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

THE STJN,_LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 21, 1860.

ment. In this treaty, even with regard to those articles
which are simply financial and commercial, it does not at
all follow that because the House of Commons sanctions a
reduction of the wine duties, or that your lordships' sanc-
tion that reduction, that therefore the reduction will be
made when it is a matter of stipulation in a treaty. The re-
duction of duties is one thing; the reduction of duties by

virtue of a Treaty is another and entirely different question.
But there is one article in this treaty, the provision with
regard to which I should be loth to agree to. In a treaty
. . .

of reciprocity you ought to require for your commerce cor-
responding advantages to those that you give. The very
first object which the Government ought to have set before
them was the equalisation of duties, and thereby giving fair
play to the most important industry of this and the other
country. But by the third article you assent to the con-
tinuance of those differential duties which it is impossible to
maintain with any pretest of dealing with this country on
fair and equitable terms as affecting its commercial rela •
tions. Then again, there is the 11th article, by which you

,
stipulate that under no circumstances will yon-prohibit the
export, or impose any duty on the exportation of one of the
most important articles, namely, the produce of your coal
mines. Why, it is a mockery to say that there is any
reciprocity in that. The article states that both coun-
tries engage that they will not prohibit the ex-
portation of coal. Why, it is notorious that France has
no coal to export, and that in time of war she would be
mainly dependent on this country for coal. lam not speak-
ing of a case in which we might be at war with France. Of
course a war with France would break through the treaty ;
but I am speaking of an article with regard to which it is
doubtful at this moment whether it is contraband of war.
My noble friend behind me reminds me that in the Italian
war coal was declared contraband of war. Well, then, we
aro bound, as neutrals, not to permit the exportation of coal,
and yet by this treaty we engage not to prohibit its exporta-
tion. Ono of the belligerents might seize one of our Teasels

