedestrians. (Loud
laughter.) But when 1 observed the mistake I ordered that
openings might be made in the railings of a size too small,
to admit cows to pass through, but which would admit a
gentleman, a child, and, if possible, a lady. (Laughter.)
When the openings are made in that way, I hope they will
meet with approbation ;- but if too wide or too narrow, . I
shall be happy to make them of the exact size that will suit.
' (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
THE CONFESSIONAL.

Mr. BOWYER rose to ask the Home Secretary a ques-
tion regarding the committal of a Roman Catholic priest at
the Durham Assizes for refusing to disclose statements
made to him in confession. During the trial of a prisoner
a Roman Catholic priest was called as a witness, and, on
being asked from whom he received a certain watch, refused
to answer. It was evident that if the priest had answered
the question he would have divulged the most material part
of the confession, for when a person confessed a theft he
was bound to make restitution of the thing stolen ; and the
watch was, no doubt, given to the priest in confession. The
judge told the priest that he was not asked to_divulge any-
thing communicated to him in confession, but he was only
asked who gave him the watch. This appeared to be a dis-
tinction without a difference. Tho priest, however, was
committed for contempt. He wished to say nothing but
what was respectful to Mr. Justice Hill, but he thought the
matter was a mistake and an oppressive one. He thqught
he was warranted in saying that by the old common law of
England the seal of confemion constituted a privilege. An
attorney was not required to divulge anything told him by
his client, and the seal of confession was not of less high a
nature. What he wished to ask was, whether the rev.
gentleman who had been committed to prison had been set
at liberty, and, if not, he should like to know whether the
Government would take steps that he might be immediately
liberated.
Sir G. C. LEWES said his knowledge of the case was de-
rived exclusively from the statement of the hon. gentleman
and from the reports in the newspapers. The trial took
place at Durham on Thursday last, the prisoner being in-
dicted for stealing a watch. A Roman Catholic priest was
called as a witness and sworn ; and on being asked from
whom he received a certain watch ho declined to state,
whereupon the judge committed him to prison. He (Sir G.
C. Lewis) differed in opinion from the hon. gentleman, who
thought that the law of England privileged a priest from
answering a question as to communications made to him in
confession. Any communication between a counsel or at-
torney and his client, especially on business to which a suit
related, was privileged—butno such privilege existed with
respect to a clergyman of any denomination or a physician.
He apprehended that the judge had acted with perfect
legality in this instance, and he collected from the report
that the question was pressed by the counsel, and that, there-
fore, the judge had no option but to commit the witness.
It would have been competent for the counsel to waive the
question, and such was the practice in criminal cased in
Ireland, where such instances as that referred to were more
frequent. He had received no application from the priest
or from any one on his behalf, and, therefore, he inferred
that a report which had reached him was true, and that the
priest had remained in custody only a few minutes.
THE TIMBER DUTIES.

Mr. HALIBURTON wished to ask the right hon gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was his in-
tention to bring the question of the timber duties under the
consideration of the house, as it was one that seriously
affected the interests of the people of New Brunswick and
Canada.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said his
hon. friend (Mr. Laing) had a short while since stated the
course that was to be pursued as regarded the future eon-
sideration of the timber duties. They had, however, been
fully discussed, but if hon. gentlemen were anxious to fur-
ther consider them, an opportunity would be afforded for
that purpose.
ANNEXATION OF SAVOY TO FRANCE.
Lord A. V. TEMPEST said he wished to ask the noble
lord whether her Majesty's Government had taken any
steps, and if so, whether he had any objection to state the
nature of them, to obtain the concurrence of Austria, Rus-
sia, and Prussia, in opposition to the rumoured annexation
of Savoy to France. He wished to ask also, whether they
had been made acquainted with the final intentions of Sar-
dinia with reference to the subject, and also with the un-
changed opinion of Switzerland. (Laughter.) He did
not know what hon. members laughed at; but allow him
to say that Switzerland felt a deep interest and held very ,
strong opinions on the subject—(hear, hear)—and he was
desirous, under these circumstances, to ask her Majesty's
Government whether they had any objection to give the
house the information which he sought for.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The noble lord the member for
Durham (Lord A. V. Tempest) has put to me some ques-
tions on a subject of great public interest, and I feel bound
to give him such information as I am able in reply to those
questions. He asks me if I have taken any steps, and if so,
what the nature of those steps is, to obtain the concurrence
of Austria, Prussia, and Russia in protesting against the
rumoured annexation of Savoy to France. Now, the course
which we have adopted in that respect has been to commu-.
nicate the correspondence which has taken place between.
her Majesty's Government and that of France on the sub-
ject to the Courts of Berlin, Vienna, and St. Petersburg.
I may add that wo 'contented ourselves with simply com-
municating that correspondence, and desiring that a copy
of it should be handed to the Governments of each of those
countries respectively, without asking them to take any
steps or to make any suggestion in the matter, but leaving
them to adopt such a course as they might deem expedient
on a question which is of importance to the interests of Eu-
rope. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the probable result of
this proceeding I am quite unable to supply the noble lord
with any information beyond this, that the Ministers for
Foreign Affairs both at Vienna and Berlin say that they
agree generally with the views of her Majesty's Govern-
ment on this subject. Neither at Berlin nor Vienna, how-
ever, is it absolutely stated what steps their respective Go-
vernments propose to take in a matter which certainly re-
quires careful consideration. From St. Petersburg I have
received no account with regard to it, probably because the
despatch which we sent there was not forwarded so soon as
those which were sent to Vienna and Berlin. I may at the
same time observe that when any information in answer to
the despatch which we forwarded to St. Petersburg reaches
us we shall be prepared to lay it on the table the moment it
is in a state to be thus communicated to the house. We
shall, I may add, have some correspondence from Berlin
and Vienna to lay on the table on Monday. The noble lord
has asked:me further whether we are acquainted with the
final intentions of Sardinia in reference to the annexation
of Savoy to France. Now, in answer to that question I
may state that I had placed in my hande, by a private
friend of Count Cavour a document which was said to be a
copy of the Sardinian reply to the proposal of France, but
I have been since informed that this document is not quite
correct, and therefore I cannot, until I receive further in-
formationeevxve rneerr
ycmi exercise
eenformt
perfectwo noofpufltrlridhoobfcemret subjecteeraetekdydteh:o
amcs ttaooro from her Majesty's Minister in
Turin, lay on the table any papers in reference to this par-
ticular point. I may, however, observe, that the substance
of the reply of Count Cavour is tothe effect that if the Par-
liament of Sardinia should deem it expedient to have re-
course to a vote of, the people of Savoy with respect to the
question of its annexation to France, the Sardinian Go-
vernment
country.
uahhatnaote
tti votetrehrelie.
aint
people
Tdes
whoeshhopeeoi
loidueguai
hnlodndfegs
db‘
answer
be
ahrytevea
ootptkhhyfee
eeonrcn:
olotwti
people
Count
ehteohyritt
would continae under the Sardinian Government or prefer
SCartasvveop°yuararbtethiioennnfavour of separation, the
ylel
beGotvalrneinllenuott
oonflySaor-f
dpionwiaertrsuosftsEtuhrpopqou:asntidonthwaitlleabreedwiul
the interests of Switzerland, but due regard will be paid to
the security of the frontiers of the kingdom of Sardinia it-
self. So far as Switzerland is concerned, I believe the views
of the Government of that country upon this subject re-
main quite unchanged, as the despatches which I hope to
be able to lay on the table on Monday will prove. (Hear.)
The motion for the adjournment of the house until Mon-
day was then agreed to.
TREATY WITH FRANCE.—ADJOURNED
DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.
Mr. HORSMAN resumed the debate, and in rising to
bmove
rthat the f
ge
oonl 1
tohwei n
treatyg wo r ds
with
tb added
he
France, to the
viz., address
~t.n t moved
humbly
to represent to her ;Majesty that, in the opi4on of this

