The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-21 00:00:00

make such and such In ours," I think the noble lords op •
posite will scarcely deny ; but, as I said before, I am not
now about to enter upon a discussion of its merits. What
I wish to know is the course which her Majestp's Govern-
ment intend to pursue in order to give Parliament an op- i
portunitY of exercising the right which they possess under
the treaty itself of deliberating upon its provisions. I
must say, however, that there is a feeling abroad in the
country that there has been a great deal of mystery and
secrecy unnecessarily employed about the negotiations, and
•
that an attempt has been made to surprise the house into a
hasty decision. (Loud cheers.) For my own part I know not
why there has been such a mystery with regard to Mr.
. Cobdep's share in the negotiations ; for it was not until the
very last moment that Mr. Cobden was announced as having
bad anything to do with them. As for the correspondence
which has been published, I must say that it is of the most
meagre character ever submitted to Parliament ; it indi-
cates an amount of haste in the framing and the execution
of the treaty that is not creditable. (Cheers.) It is not until
Dec. 23, 1859, that Lord Cowley sends a confidential com-
munication to Mr. Cobden on the subject. Then he writes
home, and wishes to know whether the English Government
would be disposed to enter into any negotiations on the sub-
ject. On the 17th of January, Lord John Russell writes a
letter to Lord Cowley and Mr. Cobden, which in point of
form is certainly not a little singular, for it begins, "My
Lord and Sir—(a laugh),—Having received from Lord Cow-
ley"—the noble lord being one of the parties addressed—
" having received from Lord Cowley, &c., I have to ac-
quaint you that her Majesty has been graciously pleased to
confer on you the necessary powers as Plenipotentiaries."
On Jan. 23, six days after they had thus received their
powers, Lord Cowley states that the treaty had that day
been signed, and transmits to his Government the result of
the negotiations, but in his letter he washes his hands of
the treaty as much as ever man did in this world. He in-
timates that he had signed the treaty as her Majeety's Am-
bassador at Paris ; but that it had all been Mr. Co bd en's
doing—that it was Mr. Cobden's treaty, not his, and that
he had merely been the sleeping partner. (Hear, hear, and
a laugh.) On the 31st of January the treaty was ratified.
I say there has been undue haste in the construction of the
treaty, and in the next place a desire to take the House of
Commons by surprise as to the conditions of the treaty;
and I shall be pleased to hear from the noble lord such ex-
planatior-s as will satisfy me that such was not the case.
Now, I think it may be useful that we should compare the
course taken by her Majesty's Government on this occasion
with the course which was taken by a former Government
under nearly similar eircuirditances, namely, the course
pursued by Mr. Pitt in the year 1787, on the occasion of a
treaty of commerce and navigation with France. The ob-
jects which the Government'had in view at that day were
precisely similar to the objectswhich the Government have
in view at the present day; and, in the Speech from the
Throne in 1787 that treaty was referred to in the following
words :—" I have concluded a treaty of navigation and
commerce with the most Christian king, a copy of which
shall be laid before you. I recommend you to take such
measures as you shall judge proper:to carry it into effect ;
and I trust that you will find the provisions contained in it
are calculated for the encouragement of industry, the ex-
tension of lawful commerce ; and, by promoting intercourse
with our respective subjects, will be an additional security
for the maintenance of peace." Now, I apprehend the ob-
jects of the present Government were precisely the same.
But what course did the Governments pursue ? In 1787
Parliament met on Tuesday. the 23d of January ; in 1860
Parliament met on Tuesday, the 24th of January. On the
26th of January, 1787, Mr. Pitt, as soon as the Address
was disposed of, laid on the table of the two houses of Par-
liament the treaty he had concluded with France. He did
not think it necessary to wait till the treaty had been
heralded in and apologised for by an able speech, mixing
up the treaty with the budget and the financesof the coun-
try. He trusted to the conditions of the treaty themselves,
and, without requiring explanation or delaying the presen-
tation for a considerable period, ho at once, on the opening
of Parliament, laid the treaty before the two houses. That
treaty, like the present one, was accompanied by
.a con-
vention which was to carry out in detail the provisions of
the treaty itself. Now Mr. Pitt, before he called on the
house to enter into a discussion on the treaty, laid be-
fore them not only the treaty itself, but the conven-
tion which specified in detail what was to be the precise
amount of the duty on British goods. We are called upon
to take a very different course. In the first place, there
was a delay from the 31st January to the 10th February
before Government ventured to lay the conditions of the
treaty before Parliament. That delay took place in order
that the treaty might be explained at the same time that
it was laid before Parliament, that the country should have
no time for the consideration of the treaty before it came
on for discussion. But where is the convention in which
the present amount of the duties is stated ? I say nothing
of the period when the duties are to come into operation.