laden with coal, and we must submit to the loss of the vessel,
or, if we revenge ourselves, we may be led into hostilities,
and,i instead of being neutrals, become principals in the war.
I contend that we ought not to agree to such a condition
with regard to an article of such vital importance as coal. In
his letter of Dec. 23d Lord Cowley states that British coal
imported overland shall be admitted at the same rate of
duty as Belgian coal, there being now a differential duty
on sea-borne coal, Now, what does the noble lord the Sec-
retary of State for Foreign Affairs say on the subject of coal
—":An allusion has been made by Count Walowski to sea
coal; but such is the demand for that commodity, both in
other countries and our own, that no public interest would
be excited by the question whether the duty charged on it
is high or low, or whether a reduction would be made or not.
Indeed, there still remains, more or less a disposition to
view the export of coal with jealousy, and even to subject
it to restrictions." Now the offer of France is, to take the
coal at low duties, but the answer of the Secretary for Fo-
reign Affairs is, that it matters but little to this country
whether our Goal is taken into France at a high or at a low
duty, but that there Is a strong feeling of jealousy in this
country with regard to facilitating the export denial to France.
(Hear.) That being so—it being, as we are told, for France
a matter of comparative insignificance, but looked on here
with jealousy—it is stipulated by her Majesty's Government •
that we shall on no account Impose a duty on the export of
coal. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) I have no desire
to depreciate or undervalue the details of the treaty, in so
far as they are calculated to extend our commercial rela-
tions with France; on the contrary, I highly value them ;
but I say, if you do this by treaty, let it be a treaty that
carries with it something of the principle of reciprocity.
The Secretary for Foreign Affairs gives a somewhat remark-
able explanation of his views on the question of reciprocity,
when he says the proper basis for the operation on the side
of France would be the gradual reduction of duties to a mo-
derate rate, and on the side of England total abolition.
(Hear, hear.) That is to say, we are to give France, imme-
diately, great advantages in our tariff, while France is gra-
dually to lower her tariff to the condition of reciprocity.
(Hear, hear.) Then the Secretary for Foreign Affairs laid
down, and with very great truth, as the result had proved,
the danger that the French people would be apt to consider,
if this treaty were entered into, that their interests were
being sacrificed for those of England ; and it has been
pressed upon us that the great object of the treaty is not to
promote harmony and good understanding between the two
Governments, but t 3 promote such a union of interests be-,
tween the two peoples as should prevent future quarrels.
It appears a strange mode of accomplishing that object, to
enact a treaty which the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs tolls us may lead the French people to believe that
their interests are being sacrificed to ours. (Olean) And
what is the ground put forward for making this a matter of
treaty ? It is admitted that the treaty will be most unpopu-
lar in France—that large classes of the French people are
opposed to it as detrimental to their interests, and that so
to the ordinary mode of legislation in France, the
serious is the objection and so great the difficulty', that, ac-
cording Emperor, with all his power and all his appliances, would
be unable to pass the proposed reduction of duties through
the French Legislature. (Hear, hear.) But it is said, if
we will assist him in this difficulty and make it a matter
of treaty—if we will lay down the principle of so dealing
with it, then, in spite of the opposition, tho Emperor of
the French will be enabled to give
.to those acts the
power of law by a special enactment which ho could not
• pass through the Legislature in tho ordinary way. If
there were any truth in this statement of the Secretary of
• State for Foreign Affairs, I must say that it appears to me
a very singular mode of consulting the interests of the people
of France, or of securing for ourselves a feeling of general
compliance. (Hear, hear.) Now, the question which I wish
to have answered by the noble earl (Earl Granville) is, what
steps her Majesty's Government propose to take in order to
give effect to the 20th article of this treaty. I believe I have
succeeded in showing that it will be necessary that the as-
sent of Parliament should be given in a positive and formal
manner, not that it should be merely implied ; and the only
mode by which this assent of Parliament can be constitu-
tionally given is by legislative enactment ; not dealing with
particular parts of the treaty only, but deciding the treaty
generally both in principle and details, and inviting the as-
sent of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) In that way only can it
be applied. I shall be glad to hear from my noble friend
that the Government has made up its mind to take that
course, because if that oourse be adopted there will be ample
opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to consider the
treaty in all its bearings ' • and in that case I *an assure him
r that on my part, and on the part of those with whom I act,
there will be no desire to enter upon the consideration in
any factious spirit, or with any desire to interpose difficulty
I or delay. The questions of the gravest doubt in my mind
• are, in the first place, whether it is wise in regard to any
financial regulations of this nature to bind ourselves hand
and foot for 10 years—(hear, hear)—and in the next place,
whether, however desirablcA may be to extend—as I hope
to see extended—our commercial relations with France,
this is the time to do it, when we have an enormous deficit
of revenue, and when, to obtain the anticipated advantages
of the treaty, we must largely increase, and, as I believe,
make permanent, a system of taxation which the Legisla-
ture has hitherto reserved for periods of emergency and ac •
tual war; but if we introduce this led. in the pound on
all incomes in a time of peace, it will be henceforth esta-
blished as a portion of our ordinary revenue, which you
never afterwards can get rid of—thus depriving yourselves
of the readiest and most powerful means of meeting any
great and sudden emergency. (Hoar.) I object to some
of the articles of the treaty on their own merits, and to
others, not upon their merits, but because, even if the agree-
able calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer could
be borne out, I consider this is not the moment to enter into
each stipulations; when the means by which it is proposed
to provide for the loss which it is admitted will be sustained
by the operation of the treaty are means most objectionable
in a time of peace, and which should be only applicable in
oases of war or extreme emergency. For the sake of re-
gularity I will conclude by moving that there bo laid before
your lordships' house copies of the journals of the two
Houses of Parliament relating to the treaty of commerce
with France proposed by Mr. Pitt in 1787. (Cheers.)
The Earl of HARD WICKE made an observation across
the table to the effect, as well as it could be gathered in the
gallery, that during the late war with Russia two vessels
belonging to a Danish port were seized and confiscated as
carrying cat goes contraband of war, such cargoes being coals.
Earl GRANVILLE said that the course of the noble
lord opposite in charging the Government with secrecy was
not a little remarkable, for the noble earl, who had given
notice of a question on Friday, in a way which the house
could not but consider intended to prepare them for a most
casual inquiry, had entered into matters of grave import-
ance, upon which he had spoken for au hour and a half.
If he might judge from the brilliant audieace, too, which
was then assembled to hear the noble earl, he was bound
to say that he thought the charge of secrecy could be more
justly applied to the noble earl himself ; for certainly they
had not been in his secrets. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
At the same time he did not wish to be understood as
complaining of the course taken by the noble earl, and
her Majesty's Government were bound to give whatever
information was essential to the duo comprehension of the
proposed arrangement. One of the objections which the
noble earl had raised was that her Majesty's Govern-
ment had exercised an undue degree of mystery regarding
the treaty in the course of the negotiations. Upon
that he would only remark that some amount of secrecy
was nut only unavoidable but absolutely necessary in such
circumstances ; hut the noble earl was to a great extent in
etror, as her Majesty's Government were for a long time
not committed even to negotiations. When Count Walew-
ski made the proposition to the Government of her Majesty
the case was different, and from that time only the obser-
vations of the noble earl could be taken to apply, if there
were any foundation for the fault which he found. The
noble earl, too, had carefully avoided expressing himself on
the principle f reciprocity treaties, so that the house was
as that moment in the dark as to his real views concerning
such engagements. The noble earl compared what had
taken place in reference to the treaty, with the proceedings
in reference to Mr. Pitt's, but in the latter case they wire
actually more rapid. With regard to the question of time,
the contents of Mr. Pitt's treaty had become known before
Parliament met. Referring to that precedent, the noble
earl had given a. Toy accurate account of the steps which
tra-
ditional Mr. Pitt took, and of the debates which had occurred, ad-
verting also to some of the observations made by Mr. Fox.
He (Earl Granville) confessed it was painful for him, who
he regretted t
his
respectearli e s
fort youth uh tehhad memory
of cherishedthat ag historicalreat
statesman,
locked upon the principles ho enunciated fir civil and re-
ligious progress
.fiwndiththta'ete feelings gt
the
eo
debate
e thebat
egrreefactrersetd a dt
on: i rb.totti
ho n
he—
and others wereo as wrong as they could be ; as they took
of policy would
this singularli
noble earl said tat
eefargument, that the success of that line
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The
render necessary the objectionable step of
a free trade treaty.
a committee of the whole house was
moved for the purpose of consihdering certain resolutions
yrance ; but the noble
with reference to tho treaty •
earl did not say that,
dealing generally
present instance
with our Customs duties, whereaslan
tiating exclusively with France dirnenaor w e were nego-
they would be opened to all the
earl also said that the most important clauses
noble
the treaty were embodied in the resolutions, buteianutslrat I.(i)ef
was not strictly correct; for what was embodied was reso-
lutions founded on those clauses of the treaty which affected
customs duties. The intention of her Majesty's Guvern-
ment was quite consonant with what had already been
stated in the other house, namely, that of giving all neces-
sary information with a view to obtain the full assent'of
Parliament. If they were passed, the House of' Commons
would be advised to agree to an address to the Crown; and
though he did not think the course
NuV.ahsensttilli
cattlywians
conformity with precedent, the resolutions
passed by the other house would be submitted to their '
lord-
ships, when their lordships would do precisely what was
done in Mr. Pitt's time—consider the resolutions, and then
agree to an address to the Crown. Tho 14th article of the
_
treaty would also be open to some of the remarks of the
noble earl. He thought the noble earl could not make up
a case on clause 11. As to the right of prohibiting coal in
the case of war, it was no doubt contraband where its uses
were obvious. In Pitt's treaty it was stipulated that coal
was not contraband of war; and the same was said of sail-
cloth and other articles which had since been declared to
be contraband. By the law of nations there were "belli-
gerents' rights," which might be exercised previous to war.