article 11 imposes on the Crown and Legislature of the
coitry unnecessary and impolitic restrictions, td which this
house cannot assent,; and to pray her Majesty to effect the
oTniEsion of that article from the treaty"—said that he
should follow the example set by the mover and seconder
of the address, by first considering the' genaral policy and
general character of the treaty before_ he directed the par-

titular attention of the house to his amendment. The
readiness with which the house had voted for those financial
remissions, which were necessary to give effect to this treaty,
had shown how desirous they were to extend their com-
mercial relations with France, and to promote all those po-
litical and moral relations which flowed from a free inter-
course between two great nations. They had agreed not
only to large fiscal sacrifices, but to the imposition of new
burdens ;_and whilst, on the one side, they had made the ac-
knowledgment due to the value placed on the friendship of
France, they had, on the other, given that assistance which
they felt duo to the Ministers of the Crown in their laudable
endeavours to perpetuate and strengthen that alliance. But
as a change was required to be made, and, in fact, bad
already been made on their side without the treaty, and
other concessions and relaxations had been made on the
part of France also without the treaty, they were invited
by the address to express their opinion as to the peculiar
mode in which those changes had been effected ; and,
as those concessions were altogeeher independent of any

treaty, they were to inquire why a treaty had been
resorted to for that purpose. A treaty of reciprocity
was a retrograde step for England ; it was an inconveni-
ent, an anomalous, and it might prove an embarrassing,
proceeding. (Hear, hear.) If there was one right more
than another which it was the duty of Parliament most
vigilantly to guard, it was the right of having complete con-
tro over their domestic legislation, and especially their
fiscal legislation, so that they might be able to increase or
diminish, vary or modify, their national expenditure, their
fiscal regulations, and approximate the taxation to the vary-
ing wants and interests of the country, but by a treaty of
reciprocity they gave up that power. They would have no
power next year to reconsider what might be the omissions
or oversights committed in the present year. They aban-
doned their legislative freedom, they bartered it to another
Power, to whom they gave the right to control them in
taxing the people, which was no longer the exclusive busi-
ness of England. It was France's business ; it was every-
body's business: They had tied and bound themselves as long
as the treaty lasted, by indissoluble bonds, to France; and it
was only by the favour of France that these fetters could be
relaxed. Our commercial code repudiated treaties of recipro-
city. They were a great sacrifice to a nation proud of its inde-
pendence—a sacrifice, the greatness of which could hardly
be exaggerated. A treaty of reciprocity could only be jus-
tified by some impending evil to be averted, or some good
to be derived, so large and so legitimate that no price could
be too great for it. He therefore asked her Majesty's Go-
vernment what were the motives for the treaty—what its
compensating fruits ? (Hear. hear.) For a long time they
had asked for that information in vain. When the treaty
was first announced the noble lord the First Minister said
itwas necessitated by the peculiar constitution of France,
which made it impossible for us to get the security we re-
quired for the arrangements we were about to make. That
implied that there was an equivalent for which security was
required by us ; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer
frankly and fairly told the house that England was entitled
to no equivalent, and that what we had done it was to our
interests to do without a treaty. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer himself had avoided most significantly all ex-
planation as to commercial equivalents, and he must say he
fully appreciated and respected the motives which made
that right hon.gentleman rather shrink from developing his
reasons to the house. But at a later period the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs was compelled officially lo make that
announcement, and he then told them that the protectionists
were too strong for the Emperor, aid that they had com-
mand of the Legislative Chambers—