but the duties themselves, it is stated, are in no case to
exceed, 30 per cent. There is this difference between the
two treaties, that whereas this treaty provides for the in-
troduction of French goods into this country without duties,
immediately, English goods are not to be introduced into
France until the expiration of eighteen months at duties
not exceeding 30 per cent. But the principle of Mr. Pitt's
treaty was this, that goods should be introduced recipro-
cally into the two countries at the same rates of duty—
into the one country and into the other simultaneously—
and the rates of duty specified and defined in no case ex-
ceeded 15 per cent., and in some cases were so low as 5
per cent. I can easily imagine that it would have been
convenient for her Majesty's Government to lay this treaty
and Mr. Pitt's treaty side by side on the table of the
house without all the explanations that could be given on
the subject; but Mr. Pitt, when the treaty had been laid
on the table from the 26th of January to the 2a of February,
gave notice that, on the following Monday, he should
move that the treaty should be taken into consideration
that day se'nnight—thus a period of seventeen days elapsed
after the treaty was laid on the table before it was dis-
cussed. 'Now, I find that Mr. Fox, among others,
vehemently protested against the unparalleled short time
given. The present Government took care that we should
know nothing of this treaty till the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had an opportunity of making the financial state-
ment, and accordingly the treaty was laid on the table be-
fore he made his statement, and notice was given that, on
the following Thursday, it would be taken into considera-
tion, or rather that the house should proceed with regard to
those duties which wane involved in it. Well, by dint of
pressure the House of Commons did obtain an extension of
time equivalent to that very short period of which Mr. Fox
so bitterly complained in liB7. Now I beg your lordships
to recollect that there was no 20th article in existence in the
treaty of 1787. There was nothing that specifically re-
quired that the consent of Parliament should be given, ex-
cept in so far as that consent was necessarily to be given to
the financial portion of the treaty. But Mr. Pitt thought
the better course to take was this :—He in the first place
moved three resolutions affirming the main regulations of
the treaty ; and having had those r esolutions separately
discussed in the House of Commons—and they led to many
lengthened discussions—a motion was made on the 12th of
February, and the first resolution was adopted on that day :
the second resolution was adopted on the 15th, and a third
on the 16th. The resolutions were reported on the 19th,
and then Mr. Pitt thought it necessary to move an address
approving the treaty, and thanking the Crown for having
entered into it. Those resolutions and the address having
passed the House of Coramons, were then communicated to
your lordships' house. I beg your lordships to consider the
great importance in a matter of this kind of your being en-
abled to exercise your deliberate judgment in questions of
this nature, without being told that you have no power,
practically, to deal with these questions, because they in-
volve money considerations, and you have no power of mak-
ing any amendment in a money bill sent up from the House
of Commons. It is most important that your lordships
should have as ample an opportunity of considering this
treaty in its financial and political bearings as the-House of
Commons itself. t When those resolutions were brought up
from the House of Commons a species of protest was entered
by Lord Stourmont to the motion made, that the assent to
those resolutions would not bind the house in its legislative
capacity, even in regard to measures that were founded on
the resolutions, and that, after having agreed to the re-
solutions and the address, they were to be equally at liberty
to discuss every portion of the treaty as mach as if those
resolutions and address had not been agreed to. Now, let
me remind you who were the men who took part in these
great debates, for they were great and protracted debates,
though some of the opinions expressed may appear to us un-
reasonable, and more especially the language that was used
by Mr. Fox—(a laugh)—with regard to the necessarily in-
herent hostility between this country and France, and the
impossibility of our ever being on good terms: Mr. Fox held
this doctrine, and I think he was entirely wrong. I think
that Mr. Pitt's account of the treaty itself, and the policy
on which it was founded, had greatly the advantage. But
these discussions are well worth the attention of your lord-
shie s who have the leieura to read them; and, with regard
to many of them, they would appear to be not discussions
having regard to the events taking place in 1787, but to
what is taking place in 1860. Now, the men who took part
in those discussions, and among whom there was no differ-
ence whatever as to the propriety of the course adopted,
..es_etsianraey—coisPithi and tte,Fellasoox,ltu, notßenucrekeaniedastht,ep
Windham, Grenville, Wilberforce,
one
owwerhyoitthhewnhich made
hs
so
theofiftresnt
who on
instructed and delighted yourthat
occasion,
lordships,
as mr
my late.