The act of 1853 gave the Crown power to prohibit the
exportation of contraband of munitions of war, and either
there was something in the treaty of commerce to affect
that right, or there was not. Before the Russian war Go-
vernment issued a proclamation six weeks before war, pro-
hibiting the exportation of the • contraband of war to any
ports north of Dantzic, leaving it free to the rest of the
world. Countries with the "favoured nation clause" ac-
cepted this without a murmur, which would not have been
the case had not the rights of belligerents been fully ad-
mated. The noble earl had spoken of the "one-sidedness"
of the treaty, which, however, he had not made out. The
remissions of duty on our part were for our own advantage,
and were, therefore, adopted at once, though the French
Government offered to consent to delay as long as we liked.
Some of the moat eminent men in France deplored the treaty
as absolutely and altogether to the advantage of England,
but amongst us by, some it was deplored as altogether in
favour of France ; both of those assertions could not be true.
He fully believed that this treaty would be greatly to the ad-
vantage of this country. As to Lord Cowley "washing his
hands of the affair," and putting it all upon Mr. Cobden,
that was merely to do justice to Mr. Cobden's knowledge
and abilities; and Mr. Cobden, on his part, wished the
chief credit to he given to Lord Cowley, from whose expe-
rience and judgment he had derived so much advantage.
(Hear.) Because the influential protected classes of France
objected to the treaty. it was said we were wishing to force
it upon the French people against their will ; but if the Em-
peror had not known how beneficial it would be to the com-
merce of his country, he would not have consented to it.
Believing that free trade would extend more and more, and
that it could not do so without advantage to England, he
was glad that the treaty before their lordships had been in-
troduced by her Majesty's present Government. (Hear.)
After a few words from Earl GREY and the Duke of
ARGYLL, the motion was withdrawn,
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAYER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a second time :—Coln River
Water ; Conway, Llanrwst, and Bettws:y Coed Railway ;
Denhigh, Ruthin, and Corwen Railway; Egham and
Woking Railway ; Llyfni Vale Railway and Harbour ;
Macclesfield Gas ; Manchester and Milford Railway ;
Sovereign Life Assurance Company; Stockport, Disley,
and Whaley Bridge Railway; Tewkesbury, Upton-
upon-Severn and Malvern Junction Railway; Westmins-
ter Improvements ; Ulster Railway and Corporation of
Belfast ; and Wellington (Salop)
NS Water.)
PETITIO.

Several petitions were presented in favour of and against
the commercial treaty with France, against the- uncondi-
tional repeal of church rates, against licensing coffee-shop
keepers to sell wine and beer, and in favour of the repeal of
the duty on paper.
BERWICK ELECTION, 1859—INCOME TAX.

Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from the Northern
Reform Union praying for an inquiry into a compact
which had been entered into between Mr. Marjoribanks and
the two members who' had been returned at the election for
that borough in 1859. The hon. member also presented a
petition from merchants and manufacturers of Birmingham,
complaining of the income tax, and regretting that the ex-
travagant expenditure of the country should render the tax
necessary.
TIMBER DUTIES.

Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition from merchants of
the City of London, praying for the abolition of the duties
on timber, and in favour of the passing of the commercial
treaty with France.
Mr. BROCKLEHURST presented a petition from the
operatives employed in the silk manufactures of Maccles-
field, praying that if the silk goods of France and
the continent are to be admitted free of all duty,
that British silk goods be admitted free into France, and
that this union will insist on this measure of justice to
labour.

Tiieprosentation of petitions occupied more than an hour,
CLEANSING THE SERPENTINE.

Sir J. SHELLEY gave notice that as soon as the re-
port of the commission to inquire into the cleansing of
the Serpentine was laid on the table he woull call the atten-
tion of the house to the subject, with a view to afford
hon. members an opportunity of expressing their opinions
as to the propriety of proceeding with the works.
COALS, CINDERS, CULM, &c.
Mr. H. H. VIVIAN moved for accounts of the
quantities of coals, cinders, and culm, and patent fuel,
shipped at the several ports of England, Scotland,
and Ireland, coast-Ways, to other ports of the United
Kingdom, in the year 1859 ; distinguishing the
quantity shipped at each of the said ports as compared with
the year 1858, &c.—Ordered.

CINNAMON, tic.

Mr. HANKEY moved for a return of the total gum.
ties (producing countries not required) of cinnamon, cloves,
mace, nutmegs, and pepper taken for home consumption in
the United Kingdom for thirty years past, giving the rate
of duty payable on each article in each year.—Ordered.
DWELLINGS FOR LABOURING CLASSES

(IRELAND)
Sir W. SOMERVIELE moved for leave to bring in a
bill to extend the act to facilitate the improvement of
landed property in Ireland, and the acts amendinc, the
same, to the erection of dwellings for the labouring classes
in Ireland.—Agreed to.
PASSES, &c.
Sir C. NAPIER asked the Secretary to the Admiralty
whether a circular had been issued forbidding officers to
give passes out of the sea port town; and whether the Cap-
tain of the Princess Royal asked permission to give passes,
and was reproved for so doing ?
Lord C. PAGET said that, except in special cases, the
passes alluded to would not be granted.