Lord J RU S3ELL-4clid;;lsay any such thing. (Hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN continued—He could not pretend to
quote the exact words of the noble lord, but he understood
him to say that the Emperor was obliged to resort to a
treaty to effect a change which the Legislative Chambers
would probably not sanction—.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I said nothing of the Legislative
Chambers at all. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN continued—He understood by the noble
lord's speech the treaty was resorted to because the ordinary
constitutional method of submitting the measure to the
French Chambers would not succeed. That was the state-
ment which they heard, and it only confirmed the state-
ments which reached them from every side. It came to this,
that the Emperor of the French was a free trader and the
French nation were protectionists, and therefore, if it was
left to them to settle the question between themselves, it
might be settled adversely to the Emperor, because the
project must be submitted to the Legislative Chambers, who
would be'certain to reject it. The Emperor addressed him-
self to the English capitalist, and said to him, " To be sure,
it is against your law • but it will not be the first time on
which you attempted oblige my changing your laws.
Give me a treaty of reciprocity ; with that I can laugh at
the chambers, and thrust free trade down the throats of my
subjects." And the Cabinet of England appealed to that
house, who were the representatives of a constitutional
country, and they thought they were doing good service,
not by making themselves accomplices, but instruments of
afording aid to the Emperor to evade the constitution of
his own Legislature, and that they should deem it just,
and constitutional, and politic to lend themselves to a de-
vice by which he might coerce his subjects, and with these
motives which were patent to all the world, they were to
proceed to loosen their commercial code, to compromise and
confuse the policy of England, to meet the interests of
France. Now, these were the motives of the treaty, an d
what were the compensations ? " By this" said the ad-
mirers of the treaty, "you secure the friendship of the
French nation." By helping their Emperor to jockey them,
they hoped to secure their eternal gratitude—they hoped to
get such a hold of their friendship that old enmities and
animosities would be as dead as reciprocity-was six months
ago, and as to the war party they should never hear of it
again. Now, these were the great resuts of this treaty—
peace, friendship, gratitude. These were great results, but
they were not all. It was said that these transactions would
turn out most profitable for England—that our coalmasters
and ironmasters would find new markets in France—our
manufacturers would find a new nation of customers—and
French wines would be cheapened to all, and made acces-
sible to everybody. The hon. baronet behind him said we
had now arrived at a millenium of prosperity, and if there
be any weak brother in Lancashire whose conscience may
prick him for having acted sharply with the French, let him
go home and console himself with the thought that he shall
have great gains. That was the glowlng prospectus, but
his (Mr. Horsman's) objection to it was that it was based
upon fallacious calculations, and that, even as a commercial
speculation, it might not succeed. The equivalents pro-
mised were of two kinds—material and moral. The mate-
rial equivalents were in the direction of free trade. Now,
as to free trade he would say this—that he had embraced
free trade principles long before any gentleman who sat on
the Treasury bench, with the exception of the right hon.
member for 'Wolverhampton; and he was not to be told
by gentlemen who threw up their hats at the eleventh
hour. that he did not comprehend its spirit. The prin-
ciples of free trade, as he understood them, had for their ob-
ject to unite nations together by feelings of common interest
—to make them materially dependent and assistant—to erase
geograpical distinctions, and to unite France and England as
closely as Lancashire and Yorkshire were united, so that
what benefited one must react on the other, and what added
to the wealth of one must add to the wealth of the other,
and, therefore, on the narrowest grounds of selfish policy,
the most consistent free trader must wish to promote the
prosperity of France in order to benefit England. His
opinion was that the moral benefits conferred on a nation
by free trade were a great deal more important than the
material. (Hear.) He valued free trade not merely as a
promoter of wealth and commerce, but also as a security for
the wealth and dignity of nations. It was quite consistent
with this opinion that he should hold it wise in an entirely
exceptional state of things in France, where the military
element predominated over the commercial, where there
were armaments by sea and land such as the world never
saw before, and a military organisation such as had not
been known since the days of the Roman empire—it was
quite consistent with his appreciation of free trade princi-
ples that he should hold that this was not precisely the mo-
ment when we should part with our legislative independence,
especially to that Power whose menacing attitude imposed
, on us war taxes and burdens (hear, hear), and an enormous
expenditure to protect us from attacks which we appre-
hended from him alone. (Hear, hear.) His difference with
those who were so muck in favour of this treaty was not so
much a matter of principle as of definition. When those
persons spoke of France they spoke of-the:French Emperor ;
when he (Mr. Horsman) spoke of France he spoke of the
French nation. There was a difference to be drawn between
the free intercourse of nations, which was patent to all the
world, and the secrets of Governments, which were patent
to nobody but the members of those Governments. This
treaty violated the first principles of commercial freedom and
international right, and on that ground it might yet be
found to bear bitter fruit. The promised material equi-
valents were two—first, that France would admit our coal
and iron at a low duty, and would admit our manufactures
at a duty beginning at 30 per cent., which was afterwards
to be reduce to 25 per cent. As to the coal and iron, he
would postpone his observations until a future occasion ;
but, as to the duty of 30 percent. on our manufactures, he
believed it was the opinion of those most capable of forming
an opinion that that protective duty might after all turn
out to be a prohibitory duty. That opinion had been al.
ready pronounced by the Leeds Chamber of Commerce. He
saw it stated in the Jeurnal des Debats, a great free trade
organ, and one that was understood to represent the opi-
nions of the Emperor, that 30 per cent. was sufficient to act
as a prohibition, and was intended by the Emperor to be
such, and that he had thus outwitted the English negotia-
tor. We were in the first instance to allow the French
manufactures to enter here free of duty, while our manu-
factures were to pay 30 per cent. duty in France. We
should derive no benefit from this treaty, while our manu-
factures would be a source of immense revenue to France.
On the French side it would not come into operation for 18
months, while on our side it would come into operation im-
mediately, by which we made a present to the French na-
tion of £2,000,000 at the very time when there was a deficit
in our own Exchequer which must be made up by an in-
creased income tax. Therefore, so far as reciprocity went
it was very much of an Irish character. As to the moral
effects of the treaty, they were told they would secure peace
and the friendship of France, which he admitted would be
cheaply purchased at 10 times the price. But he did not
know by what subtle process of metaphysical inquiry it was
to be discovered that the best way of securing the friendship
of France, was to begin by wounding and irritating the feel-
, ings of the:people. He could not understand how our wound-
ing the amour propre of the French was to promote their
good feelings towards us, and still less could he understand
how the prospect of peace was to be brought about by our
making enemies of the commercial class, the only class of
men in France who were against war. All the fallacy lay
in confounding the French Emperor and the French nation.
Their views were antagonistic; they took opposite sides;
whatever gratified the Emperor offended France ; whatever
served the Emperor, in the estimation of his people, ruined
France. (Cries of " Oh.") He appealed to those who had
taken the trouble to read the French journals. They were
asked to decide for the French Thnperor against France ;
for, said the Emperor himself, this change was so odious in
the estimation of the nation, and so injurious, that he could
not carry it out by his own influence and power. The Le-
gislative Assembly of France was, to be sure, a mockery,
and the Emperor could dissolve it at his beck. England,
therefore, must help him to elude his Chambers by depriv-
ing these of a voice in the management of their own affairs ;
and we, who had been contending that the Italians should
leave a free right to choose their own form of government,
, refused to the people of Fran' e the right to have a voice in
tFh(eni.eriognwn.offitaxac e;lion, and we conspired against them with
their ruler and delivered them surprised and helpless into
' his hands. (Loud cries of " Oh, oh.") This treaty was
not a diplomatic secret to be buried in the sanctuary of the
it was a treaty which could only take effect
if the Parliament of England adopted this new morality of
the Code Napoleon. Observe how doubly odious was our
part in this translation 'We stepped out of our way and
thanged our laws on purpose to gyve the Emperor the op-
, portunity he wished for. The people of France were say-
ing at this momeut that the Emperor had bribed Enlaud