Grey,telamentresdt
friend Earl Grey,
made
onearance in Parliament. Now, the course whichfi
Mr. hisPitt and the Government of that day pursued was,
after having given due time to enter into the consideration
of the different portions'• the treaty—to move resolutions
—to send these resolutions to the House of Lords—to move
an address to the Crown, gproviniof the treaty, and to
obtain itnhetnhethassatewnot ongfo.
Horses of
of
s Parliament or Lords st
otookt
nh
pa t t
hetheir address—
and
joi n t
course Mr. there Pitt werepnrs considerablesdbecause,
address to the Kin
He
eminmterorcdial legislation,
objections taken to the e
when he came to deal with the
rlinost of the
course he pursued was this :—.
and extensive measure, called
Duties of Customs and Excise,"
existing duties, and re-enacting repealing
A
of
large
thetb e
solidated form. This consolidation required, if I
mistaken, the passing of some 3,000 resolutions. 4,tatiecnonoi
re-
sult of these 3,000 resolutions was then consolidated into
one single act; and it was complained, and more especially
in the House of Lords, that the duties affected by the treaty
and the duties not affected by it, were mixed together, and
that it was impossible therefore to discuss them as bearing
on the treaty. Now, I might have spared your lordships'
time if her Majesty's Government had been a little earlier
in their intimation of the course they intended to take; but
iaisv notmee itshetosibieghctseislotdinotinmato-
tuipo
on oft
too
ft hteh
op rine soednot
bmyo
which
wpeahr
express its opinion. On the contrary, so far from dealing
with the political portion of the treaty, when the speeeh on
the budget was made, a motion was made that the House of
Commons should go into committee of the whole house,
with a view to deal with the financial portion of the guess
lion. lam not going now to discuss a question which 1
believe the House of Commons is discussing at this moment
—whether the political part of the treaty ought to have pre-
ceded the commercial question ; but of this I am quite clear,
that the course which her Majesty's Government ought to
have pursued would have been to have dealt with those ar-
ticles of the revenue which were necessarily affected by the
treaty, and to have taken them into consideration in con-
nection with the general bearing and scope of the treaty;
and that the proper course would be, not to go into con-
sidera tioa of the customs duties, but to go into committee of
the whole house to take into consideration every provision
of the treaty. By that course attention would have been
directed suiatiin to the commercial and political considera-
tions, and then there would have been an opportunity, as
was given in 1787, of expressing an opinion on each part of
the treaty befere you proceeded to adjust your finances, as
it
rially affected by the treaty. I would ask, then, whether
c't.onasdristhheeenintteon,tion of her Majesty's Government to pursue the
intention to
cilscrotas adopted by Mr. Pitt—whether it is their
BLeangictßiloagltqsthneo
intention topropose .•
resolutions with regard to this treaty,
inunicate their resolutions to this house—
should ueir tennitteionintahajtointhteatdwdroesbsr,angicvfhensgotfhtehier
termssio.n of the treaty ? My noble friend op-
panosviteernment are yet.c Perhaps the views of her Majesty's
I may be permitted to say
of some little alteration. But
it will not meet t1:17 that if that course should be pur-
sued,=ements of the present day.
I believe it will not be di:
but one mode by which the assbeytany
this treaty, and that is assent of
lawyer that
can be
there is
given t 9 hPaarnlizetenpft