•••••11
which I have just indicated, it was, I will not conceal fr om
the committee, to us matter of great regret that we fee and
ourselves obliged to precipitate chat cenclusion owiz ig to
the peculiar manner in which the public business has this
year been placed before us by the Government. We were
obliged to do so, I may add, although according to ova. own
feelings it would have been desirable that we should post •
pone giving effect to the conclusion to which we came until
much of the preliminary discussion involved in the impor-
tant topics which the financial statement embraces should
have taken place ; in the course of which discussion probably
many circumstances might have occurred to change and
modify the convictions which we entertained, an& the ex-
pression of opinion to which I have referred. But when the
great haste with which the important subjects embraced in
the financial statement were brought under our considera-
tion was taken into account, when we directed our atten-
tion to the almost inextricable confusion with which mat-
ters and measures that had no necessary connexion were
mixed up together, and the great difficulty which must
attend the hurried consideration of propositions so varied
and so complicated, we found it impossible to take any
other course than that which was indicated by the notice of
my hon. friend the member for Essex. (Hear, hear.) From
the way in which these important measures have been in-
troduced to the house it seemed impossible, if this issue
was to be arrived at, and if this question was to be raised,
that it could be postponed beyond the question of whether
the Speaker should leave the chair to go into committee on
the Customs Acts ; and, although we deprecate and deplore
the inconvenience, and, as we believe, the great public im-
propriety of the House being called on, before the prelimi-
nary debates that might have arisen, to come to a conclusion
on the whole scheme of the finance of the Government, still
it was inevitable from the mode and manner in which the
public business of the country was arranged by the Ministry.
(Hear, hear.) Well, Sir, that being the state of the case,
there arose accidentally on Friday night last what I maycall
a conversation on the subject of the French treaty of-com-
merce, and towards the conclusion of it I made an inquiry
of her Majesty's Government en a matter which I had
several times referred to as very perplexing, and that was
to know in what manner her Majesty's Government in-
tended to introduce the treaty of commerce with France to
the consideration of the House. (Hear, hear.) And, Sir, I
am bound to say that the answer of the Government on that
occasion was so ambiguous, so hesitating, and, upon further
reflection and research in the course of the evening appeared
to me so impracticable, that I felt it my duty, though with
great unwillingness myself, to place that notice on the paper
which hon. gentlemen are aware of. Sir, su little had that
amendment, on my part, the character of a party motion,
that I had not, from the state of the House, the opportunity
of conferring with any. hon. gentleman with whom I am in
the habit of acting, except my hon. and learned friend the
member for Belfast—(hear) —an d I should willingly, most
willingly, have seen the task undertaken by an independent
member of the House. But time was urgent—the subject was
pressing—and so it has devolved upon me to call the serious
attention of the House to what I believe is the unprecedented
and peculiar position'in which it is placed—a position, I
think, which will be found after calm discussion to be by no
means favourable to the privileges of this House and to that
freedom of discussion of which we are so proud and jealous.
(Hear, hear.) Probably there have been few sessions of
Parliynent in which measures of such great importance
have been introduced to the notice of the House of Com-
mons as the present; yet the management of this business
by the Government—inadvertently, I make no doubt—has
been so arranged, that although we have before us most im-
portant measures, although we are called upon to take up
some of the most considerable questions that can be raised,
I will be bound to prove to the house that on no occasion
have the opportunities for discussion been so abridgei and
limited—(hear, hear)—and, as I think I shall show on one
important portion of these topics, not only abridged and
limited, but absolutely superseded. Sir, believing that this
has been unintentional and inadvertent on the part of the
Government, but feeling that it has already placed the
house in a very inconvenient position, not without injury
to the public service, I have thought it my duty, by the
motion I placed on the table, to give the house an oppor-
tunity of interfering and remedying that which I think will,
on reflection, appear to be an evil of no slight magnitude.
(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, I hardly know that I can more
clearly illustrate the extraordinary position in which the
house is placed at this moment than by referring to the first
two amendments of which notice has hems given in the
order of the day. The first amendment is by the hon. mem-
ber for Sunderland, with reference to those differential duties
on timber which are retained by France in the commercial
treaty. Well, if the hon. gentleman had brought forward
that question, no doubt the house would have had the op-
portunity of deliberating on an important article of the
commercial treaty; and when the division was called for,
when the division was made, no matter how, or on what
side it might be declared, by the rules of the house, which
prevent a second amendment on the question of going into
committee on Customs Acts, no other single article in
the treaty of commerce could- possibly have been brought
before the house. (Hear.) Well, then, suppose, as I un-
derstand would have been the case if the hon. member
for Sunderland, according to the custom of the house, and
in unison with the courtesy which always regulates
on both sides our habits, feeling that he had to bring for-
ward a subject though of importance yet of limited in-
terest, had deferred to the hon. member for Essex, who was
challenging a much wider and completer issue, and that
too at the request of a large party—supposing the hon.
member for Essex had brought forward his amendment
this evening, then the house would have had the opportu-
nity of giving an opinion on the budget of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer; and after the decision upon that question,
assuming for a moment that the motion would be negatived,
it would be utterly impossible for any member either to
bring on any amendment on any article of the treaty of
commerce, or again refer to any subject connected with the
budget. (Hear, hear.) Well, now, sir, is that a state of
the business of this house which is satisfactory? Ought
the house to be placed in such a situation on any question in
a session when the Government bring forward questions of
first-rate importance, and measures the magnitude of which
can scarcely be exaggerated ? Sir, so far as I can form an
opinion at the present moment—and I beg the house calmly
and completely to bear this in mind—so far as I can form an
opinion, and I have spared no meant in the brief interval
that has elapsed to avail myself of the learning which I
myself do not possess on this subject, the treaty of commerce
with France, which never has been before the house, never
can be before the house. (Hear, hear.) Surely this is a
point on which the house ought to arrive at accurate know-
ledge and a correct judginont. It will be for the Govern-
ment to-night to prove that I am under an erroneous im-
pression of the case ; but, sir, my opinion is that if we go
into committee on the Customs Acts, and if we pass all those
resolutions which ire on the paper to be preposed by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which will effect all those
remission s or reductions of duty which are contemplated in
the treaty of commerce, that treaty can never afterwards
come before this house for its consideration and its judg
ment. (Hear.) It may be said, as it was said indeed the
other night, that the mere resolutions of this house in com-
mittee on the Customs Act are not laws of the land, and are
not conclusive, and therefore they might again be placed in
anotherform before us. Well, sir, let us see what is the
value of that plea. It has been admitted by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer in his recent letter to a member of this
house that for all practical purposes, as regards the
c mule!, the votes in the committee on the Customs Act
are conclusive; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer
only used on that occasion the language and availed
himself of the view which has always been ac-
cepted by individuals in his position and recog-
nised by the house. What is the language of the noble
lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on this subject? We
have his language in the despatch to the joint negotiators
of the treaty; the noble lord there says that "with respect
to all these articles which are to be set free from the duty
and removed altogether from the tariff, these articles shall
become free on the day succeeding that on which a resolu-
tion in committee of the House of Commons affirming the
proposed freedom from Customs' duty shall have been duly
reported and agreed to by the house. And no doubt the
noble lord was perfectly justified in making that statement,
and in giving that instruction to the co-negotiators. But if
that be the case, what opportunity should we have upon the
Customs' Act, subsequently introduced, of considering the
treaty of commerce ? Those who had voted for the reduc-
tion or remission of duties in committee Would scarcely op-
pose an Act which carried their own resolutions into effect;
and all thoso who, assuming them to be the minority, op-
posed those reductions and remissions must, in their oppo-
sition to the Customs' Act, be confined merely to the mat-
ters contained in that Customs' Act. Therefore I main-
tain that if that Customs' Act were passed all that assent
of Parliament which is provided for in the 20th article of
the treaty would have been perfectly fulfilled and satisfied.
But it is a mistake to suppose that the 20th article of this
treaty requires the sanction, or—as the hon. member for
Finsbury called it—the ratification of the House of 'Com,
mons. The House of Commons has no right, under the
constitution, to' sanction or ratify treaties. And if her
Majesty, having exercised her prerogative, subject in cer-
tain particulars, to her being enabled by this house to
fulfil her engagements, is so enabled by this house to fulfil
those engagements, the treaty becomes a complete treaty,
and there is no doubt it would be accepted as a com-
plete treaty by the foreign Power with which it was nego-
tiated. (Hear, hear.) But if the only mode by which the
provisions of the treaty can be brought before the
house is by the remission and repeal of Customs' duties
in committee, and afterwards by passing a Customs' Act, I
ask the house how are we to deal with those considerable
questions that may arise in this treaty which have nothing
whatever to do with the remission or reduction of Customs'
duties? (Hear, hear.) I would refer again to the 11th
article of tab; treaty, which has greatly interested—l may
even say agitated—the mind of this country. In this article
the Crown engages not to prohibit the exportation of coal.
There has been, indeed, a great deal of excitement in va-
rious places on that subject, but that question, I think, was
never clearly end completely put before the country until it
was stated on Friday night by my lion. and learned friend
the member for Belfast. (Hear.) With great respect to the
noble Secretary opposite I could not infer from his observa-
tions that he fairly understood the question,. because the
noble lord referred to a treaty with Russia which had been
negotiated by Lord Malmcslaury, and seemed to imagine
that that was an identical parallel with the important case
now before us. But the treaty with Russia to which he
alluded contained only an engagement on the part of her
Majesty and the Emperor of Russia not to enforce, the one
against the other, any prohibition of importation or expor-
tation which shall not at the same time be applicable to all
other nations. That, sir, is not the case which the 11th
article of the present treaty deals with. (Hear, hear.) And
nothing can prove that more clearly than that the co-nego-
tiators have absolutely inserted in the 19th article of thfB
vet y treaty of commerce a proviso to that effect, which con-
clusively shows that the contingency contemplated in the
1 lth article which has so alarmed the country is totally dif-
ferent from that identity of circumstances assumed by the
noble lord. Now what is this 11th article ? The Parlia-
ment of this country has entrusted the Sovereign with the
great right of prohibiting the exportation of coal. And by
the 11th article of this treaty the Sovereign has agreed with
a foreign Power not to exercise that right which has been
confided to her by her Legislature for the space of 10 years.
(Hear, hear.) I give no opinion now on the policy or on the
law of the question. Ido not wish to-night to mix myself
up with controversies of any kind. But I ask the house,
ought a treaty, including such an article as this, so nearly
concerning the privileges of this assembly, and touching
the very constitution of tho country—and bear in mind this
is not the only article of importance which is not 4 4114uci4