to help him to trip up France, and that the complicity of a l•
nation of shopkeepers, purchased through the lust of lucre,
was sold to the Emperor to help him to circumvent his
people. (" Oh.") Well now, the Protectionists of France
wore, in his opinion, a very benighted race, but'froni us at
least they had right to expect fair play, and he said why
not let them fight it out with their Emperor themselves ?
They know their own interests as well as we did, and they
could see clearly enough the friendship we professed and the
treachery we practised. He read the other day, in the
Moniteur Industriel, th it this treaty would not come into
operation for 18 months. By that time France would
have her armaments complete and her fleet equipped, and
then she might blow this treaty to stems with cannon
balls. If that were so, he (Mr. Herman) asked what
security had we that the Emperor would be able to give
effect to the treaty in 1861 ? The fact was, we could not,
looking at the grounds we ourselves had taken, justify this
treaty to time French nation. Why was there all this haste
on our part to obtain those great advantages ? Could we
not be satisfied with the immense material prosperity which
this country was now enjoying under the influence of free
trede, but we must still play tricks and tamper with it? All
the interests of this country were thriving, and money-
making was going on at a rate unparalleled in the history of
this country ; then, why should we endanger all this by a
mad, exciting chase after what might-, after all, turn out a
failure, and for which we had no justification. The advice
which Sir It. Peel bequeathed to his countrymen was—
" Take no heed of foreigners, except to set them an example
which, sooner or later, they are sure to follow ;" and, now
when that example was just beginning to tell upon the
great nation of France, we were abandoning it. His
opinionwas that, even as a commercial speculation, it would
not pay. He thought the profits would not compensate the
risk. We did not find the benefits of free trade with the
Chinese, and he hoped we were not going to burn our fingers
with the French. In his speech the other day the Emperor
stated that this treaty only anticipated what he should have
been compelled to do in a short time, but he (Mr. Horseman)
must say he had no faith in treaties which were carried by
a coup d'etat. But there was another ground upon which
he strongly protested against this treaty. It was submitted
to them as a political transaction. Now, the political rela-
tions of England with France, Italy, and the other great
Powers of Europe were at this moment in a very delicate
position. Within the last week the Emperor of the French
had volunteered a speech which had agitated every bourse in
Europe. Within the last few days a Minister of the French
Emperor had published two despatches which had changed
the whole aspect of European politics, and while England
was still perturbed by those now phases of imperial policy,
they were invited to ccmcur in this new commercial compact
of brotherhood. (Hear.) To what was this new alliance
with France to lead ? He would remind the house of the
circumstanpes under which this treaty was negotiated. The
noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had
given instructions to our ambassadors. What construction
was to be put upon those instructions ? Why, that by the
treaty the great Powers of Europe were to be informed that
England and France had come to a complete understanding
as to their common policy on the affairs of Europe, and
especially upon that question which was engrossing the
minds of men—the settlement of Italy. Was that alliance
between England and France calculated to'reassure the
public mind ? He thought he had put upon the language
of the noble lord the proper construction. He asked the
noble lord if that were not the proper, Interpretation—the
interpretation which the noble lord meant in giving those
instructions ? Was it not intended by the noble lord that

the treaty should give an assurance to that a feel-
ing of confidence existed between the Cabinets of St.

James's and the Tuileries ? Was not that treaty preceded
by an assurance that France had no designs upon Savoy ?
(Hear, hear.) And was it not upon a solemn declaration to
that effect that the house was invited to the adoption of that
treaty? (Hear, hear.) Would the Government venture
to recommend the treaty upon the same grounds now as
formerly ? Had not the speech of the Emperor of the
French blown these notions to the winds ; and had not the
despatches of his Minister put an end to the opinions for-
merly entertained as to his intentions with respect to Savoy?
(Hear.) The Savoy papers had been laid upon the table ;
he had read them, and came to the conclusion that they
did form a most favourable contrast to the attitude and

manner that had biaen on some occasions exhibited by the

Government of England to wards the Government of Fiance.
To him it was refreshing to read the tone and the lan-
guage of the noble lord—it was refreshing, too, to see
that the noble lord had the spirit and the sound and
true heart of as English Minister. So far as he
(Mr. Horsman) could gather from those dispatches, he,
for one, should be content to place the honour of
England in the hands of the noble lord. But the noble
lord was not the whole Cabinet; and there had been indi-
cations upon that and other occasions of difference of opinion
in that Cabinet. The noble lord could not be said to be the
master of the Cabinet, which had another master not at
present in his place. (Laughter.) They had seen it stated
in the public press of France that England had once anage
of Elizabeth; at another time an age of Pitt; but that at
present she had an age of the hon. gentleman the member
for Birmingham. (Laughter.) He never grudged the hon.
member for Birmingham any honour he had won, because
his honours had been won by earnestness and ability, by
openness and fearlessness; but he mustibe permitted to say
that he viewed with apprehension and anxiety, especially
with regard to our foreign affairs, the predominance of the
commercial element in the Cabinet (Hear, hear.) Events
were gathering in Europe—one could not tell how soon we
might find it necessary for some English statesman to evoke
the spirit which, though dormant, was Rot extinct, and who
would spurn the imputationthat Englishmen, after all were
no more than money-making machines. He must advert to
the scantiness of the official despatches, and to the reluct-
ance with which even those scanty despatches were given
to the house. It was a strange fact that the diplomatic de-
spatches of despotic governments were given to the world,
while it seemed to be the policy of the constitutional Go-
vernment of England to keep back from our Parliament
what it was essential for Parliament to know. He believed
the system of secresy to be unnecessary, and he disliked it,
because such a system invariably became one of deception.
He could not make the present case an exception to what
he had stated. There had been an unusual application of
the scissors to the correspondence which had recently been
laid upon the table. There might be much kept back which
if brought forward would throw light upon the causes of
that scantiness, which might perhaps be accounted for
by tho difference said to exist in the Cabinet, and
which might have caused the Foreign Secretary
to clothe parts of his despatches in language not his
own. It was, however, a fact that the house had been
told to place confidence in the pacific intentions of the
Emperor at a time when our ambassador was directed
to remonstrate with the French Government. At a time
when our Government were inviting the House of Com-
mons to pay homage to France they were possessed of in-
formation that the Emperor was meditating the grossest out-
rage against the public law and.morality of-Europe that had
stained its history since the days of the first Napoleon. Was
its possible for any two countries to differ more in policy
than did those of 'France and England respecting the affairs
of Italy ? It was our policy that the Italians should be
governed by themselves ; it was the policy of France that
Italy should be governed by France. It was our policy that
Savoy should pertain to Piedmont; it was the policy of France
that Savoy should belong to her. Our policy respected
treaties, and had reverence for international rights ; the
pOlicy of France was extinction of treaties, aggression, ag-
grandisement, and war. The sentiments and opinions of the
two nations were, in a word, the antipodes of each, other;
and yet they were called upon to contract this alliance,
which they were told was to have so much significance in
the 'eyes of Europe. Ho objected , to the policy of the
treaty—which gave everything and received nothing ; he
preferred the old doctrine to the new philosophy which
would tax Englishmen to benefit Frenchmen. (Hear.)
It was called a treaty of peace; but that title was belied by
our immense armaments. It was most objectionable to
connect ourselves with a policy which we could not fathom,
with an ally whom we could not trust—to make ourselves
responsible for occurrences which all Europe would con-
demn. The right hon. gentleman then alluded to the notions
of scientific men upon the capacity of our collieries,
which, in the opinion of Professor Ansted, would last
350 years. To build a column of coal whose base would
be as wide as Lincoln's-inn-fields,. and as high as
Snowdon, would represent the annual consumption of coal.
He wished the house to observe that this gentleman also
said he could not tell how soon the exhaustion of coal
would take place, but that within 25 years there would be
a rise in the price of coal which at this moment would ap-
pear to the house to be incredible. (Hear, hear.) He
wanted the house to observe this, that all the authorities
aimit'el th it at the present rate of consumption of coal
they must haye an increase of the price. New what did an
increase in price mean? Did it not mean an increase in the
cost of the production of our manufactures, and a severer
competition in foreign markets? What was the great source
of England's manufacturing success? Was it the abundance
of labour? Labour in France was cheaper. Was it the in-
genuity of our countrymen? The French were at least as
ingenious. Was it the advantage of climate? The climate of
France was superior to ours. It was this —that we had a
cheap and abundant supply of the first element of prosperity,
which had enabled us to produce cheap goods, and to out-
strip all foreign rivals, and to carry away the profits and
wealth of the world. (Hear, hear.) They had only been
working the coal which was most accessible—viz., that
nearest the surface and extracted most easily. An increased
demand for coal meant deeper mines, more extensive ma-
chinery, worse ventilation, multiplied accidents, increased
waste, greater loss of life, and a great enhancement in price.
(Hear, hear.) And as to enhancement in price. Was there a
factory in Lancashire, an establishment in Yorkshire, or a
furnace in Birmingham, whore the increased price of coal
does not mean an increased cost in production. "(Hear.) It
could nof be said with truth that it was in favour of Eng-
land that the French should take cur coal. In a commercial
point of view it would be no advantage to England. But it
might be a great advantage to the coal proprietors of Eng-
land. Their interest, however, was to raise the price of coal
throughout the whole of England; but raising the price of
coal would be to inflict a tax upon the people equal to ano-
ther income tax. (Hear, hear.) Coal was an exhaustible
commodity, and every ton which was consurtied was an
exhaustion of the capital of England upon which they
; every ton used was a positive and permanent dimi-
nution of the manufacturing and productive power ef Eng-
land, aad accelerated the term of England's prosperity and
greatness. (Hear, hear.) Yet knowing this they were
giving to foreign nations a vested right in England's coal.
They were making France a copartner in the first elements
of our commercial success ; and they were doing this at the
very time when they knew that coal was the first element
of national life, and that the exhaustion of coal meant an
end to the greatness of England. (Hear, hear.) What
was that but a greedy and speculative race after wealth in
our own time, and wasting the inheritance of that which
Providence had made us the trustees—squandering, syick-
edly squandering, that on which depended the prosperity of
our successors. (Hear, hear.) But they must also remem-
ber that coal and iron were the raw materials of war to
France. Her army and her navy could not move wltheut
them. They were as essential as gunpow.der. Was it not,
therefore, right that we should reserve in our hands the
legal power of stopping the supplies of that article which
other nations might under disadvantageous circumstances
require. (Hear, hear.) Coal was not only a great engine
of war, but it was a great instrument of peace. (Hear, hear.)
When'they knew that other nations could not move without
coal, they should always remain in .a position to stop the
supply ; for, being the only nation having an abundant sup-
ply, they were in a position to carry on a protracted war.
Financially, he thought there was not much to be said about
it. No one advocated export duties, because they were vi-
cious in principle and pernicious in operation. But the late
Sir It. Peel laid an export duty upon coal partly because it
was an exhaustible commodity, and partly because it was the
element of strength to foreign countries to compete with
England in the foreign markets of the world. (Hear, hear.)
But no one at this moment would advocate an export duty on
coal, but he (Mr. Horaman) said they ought not to part with
the power of laying on such a duty. Their financial posi-
tion at this moment was not very satisfactory, nor were
their prospects very assuring: The export duty of 1842, im-
posed bySir R. Peel, was admitted bo be a failure, and people
therefore said an export duty on coal would always be un-
productive. (Hear, hear.) But they forgot that in 1842
the duty was imposed in the face of hostile import duties
in foreign countries. It was in consequence not admitted.
But foreign nations had become wiser, and they were now
going to Admit Coal free of clutYt (Hear) hear.) 11Q said tlaat