- • 1.••• •k •

or a fiscal one—ought such a treaty, I repeat, to escape the
due consideration of the House of Commons ? (Hear, hear.)
I say, then, that the 11th article alone furnishes an unan-
swerable argument for the end I have now in view, viz., that
of bringing before this house a treaty which has never from
the beginning been clearly submitted to us. But it is held
by very high authorities, by men who have been eminent in
this house, and who are illustrious in the other house of
Parliament, that notwithstanding this is an illegal act on the
part of the Crown—notwithstanding that her Majesty has
been advised to take an illegal and unconstitutional course;
still this is a complete engagement, as far as, a foreign
Power is concerned, on the part of the Sovereign ; and if
her Majesty is enabled by the reduction and remission of
Customs' duties, assented to by her Parliament, to carry
that engagement into effect, her Majesty would be bound
by the 11th article of the treaty. But if that be the case,
and I give no opinion upon it, so much the more important
is it that we should deliberately, regularly, and methodi-
cally consider all these questions of the reduction and re-
mission of revenue. (Hear, hear.) Because this might
happen—that it would only be the refusal of the House of
Commons to reduce or remit a duty that might extricate the
Sovereign from an unconstitutional and perilous position.
According to that view—and I give no opinion on its jus-
tice—it is equallynecessary, I think, that this treaty should
be placed before us. The noble lord the First Minister the
other night said, " Ofcourse the house will be asked to give
their opinion upon the treaty." I want to know in what
way we are to give our opinion upon the treaty, assuming
as I have done throughout these observations, that the
course of conducting business indicated by the Government
is pursued—that we gointo committee on the Customs Acts,
and pass all these remissions and reductions of duty which
among other remissions and reductions, are necessary to
enable her Majesty to complete her engagements with the
1 Emperor of tho French. If all these reductions and remise
1 sions are made I want to know in what way her Majesty's
Government propose to bring the treaty of commerce with
Franco before the cognisance or subject it to the constitu-
tional control and criticism of this house. That is the ques-
tion which I hope will be answered to -night. (Cheers.) Will
the noble lord the First Minister give notice of an address to
the Crown after all these reductions and remission have
been made, assuring her Majesty that he will lose no
Lime in taking those measures which will enable her to ful-
fil her engagements with the Emperor of the French ? In
the first place, it will be very difficult—l believe it is per-
fectly unprecedented—under any circumstances, for the.
House of Commons to address the Crown on a treaty
on which her Majesty has not been advised to
condescend to address the House of Commons. It was im-
possible, it may be said, in her Majesty's Speech to an-
nounce the fact of this treaty of commerce being ratified.
But in a similar case—that of the treaty of commerce which
was negotiated at Utrecht—that treaty, having been nego-
tiated when Parliament was sitting, could not be announced
from the Throne at the opening of the session ; but a mes-
sage from Queen Anne was brought down, informing this
house of what had occurred—(hear' hear)—and, of course,
that led to a communication which was in every respect
constitutional and conformable 'to Parliamentary usage.
But we need not go back to so distant a period. It is in
the experience of two-thirds of the members of the present
House of Commons, although it happened under the former
one, that our gracious Sovereign entered into a treaty with
the King of Sardinia while Parliament was sitting, and to
carry it into effect she required the assistance of her Legis-
lature: What then happened ? The Minister brought
down an address from her Majesty, and that invited a loyal
and dutiful response. (Hear, hear.) I think it would be
very difficult for the noble lord, all these reductions and re-
missions having taken place, then to propose that we should
address the Crown to inform her Majesty that we were pre-
pared to carry this treaty into effect. But the noble lord
may say, "It will then be full time for isle to advise her
Majesty to address this house, and after youhave concluded
your committee on the Customs Act a message from the
Crown shall come down to you." Sir, the relations between
the Crown and this house are of a peculiar and delicate,
character. It should be our first study not to let them de-
generate into more formality. (Hear, hear.) And for the
Queen to send down a message to this house announcing
that she had concluded a treaty with the Emperor of the
French, inviting our consideration of that treaty, and call-
ing upon us to grant the means of carrying it into effect,
when her Majesty must have been fully informed by her
Minister that we have parted with all those privileges of
Parliament which secure our constitutional control over
treaties, would be, I think, a course which no Minister
would be justified in recommending his Sovereign to
follow, and would be at once a mockery to the Crown
and an insult to Parliament. (Loud cheers.) A great
Minister, whom I shall have occasion to quote in the
course of some subsequent remarks, has touched with great
eloquence and truth upon the union which may be effected
between the prerogative of the Crown and the privileges of
Parliament upon This important subject of treaties. He
said, " It is a happy circumstance of our constitution that
it gives to the Crown the sole prerogative of negotiating
and concluding treaties, but it gives the judgrneat, revision,
and execution of those treaties to the privileges of the peo-
ple." (Hear, hear.) I want to know how we can give judge
ment, how we can effect revision, how we can control the
administration of this treaty, if we have already parted with
the privileges upon which the exercise of these powers de-
pends. There is another course by which the noble lord
might contemplate bringing the treaty under the considera-
tion of the House of Commons. He might have thought
that it was in his power, after the committee on the Cus-
toms Act was concluded, to give notice that on a particular
day he would call upon the house to consider the treaty of
commerce with France. Suppose the noble lord gave that
notice, hew would he act upon it? He could not go into
committee to consider the treaty, because every financial and
fiscal vote would have been arrived at, and he would have
exhausted all the reasons which authorise the house to go
into committee. Could he then propose a resolution that
the house would sanction the treaty ? I apprehend that such
a course would be one which would outrage the prerogative
of the Crown. The noble lord would not for a moment pre-
tend that it is the business of the House of Commons to
sanction'a treaty which has already been ratified by the
Sovereign; and therefore if he gave that notice, I cannot
conceive what he would do when the house met to discuss
it. These are the main reasons which have induced me to
come to the conclusion that if the house persists in the