their financial position now was net encouraging. Ho
thought it would be unwise and unnecessary that they should
now for all time to come deprive themselves of the power of
making a financial arrangement with other countries. It
was mortifying to them to see the sagacity upon this sub-
ject exhibited by thc'Emperor of the French in contrast with
the weakness of our own Government. (Hear.) The Em-
peror knew that coal was a mighty engine for war, and for
commercial purposes it was a still mightier instrument for
peace. 'He knew it was the source of England's greatness,
and the power by which they had won their wealth and
ascendancy in Europe. Wisely and sagaciously the Em-
peror had acquired an ownership in England's coal; and
wisely and sagaciously he had deprived England of the solo
ownership and control over her own mineral resources.
(Hear, hear.) He (Nr. Horsman) felt they had much to
dread in case of war by English coal being used against
them, and it behoved them to feel how much they had to
dread by allowing their coal to be an element of competition
against them in time of peace. (Hear, hear.) They were
reversing the policy of Sir R. Peel, for he, -with a jealous
patriotism, endeavoured to prevent coal from leaving our
shores, while our present Government were going to give
cheap coals to Rouen and Havre, and make them dearer to
Manchester and Birmingham. Could any commercial ad-
vantages be derived from the trade in coal to compensate for
this, if they increased the competition in foreign markets
against themselves ? (Hear.) The Emperor could not bestow
upon us a share in the sun of Southern France, nor could
he give u's a share in, the brilliant hues in French silks, or
the delicate flavour of French wines. (Hear, hear.).m The com-
mand over these things he intended to keep his own
hands, while the whole of the Channel, from the shores of
Dunkirk to Cherbourg, and from the banks of the Seine to
the great Manchester of France, had been made a favoured
pad by England in regard to the possession of coal. Hence-
forth, then, they would have a race eminent for industry,
for energy, and for taste in the fine arts, who bad
acquired a vested and permanent right in the mineral re-
sources of England. (Hear.) The whole history of civilised
legislation offered no parallel for such an improvident agree-
ment. And it was the more inexplicable, because upon
every ground it was proved tobe unnepessary. (Hear, hear.)
It was neither required by England nor demanded by the
Government of France. For the Ambassador of France,
knowing how obnoxious the measure would be to England,
came forward voluntarily and suggested to our Government
the modification'of the article on coal, but our Government
would listen-to no suggestions. The time might, however,
come when the interests of England might require that the
export of coal should be taxed and prohibited; but against
the interests of England they would be asked to take care
of the interests of France. The time might come when fu-
ture governments might deem it matter of policy or patriot-
ism to impose that duty It might be inconvenient to France
—it might be injurious to France—there might be appre-
hensions about, but still they were giving to France a gua-
rantee against our own nation. That might be a matter of
years or of months ; but so long as the treaty lasted they
gave a charter of right which could not be questioned by
any English Minister. (Hear.) If this country had a supe-
riority they would give it up, and make other nations com-
petitors in time of peace and rivals in time of war. (Hear,
hear.) He wished it to be clearly understood as to the point
to which the amendment was directed. Let it not be said
that he wished to place an export duty upon coal. Let it
not be said that he wished to take from France the privi-
leges which she possessed. He took his stand on the exist-
ing law. The present law gave France all that she could
demand, and as much as any legislature could concede.
(Hear, hear.) It was for the Government to show why
they gave more than France demanded. It was for them
to show that this treaty would be beneficial to English in-
terests, because it was for English interests alone they
ought to care in an English Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
This article in reference to coal was inserted solely for the
interests of France, and he challenged the Government to
disprove his assertion. (Hear, hear.) He said that by this
bargain it was obvious they would injure England and give
a benefit to France. The Government had placed the inte-
rests of France first and not last, and he said that in this
transaction the Government had not acted as the Ministers
of England, but as the Ministers of France. They had
sacrificed the highest interests of England. He said, in the
face of the house, that the Government had failed in their
duty to the Sovereign whom they had sworn to serve, and
to the magnificent empire it was their duty to save. (Loud
cheers.) The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving
'he amendment.