course of business at present proposed, this treaty of com-
merce with France will really never be submitted to its
constitutional consideration. I want the house this evening
to see whether there are not some means by which we can
extricate ourselves from a position so difficult, and to the
house so humiliating, as that which we now, unintention-
ally I doubt not on the part of the Government, appear to
occupy. I believe there are simple and efficacious means
for effecting that result which the house ought to adopt,
and I think we can do no better than follow those prece-
dents with which the wisdom and experience of our prede-
cessors have furnished us. There are several precedents
which apply to the present state of public business, but I do
not wish to weary the house with them. ("Hear, hear," from
the Ministerial benches.) I doubt not, because there is one
precedent which in its nature is so apt, which affords an
example so complete, and the actor in which is so illustri-
ous, that I am quite sure that if the house will give its at-
tention to the proceedings which were adopted by Parlia-
ment in that case—and by Parliament in the prime period
of its reputation—we shall obtain a guide not only in the
present position of this question, but in case of any combi-
nation of difficulties which may arise in the:course of a pro-
longed debate. I referred to that prec&lent in the course of
the conversed= of Friday, but very hastily and very im-
perfectly. If the house will permit me, I will now state very
succinctly, but I hope clearly, what took place with respect
to the treaty of 1787 ; and it appears to me that in a right
appreciation of those circumstances wo shall find means of
disembarrassing ourselves from those difficulties which we
have already felt, and which, if we do not adopt that course
will, in my opinion, daily increase. (Hear, hear.) The house
will recollect that the treaty of commerce between England
and France negotiated in 1786 was concluded at the end of
the month of Septeniber. In October it was published
throughout Europe. Parliament did not meet until the last
week in Jan., 1787, and therefore for four months that treaty
had been canvassed and analysed, and had been in the
mouths and minds of men. (Hear, hear.) Oa the 2d of Feb-
ruary Mr. Pitt, having a few days previously brought up
the treaty by command (as the noble lord the Secretary of
State did the other night), gave notice that upon the 12th of
that month he should call upon the house to take it into
consideration, thus allowing 10 days for the study of a docu-
ment which for four months had been so fully discussed by
the country that many of its defects had been discovered,
and Mr. Pitt had even negotiated a supplementary treaty
by which they were remedied—a hint of which the hon.
member for Finsbury might avail himself. Let the house
remember that when Parliament met the Sovereign had an-
nounced the negotiation and ratification of the treaty which
was not our case this year. Mr. Fox immediately rose and
protested against 10 days only being allowed. (Hear, hear.)
We have had only 10 days allowed, although this treaty was
not even ratified when Parliament met. We have not had
the advantage of the criticism of four months. On the con-
trary, it is only by a miracle that, the financial statement
(h e r
s uponl
having been made on Friday, we
Thursday. wuerrseday notc
. called
e
to decide upon it on the following
think that all that has since occurred with regard to these
matters has shown that I was not irrational when I pressed
the importance of delay, and the necessity of giving us time
to consider in what manner we had best deal with proposi-
tions of such magnitude. (Hear, hear.) Upon the 12th of
February Mr. Pitt called the attention of the house, which
had upon his motion gone into committee, to the considera-
tion of the French treaty. He did so in a very ample and
able speech, in which he considered that instrument both
commercially and politically, and he concluded by moving
the first of 20 resolutions which he had prepared. Those re-
solutions—and let me call the attention of the house par-
ticularly to this fact—wore not resolutions similar to those
of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given notice
to be moved in the committee on the Customs Act. They
were general resolutions. Mr. Pitt himself impressed upon
the house that they need not be alarmed lest, by acceding
to these resolutions, they should be entrapped into an ap-
proval of details which they might afterwards regret. They
were drawn largely and generally, and were not, as I will
show, resolutions which could form the staple and element
of a financial bill. There were several debates, adjourn-
ments, and divisions upon those resolutions which em-
bodied the pith of the treaty, for the commercial treaty of
Mr. Pitt was limited entirely to commercial considerations.
(" Hear, hear" from Lord John Russell.) If they were
ns
aitgna
ttkdhheieni:
kee bdpoe.oncr at
teudsee2oi 'Towardson .
20th—those
ithatlh:
the
hhhcooeauss
eseeen2. mdo yoafr
resolu-
tionsg theu-
not, it would tall more for my position. I should be glad
mmt oefinnntt hdwwotofehuraFletde February—it uaae
passed
lassreytmdr—ei
Imme-
diately lhey were reported a follower of Mr. Pitt moved an
address to the Croaen, in answer to a passage in the Speech
(ma r
rt hye
the Throne,
treaty
into pledging
effect.th elhvohu
is
te to t
he
ne nable
occurredhi his M? am
rj ehs tyy,
ftoro
the resolutions and the address of the house were sent up to
a body which it appears to me has been entirely forgotten
in these transactions; because when her Majesty in her
engagements with the Emperor of the French talks of the
assent of Parliament, I can hardly suppose that her
Ministers consider that Parliament consists only of the
House of Commons. (Hear, hear) Mr. Pitt took no
further step in the business until the House of Lords
had equally passed those resolutions, after most memor-
able debates distinguished by a speech of the highest class
from the first Marquis of Lansdowne, which may be
read now with great profit. (Hear, hear.) The house of
Lords also assented to address the Crown, and the two
houses went up with their joint address. What then took
place ? Mr. Pitt left those resolutions on the table, and
then brought forward his Consolidation Act, and when the
house went int) committee on the Customs' Consolidation
Act, those resolutions wore submitted to that committee,
and in committee they were brought into practical effect
after the house had discussed the general principles which
they declarel. Thus the house had an oppertunity of en-
tering into all the minutiae which the subject demanded.
(Hear, hear.) There wore some impatient gentlemen when
I mentioned precedent, and I know I shall be told "Don't
talk of times past. What have times past to do with an
age of progress like the present? Never mind precedents
or standing orders, go ahead with large comprehensive tem_
sures. You must not suppoie the author,s, of such schemes
are subject to such rusty regulations. (Cheers.) When
Mr. Pitt, in 1787, intradliced the treaty of commerce with
Frailest, lie no large and comprehensive measure of
ho
thlaucial reform ? Why, sir, with reference to gie akito of

our country at that time, its revenue, its population, and its
general resources, the measure which Mr, Pitt brought for-
ward for the consolidation of our Customs and Excise may
be looked upon as by far the greatest reform of the kind
which ever was carried. (Hear, hear.) We hear a great
deal now of the simplification of the tariff, as if it were some
new idea, the offspring of this enlightened age and only dis-
covered at Manchester. (Laughter.) We are told now
that 200 or 300 articles in the tariff is a barbarous state of
things which marks an age. The house can form an idea
of what Mr. Pitt's labours were when he dealt with a tariff
which had not been revised for generations—l may almost
say for centuries—and when the committee had to agree in
those days to no less than 3,000 resolutions in order to carry
his policy into effect. (Cheers.) Mr. Pitt had a large and
comprehensive measure, but he did not mix it up in any
way with his commercial treaty. On the contrary, having
given the house the constitutional opportunity of consider-
ing the treaty, and having moved and passed in committee
the twenty resolutions necessary to carry it into effect, he
introduced his Consolidation of the Customs and Excise
Bill. The House went into committee on that bill, and
those resolutions were referred to that committee. Let the
house observe that during the exposition by which Mr. Pitt
introduced the treaty of commerce with France in ' 1787
there was not the slightest allusion to the effect which that
treaty would have on the revenue of this country, though
its effect must have been considerable. There was not the
slightest allusion to his great and comprehensive measure
of fiscal and financial reform, although it was his purpose
to submit to the committee on that great bill the resolutions
which were passed in committee on the commercial treaty.
In February Mr. Pitt introduced the commercial treaty.
In March ho introduced his great measure of financial re-
form, and at the right time in April he- produced his
budget. (Cheers.) I ask the house why are we to be
treated differently than the Commons in 1787 ? (Hear.)
Why should we not have the commercial treaty, the com-
prehensive scheme of financial reform, and then the budget
submitted to us in their natural order, which would give
frequent and ample opportunities for that matured debate
and that criticism which questions of such importance and
of so complicated a character require ? (Hear, hear.) I ask
the house why we should not follow in the present in-
stance the same course as the Government of 1787? That
is a question which 1 think ought to be answered. If we
follow that course it appears to me we shall have frequent
opportunities of debate and discussion, of which we shall
otherwise be inevitably deprived, and above all, the treaty
will be brought under our cognisance and criticism, which,
as far I canjudge, will otherwise not be the case. (Hear.)
I venture to say that I am at a loss to understand what ob-
jections her Majesty's Ministers will make to the proposi-
tion with which I shall conclude. I shall be extremely glad
if I can obtain my purpose without asking the house to
assent to any amendment. The amendment which I hays
put on the paper is one in accordance with the forms of the
house, and I have no other object but that of asserting the
privileges of this house, and of preserving that right of de-
bate which we havehitherto deemed so important. (Cheers.)
I said I would make no observations on the policy or pro-
visions of this treaty with France, but I may be allowed to
make one remark, firstly upon the negotiator of this treaty,
and secondly on the form of the instrument in which the
result of those negotiations is placed before us, and I do so
because I cannot but feel that they are in some degree
the causes of the embarrassing position in which the house
is placed. (Hear, hear.) lam sure that the house will do
me the justice of believing and perhaps remembering that I
have never been slow in recognising the great ability and
honourable and eminent position of the hon. member for
Rochdale. I have the satisfaction of remembering that I
recognized those qualities before they were acknowledged
by vanquished Ministers, and before they received the ap-
probation of those sympathizing statesmen, with whom,
some how or other, he seems doomed never to be a colleague.
(Laughter.) But I can only feel—and I will give reasons
for that sentiment to the house—that it was a most unwise
selection on the part of the Government to have appointed
Mr. Cobden—whose name I may mention, as it is one of
the signatures to the treaty—as their secret agent for nego-
tiations with France. (Hear, hear.) I should rejoice to
see the member for Rochdale on the Treasury bench, in an.
honourable and recognised position, because then I should
know that he was responsible for the policy which we be•
lieve her Majesty's Government profess; but when I find
him the secret agent negotiating a treaty of commerce, it is
impossible for me not to trace in the treaty something of the
idiosyncracy of the negotiator. (Cheers.) For example,
there are objections to this treaty—l do not make them my-
self now, because to-night I wish to avoid any controversy
of the kind—that it compels a wanton destruction of sources
of revenue which are much needed at the present time But
it was perfectly consistent with the opinions of Mr. Cobden
that he should recommend those sacrifices, because, as ha
always openly, frankly, and honestly professed, he is never
at fault to find substituteis for the revenue he forfeits, and
he finds them in reductions of expenditure. Is that the
opinion of her Majesty's Ministers ? The estimates on the
table prove that it is not. (Hear, hear.) lam quite cer-
tain that, if upon this subject they shared the opinions of
their secret negotiator, they -you'd soon forfeit the confi-
dence of this house. (Hear, hear.) There is another im-
portant matter in this treaty—a matter which excites con-
siderable controversy, and on which Mr. Cobden has most
decided opinions viz. :—belligerent rights. 'Under this treaty,
it is the opinion of some, the rights of belligerents are likely
to be sacrificed. It is perfectly consistent, that with his
opinions Mr. Cobden should not have guarded those rights
which he has always opposed. A word or two now with re-
gard to the form of this instrument. I will not enter into a
controversy now as to whether this is or is not a recipro-
city treaty. The subject is not exhausted, and I hope there
will be an occasion to renew it, especially if her Majesty's
Government consent to my suggestion. But if this be a
reciprocity treaty, then I must say never was reciprocity
less adroitly managed—(cheers)—and if, on the other hand,
it be not a reciprocity treaty, then I can find no satisfactory'
reason why the negotiation should -have taken this conven-
tional form. I say I can find no satisfactory cause—but I
should be in error if I said I could find no cause or reason at
all—for the noble lord at the head of the Government gave
se a reason the other night for the matter under negotiation