Mr. C. W. PACKE seconded the amendment.

Mr. VIVIAN, as representative of the largest coal dis
trict in the country, thought he could give the house some
information upon the subject. The coal field of South Wales
was sufficient to supply the wants of the country at the
highest rate of consumption for 500 years to come. The ex
tent of the field was about 640,000 square acres, and the
average depth of the coal 60 feet. It was estimated that
under every foot of surface there were 1,500 tons of coal,
and that a cube yard of the mineral weighed more than one
ton. He found that South Wales contained no less than
545,000 millions of tons of coals, and making all necessary
deductions, South Wales alone could supply the consump-
tion of England for 500 years. The present consumption of
coals in South Wales was about 7,500,000 tons per annum,
and at that rate of consumption South Wales could supply
itself for 5,000 years. In great Yorkshire the coal field ex-
tending from Bradford to Nottingham was estimated at 500 to
600 acres of the average thickness of 30 feet, it was therefore
very nearly equal to South Wales. The coal fields of Lanca-
shire were 200 to 300 acres in extent, of an average thickness
of 60 feet, and with another coal field, that of Bristol, would
furnish a supply of about 900 millions of tons. These data he
had obtained from various works, but as regarded South Wales
he vouched for the correctness of his statements upon his own
knowledge. There was also an enormous coal field in the west
of Scotland and other coal fields to which he alluded. To
talk to him, therefore, of exhausting the coal fields of Eng-
land was altogether absurd. As to the bearing of the ques-
tion of war upon coals he found that in the French navy
the consumption per annum was 160,000 tons, while in the
British navy the quantity was 200,000 tons. And as to the
160,000 tons of which the right hon.. gentleman had spoken
why that was the produce of one colliery alone. He had
himself a colliery that produced that quantity per annum)
and it was absurd to talk of such a consumption having any
political consideration whatever. He found that in 1845
the coal fields in France produced 6,251,000 tons of coals,
of which it consumed internally 4,101,100 tons, and yet the
right hon, gentleman talked of the importance of an export
of 160,000 tons to a country producing nearly 7,000,000,
and in addition to the coal fields of France, there were the
coal fields of Prussia. There was no better fuel than coke
for the purposes of steam, and nothing could be more ap
plicable to war purposes. Now France possessed plenty of
coal which could be converted into coke. The right hon.
gentleman (Mr. Horsman) had spoken of the price
being increased by the deeper sinking into -coal pits,
but that was a matter which would be subject
to the usual laws of trade. It should be re-
membered that the original cost of sinking into a
coal pit was as nothing compared to the after eost.
The amount of production must always be measured by the
amount of labour. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Hors-
man) seemed to think that no benefit would result to this
country from the export of coal, but every ton exported was
not a loss but a gain. (Hear.) Coals were lying useless in
the earth until they were brought out, as it was with every
mineral. He believed the whole prosperity of England de-
pended upon her manufactures, for which coal was essen-
tial, but he hid not the slightest fear of that supply being
affected. (Hear, hear.) He begged, in conclusion, to say
that he had simply risen to put the house in possession of
some statistics which ho believed he could furnish with
some effect. (Hear.) As to the treaty it had his most
cordial approval, and it should have his support. (Hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK said that the hon. member for Swan-
sea (Mr. Vivian) was mistaken on the subject of coal, as
far as regarded the use of that article for the purposes of
war. Therefore the entire of his argument fell to the ground.
The hon. gentleman then referred to the speechof the right
hon. member the President of the Board of Trade, who said
that he was opposed to commercial treaties, and yet he gave
up hfl views in order to support the treaty before the house.
His right hon. friend had also said that English ships would
not suffer by the terms of the treaty, when put in competi-
tion with French ships. In answer to this theory of his
right hon. friend, he begged to read an extract from the
master of an English ship in a French port, in which he
stated that, while an English ship could only get £3 10s. a
ton for freight, the French ship in the same port could get
£3 15s. He had heard with surprise the speech of his hon.
and learned friend the member for Belfast (Sir H. Cairns),
who, while he said that the treaty was a very bad bargain,
gave it his support. The hon. member for Middlesex said
that the treaty was founded upon right principles. It was
because he believed it was not founded upon right prin-
ciples that he (Mr. Bentinck) would oppose it. Refer-
ring to the support given to the Government in this mat-
ter by the hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright),
he said that that hon. gentleman had done so with the view
of exercising a political control over her Majesty's Minis-
ters. (A laugh.) The hon. gentleman was now the avowed
originator of a scheme, the effect of which was to break
down the interests of all other classes in the country, or
the benefit of the manufacturing classes.
which(Heieittlra.?l
He could not concur in the amount of eulogy
edhTimr. t Co obbe:
beenden) hineapreesdputpctontothtehhison .
treaty,member
fo r forhe
considering his antecedents, the most dangerous person
Rochdaleliev
the possible to represent the honour of England at a foreign
Court. (Opposition cheers.) He thought
Protec-
tionists if
of France followed the course of the Protectionists
of this country, they would come to an untimely end, and
there was no pity for them. (Laughter.) There was one
question of great congratulation, and that was, ,that the
right hon gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
induced the French Government to take off the duty on
rags—(laughter)—a most important consideration in the
right hon. gentleman's financial scheme, seeing that one of
the objects of her Majesty's Government is to take care that
her Majesty's subjects shall bo clothed in "rags." (Great
laughter.) He could not say how, the name of common
sense, the right hcn. gentleman could defend the treaty and
condemn protection at the same time. The right hon. gen-
tleman had much lauded the principles of free trade ; but
this was not the free trade of Sir R. Peel—it was rather a
treaty drawn up by France and'signed by Bedlam. (Laugh-
ter.) The right hon. gentleman, however, had a very easy
way of reconciling things, seeing that he took office under
one Government, then went abroad, came home, and then
took office under another, which succeeded the lute! Govern-
ment. Now, as far as the treaty is concerned, he believed
it to be unjust, unwise, and degrading to this country, and
that it was mainly framed at the dictation of Europe, and
he should rather see this country engaged in a war with
France, and with the whole of Europe, than see this treaty
ratified. (Oh, oh.) He held those opinions. War might be
disastrous, but it could never be disgraceful to us, and this
treaty would. (Hear, and laughter.) , He would only fur-
ther add that he for one should express his dissent from
the ratification of a treaty which was framed by men who
were alike indifferent to the honour, the interests, and the
welfare of England. (Hear, hear.) -
Sir R. PEEL could not agree with the sentiments of the
hon. gentleman who had just resumed his seat, but should
give a cordial vote in support of the motion for the address.
He had admired the manner in which the right hon. gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, placed be-
fore the house the facts of the case, and had cordially sup-
ported him in the divisions which had taken place on the
question. (Cheers.) With respect to the present address, its
terms were unexceptionable, for no person could doubt that
it was her Majesty's desire to promote the happiness and
welfare of her subjects. They were all unanimous upon
that point. (Cheers.) Ile considered that the earnest desire
of her Majesty's Ministers had been, as they said it had, to
draw as close as possible the bonds of amity between this
country and Franee ; and ho considered that the policy of
the Government had been a wise one, and they had been
desirous to develope trade and industry; and he considered
that the sacrifice of £1,200,000 which ho had made for this
purpose was as nothing compared with the benefits which
must result from that course of policy which they had
adopted. He reminded the house that in 1787 Mr. Pitt had
told the house that the sacrifice of revenue to secure great
commercial objects was by no means unknown to the his-
toity, of the country, and he confessed that, in his opinion,
gdyautageo fr94l,a 9911t111104C9 9f peace and