taking the form of a treaty, which no doubt he thought was
perfectly satisfactory. He told us that it was owing to the
peculiarity of the French constitution, that peculiarity be-
ing this, that the Sovereign of France can enter into a treaty
of this nature without consulting his Legislative Chamber,
which is naturally interested in matters affecting the indus-
try and taxation of the country. In our conversation •
Friday some notice was taken—and I regret the tone in
which it was taken—of the Legislative Chamber of France.
I make it a rule to speak with unaffected respect of the
constituted authorities of foreign countries, and I think we
may take it as a general rule that they would not be con-
stituted, ware they not adapted to the exigencies of the time
and the character of the people among whom they subsist.
(Hear.) But with respect to the Legislative Chamber of
France I am surprised that any gentlemen who are what
are called advanced Liberals should speak in disparagement
of that body, and should exult that that body had not had
the opportunity of exercising its functions. (Hear.) The
Legislative Chamber of France is elected by universal suf-
frage—it is chosen by the ballot—(hear)—its members are
sent to their seats from electoral districts, and if they be sa-
laried members, when advanced opinions are triumphant
here, it will be recognised that they have only anticipated
the idea of a British member of Parliament. (Laughter.)
It may be—l give no opinion upon the matter—that the
Legislative Chamber of France is inferior to us in political
sagacity or legislative skill, it may be that its members have
not that high sense of political liberty which flourishes in.
this country. Perhaps—at least it is my opinion, and I have
often expressed it—in the old countries of Europe political
liberty and aristocracy are inseparable—(cheers)—but it
cannot be denied that a body of men elected under such cir-
cumstances and conditions must at least represent the
opinions, or at any rate the prejudices of the people. My
hon. friend the member for North Warwickshire referred
the other night with legitimate pride to the circumstance
that the most powerful empire in Europe, and the most
flourishing community in America still professed those
opinions with respect to protection to native industry which
he himself had so long, so ably, and, all must acknowledge,
so honestly maintained. (Hear, hear.) There is a country
which I hope is not inferior to Imperial France, or to that
famous Confederation across the Atlantic, and that is the
country to which we are all proud to belong. We have not
been faithful to those principles of protection to native in-
dustry which my hon. friend still professes. England has
repudiated those principles which Prance and the United
States still retain. But although only two of these groat
communities still adhere to these opinions, it is some satis-
faction to learn that whatever difference there may be be-
tween them with respect to free trade principles, there is
some sympathy between them on constitutional principles.
principles may be, and are no doubt very god
—but I may be permitted to say that con-
tFlirienegtar_ad(ceheers)
stitutional principles are better—(counter-cheers)—and
much older. This treaty of commerce appears to be an in-
strument which has been devised to silence the voice of one
Legislature—don't let it turn out that in carrying it into
effect another Legislature is deprived of its privileges.
(Cheers.) That is what I wish to impress upon the Go-
vernment to-night. I earnestly entreat her Majesty's
Ministers not to force us to any division on this question. I
ask them fairly to meet the points which I have placed be-
fore the house, and not merely by their concurrence and
co. operation, but by their leading agency to bring back the
house to the path of public business from which they have
so unfortunately deviated. I accuse the Government—but
I will not use the word accuse—l impute to the Govern-
ment nothing but inadvertence ; but it is inadvertence
which, if persisted in, will lead to great practical inconve-
nience, and, ultimately, probably, to great public injury.
(Hear, hear.) I maintain that it is the right of the House
of Commons to have this treaty frankly submitted by the
Government to its critical andconstitutional judgment; and
that, if Ministers persist in the course now recommended by
them, all practical contr3l over its provisions is lost. (Hear.)
It is a
_question which concerns the privileges of this house
and the freedom of debate—considerations which I trust will
never become party questions. (Hear, hear.) I want her
Majesty's Ministers to feel that they can take this line
not only with honour but with dignity; for I hope the
finis has not yet come when an English Minister will
feel that he is in a false position, because he defers to
the privileges of the House of Commons, and acknowledges
the authority of Parliament. (Cheers.) The right hon.
gentleman concluded by moving as an amendment, " That
the house does not think fit to go into committee on the
Customs Acts with a view to the reduction or repeal of the
duties referred to in the treaty of commerce between her
Majesty and the Emperor of the French, until it shall have
considered and assented to the engagements in that treaty."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The
right hon. gentleman, in the motion which he has proposed
to-night—abandoning for the most part, though not with
entire consistency, throughout his speech—those most in-
teresting and important topics of general interest which are
connected with the financial propositions of the Govern-
ment, has called our attention to a matter which, however
important, is strictly a point of procedure, and I think when
wo consider points of procedure it is for the convenience of
the house that we should, as far as possible, avoid general
and collateral discussions. (Hear, hear.) On that account
I must confess that I do not see the peculiar advantage of
importing into this discussion on procedure the criticism
which the right hon. gentleman has tendered on the cha-
racter and competency of Mr. Cobden. (Cheers.) I did' •
not think it was at all necessary for the purposes and for
the dignity of this house that the right hon. gentleman
should commence his speech by an explanation—however
interesting it might be to us who had not the privilege of
being summoned last week to a particular assembly, held
at the house of a noble earl—(laughter)—of the grounds
that had induced him to think better of the decision which
was then apparently arrived at, and to explain the change
of purpose and of procedure—(cheers and laughter)—which
his taken place on the other side of the house. On this
head I must say I should have greatly complained of the
right hon. gentleman if we had been deprived of the pro-
spect that is held out to us of a general and comprehensive
debate on the motion to be made by the hon. member for
Esser, than whom, if he will permit me to say so, there is
no gentleman on that side of the house, especially, of his
ttsuding, to whom an important party motion could better