amity between France and England would incalculably re-
pay any immediate loss of revenue.. He admitted that it
was imp )ssible, to separate the treaty . from the genoF4
policy of France, and that there we a some reason_ for the

hesitation of the house, considering that many disapproved
of the policy of the Emperor as it affected the States of
Europes, and he at first doubted whether it would be
wise to enter into a treaty of commerce, when that gene-

ral policy was of a questionable character ; but on ma-
ture consideration he thought it was, and that
the conduct of her Majesty's Ministers had been
such as should meet with the approval of the people. At the
same time he had heard with surprise in support of this
treaty the speech of the hon. member for Birmingham, who
had announced himself as a new ally of the Government ;
but the hon. gentleman was no new ally to despotism.
Knowing the connection of the hon. gentleman with Mr.
Cobden, he must confess he had been astonish:A at the
tenor of some of the speeches uttered by him. The hon.
member for Birmingham was the universal friend of the
people—not of this country or America, but all over the
world He had obtained a great deal of provincial eclat, and
had made himself popular by discussing popular topics during
the recess ; but he (Sir R. Peel) was surprised at the tone he
had taken hi advocating this treaty. Why, he .was abso-
lutely despotic in his ideas. (Laughter.) How often was it
that they saw a man of talent, an energetic man, full of
emotion, the friend of the people, contradict him and oppose
him, and they found him a most unmitigated 'despot and
tyrant. (Laughter.) What did the hon. member say with
respect to this question, treating on the general policy of
France ? He said, " Perish the liberties of half a million
of people, only give me thi- treaty." (Opposition cheers.)
He said, "Perish all natural feeling, give me the treaty and
I shall be satisfied." That might be the feeling of the hon.
gentleman, but was it the feeling of the Government as well
as of their new ally ? The member for Birmingham at-
tempted to gauge the loyalty of the people of England by
the depth of their breeches-pocket. He said a man's loy-
alty was to be counted upon in proportion to the extent or
deficiency of his resources. He (Sir R. Peel) never before
heard such an atrocious sentiment, and he was sure it was
uttered, because he himself took the words down from his
honeyed lips. (Loud laughter.) But many a brave man's
heart beat With as ardent an emotion of loyalty to the
Queen as the heart of the richest aristocrat in the land—
(cheers)—and many a rich man, if he lost his riches to-
morrow, would lose no jot of his loyalty. (Hear, hear.) He
wondered if the hon. member represented the opinion of Mr.
Cobden, with whom he was so intimately associated, when
he said, "Perish the liberties of half a million of people,
only let us have the treaty." No wonder that the house
hesitated to adopt the treaty made as it had been under the
influence of revolutionary tactics, and styled a treaty of
peace and amity, with a power which every day was evincing
a policy calculated to sow dissent in Europe. (Cheers.) He
thought the despatches of Count Walewski, and afterwards
of M. Thouvenel, put the case in a very dangerous light.
No one desired more than he to see the tie of amity and.
friendship between France and England drawn closer, but
, he was afraid it was becoming evident that not only the fu-
ture prospects of one country, but the independence of an-
other, were being endangered. But still more was he afraid

that their worst apprehensions regardine, the peace and hap-
piness of Europe were on the eve of a final and desperate
accomplishment. He hoped this was not the case. (Hear.)
The hon. member for Stroud had tried to persuade her Ma-
jesty's Government that they were responsible to a great
extent for the present state of Europe, and that knowing the
intentions of France, they had connived at this treaty. Ho
could not agree with that sentiment. (Hear, hear) Nothing
should, make him believe that the Government, but espe-
cially his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in their desire to imitate the policy of Mr Pitt in 1789, under
different circumstances he admitted—(Opposition cries of
" Hear, hear ")—had been so far forgetful of their duty to
their country as in any way to have connived at such an in-
tention, and he believed that had the noble lord the Foreign
Secretary known the intention of the French Emperor so far
back as August last, he would have entered a dignified pre-
test against such proposals. It was of the utmost import-
ance that while negotiating a treaty of this kind the Par-
liament of England should not be mere spectators of such
a transaction as the annexation of Savoy, but that they
should speak out, and that they should not allow it to pass
by with a formal protest simply. (Hear, hear.) They
ought to remember the millions they had spent in wars tkat
might have been avoided by a vigorous policy at the outset.
(Hear, hear.) He wished to see a vigorous policy now
pursued towards France. History showed from what com-
paratively insignificant causes the. heaviest disasters arose.
Had experience taught the Parliament of England nothing?
He entreated the house without delay to endeavour, whilst
they approved of this treaty, to enter their most indignant
protest against an act of spoliation and wrong. (Cheers.) He
would make an allusion to one expression used in the papers
relating to this subject for the purpose of entering his indig-
nant
.protest against that language, and this was the only
allusion he should make to the policy of this country, but
it demanded the most serious attention of the house. The
other day the ambassador of France had called on the noble
lord (Lord J. Russell), and although France had as far back
as August last disclaimed any intention of annexing Savoy,
had •said, " After all, what does it matter ? Let us take
Savoy. It is but a bare rock." If the ambassador of
France had dared to speak to him in that language—(great
laughter, and cries of hear,. hear)—he would have returned
the reply of an honest but indignant Englishman. (Cheers.)
He would have told him that the men who lived and moved

and had their being on those rocks—on the mountains of
Savoy—were just as respectable and worthy of the conside-
ration of the world as the denizens of a crowded city or the
sycophants of a degraded court. (Cheers.) He would have
told him that those men clung to their homes in the mountains

just as much as the rich did to their gilded palaces of luxurious
ease. (Cheers.) And he would have told him that those men
were worth of every consideration from the very fact of the
locality of their residence. (Hear, hear.) He had no desire
to create disunion between France and England, nor to raise
any ill-feeling against the French Emperor. He desired to
see France occupying that position in the world to which her
natural resources and the character of her people justly en-
titled her. But as long as he had a seat in that house, as
long as he was capable of raising his voice he would attempt
to check the growth of an immoderate power on the part of
France, which could flat fail to create mutual jealousies and
to endanger the peace and the happiness of the world. (Hear,
hear.) It really appeared as if France, whatever might be
her desire to draw_ closer the ties of amity, of friendship,
under a Napoleonic Ministry was always to be a source of
anxiety to Europe. As his right hon. friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had so beautifully expressed it,
France was blessed with a satiety of everything that Provi-
dence could give her—with every advantage that soil and
climate could impart, and yet she was always dissatisfied
with her lot under a Napoleonic Ministry, and was always
trying to remove her neighbour's landmarks, and create
dissension in Europe. (Cries of " no," and counter cries of
" hear, hear." if any hon. gentleman differed from him in
that opinion, he only hoped that that hon. gentleman's es-
timation might prove correct, and be would cheerfully
acknowledge himself to be wrong. (Hear.) At all events
he believed that such was the general policy of France at
this moment, and, therefore, it was that he entered his re-
spectful protest against it. (Hear, hear.) He should sup
port the treaty because he believed it would improve the
wealth and prosperity of this country. Mr. Pitt, in his re-
markable speech of 1.789, when introducing a similar treaty,
had said, " If war was the greatest evil and commerce the
greatest felicity which it was a desirable for a country to en-
joy, then it became the duty of those to whom the affairs of
the public were entrusted to endeavour as much as possible
to render the one permanent, and to remove the prospecta
of danger from the other." This he believed to be the ob-
ject of the present treaty. Mr. Pitt continued—" For so
greatwere the advantages likely to arise from commerce that
they would not only tend to contribute to avoid war, but they
would also strengthen the resources of this country." He
believed that such had been the impression of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer when ho negotiated, through Mr.
Cobden, the present treaty; but he did hope that the Go-
vernment would bring the influence of the public opinion
of this country to bear upon their endeavour to dis.
suede the Emperor of the French; from persisting in a
policy which could not fail to sow mistrust in Europe,
and, if persevered in, would not fail to rob Europe of
all the blessings of commerce and the estimable bless-
ings of peach, Tne hon. gentleman the mover of the
a Aress, in a speech of much eloquence and ability, had said
that that man was worthy of public estimation who made
two blades of grass to grow where only one grew before.
He concurred in that sentiment, and would add, that that
statesman was worthy of public estimation who enlarged
gf• ths
the resources of his country and extended the pacific in-
fluence of her powers. (Cheers.) A great many compli-
ments had been paid to Mr. Cobden, and it had been said
influence,mwueahs owwaisnogwtihnisg
tocommercialthat hen. tgreeantils;mbaunt
htebeEtxtehcecireudeirt
edquuealltoy henimtihedhetothtohuegthntantkhes
thatthough,
aa nttecove
elhl
r d iosrm u
oi
tl es
whatever
of Parliament and of his country. The right hon. gentle •
man had treated the subject with a compass of mind and
powerful genius rarely equalled and never excelled. Whilst
dealing with the imperial interests of his country, he had
made himself master of the minutest details of trade. If he
might be permitted to allude to the subject, he would say
that the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer was the Parliamentary representative of a policy and
a system which, in 1842 was inaugurated in that house with
the consent and approval of the great party that sat oppo-
site. He was the representative of that policy which was
inaugurated by a party, of which his father had the proud
distinction of being a member. (Loud cheers.) And what-
ever might have been the dissensions which unhappily en-
sued afterwards, he thought that every impartial man in that
house would bear him out iu saying that the policy which was
then inaugurated would not have succeeded without the sup •
port of that party at the outset, and without that support
the blessings of that prosperity, which had so abundantly
resulted, would now be wanting. (Hear, hear.) He
thought the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was now following out that policy which his
predecessors of the time to which he (Sir Robert Peel) had
alluded also laboured, and he thought not altogether in
vain, to pursue, (Loud cheers.) The right hon. gentle-
man had genius and ability to carry out that system, and it
would promote a permanent good. (Hear, hear.) He
(Sir R. Peel) thought that by this treaty a permanent good
would result to this country ; and, therefore, he supported it.
He believed a permanent good would ensue from the policy
of the right hon. gentleman quite irrespective of the politi-
cal bearings of the treaty ; and therefore he supported it.
And he felt that the right hon. gentleman's principal ob-
ject, upon which ho centred every wish, lavished every
thought, concentrated his whole study, had been to see the
vessels of this great country sailing triumphantly to every
shore, carrying the products of our industry to every clime,
and the trade and enterprise of England steadily pursuing
its onward course, under those influences which had carried
them to the remotest limits of the world. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI said—l trust the house will permit me
to take. a brief but general view of this now celebrated in-
strument and of the circumstances under which it has been
brought before our consideration. Sir, the first intimation
of a policy of any Government of this country that would
tend to increase our commercial relations with France is of
a character so satisfactory and encouraging that I cannot
doubt it must confer upon both sides of this house, and, in-
deed, I would say, upon all subjects of her Majesty, a sen-
timent of great gratification. I have not altered the first
impreeFion I entertained of the matter when I was first in-
formed of the intentions of the Government. I still believe
that on the whole it would have been wiser to have waited
for a year. I think it would have been wiser to have per-
mitted the Emperor of the French to have fulfilled his
honourable engagements to the commercial and manufac-
turing interests of this country, and to have seen what
would have been the result of such a term elapsing, and
whether or not in the necessary order of human affairs, that
the prohibitory system of Franco would not have con-
cluded at that time. Had that been the case, I think all
must admit that we should have been placed in, if not an
equally advantageous position as regards the immediate re-
sults—in one which on the whole would probably be more
094Ye/lielit aiad CO/4440iY9 to thio pelnuovat
interests of