The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-17 00:00:00

ALTERATION IN THE PRAYER-BOOK

Lord EBURY moved (as we understood) for a copy of
the memorial recently presented to the Archbishop of Can-
terbury touching the proposed alteratiox in the Prayer-
book.

The LORD CHANCELLOR objected to the notion.
There could only be two courses open to the house if they
wanted the motion carried—either to address the Crown
praying that the Archbishop might be desired to
give up the document, or to send the Sergeant-
at-Arms, as it was proposed that the House of Commons
should do in a motion that had been put upon the notice-
paper of that house, and desire the archbishop to deliver
up the paper in the name of their lordships' house. Either
of these courses would be highly illegal.
Lord BROUGHAM entirely agreed with the noble and
learned lord on the woolsack. Whichever of the courses
described were followed would be entirely unjustifiable.
The Crown had no more right than an officer of
that house to demand the production of a book out of the
Archbishop's library.
The subject then dropped.
THE COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE.
The Earl of AIRLIE moved for copies of any correspon-
dence (in addition to that presented to Parliament) which
may have taken place between her Majesty's Government
and her Majesty's Plenipotentiaries iu Paris respecting the
negotiation of the treaty of commerce with France. Ho said
he had no desire upon the present occasion to raise a discus-
sion upon the general merits of the commercial treaty be-
tween France and England which had lately been signed
at Paris, nor did he wish to enter into the probable manner
in which that treaty would bear upon our financial and
commercial system. This subject he had no doubt would
be fully debated next week in the other house of Parliament,
and he for one had no wish to anticipate that debate. His
object on the present occasion was to endeavour to obtain
from the Government, if possible, some explanation with re-
gard to what appeared to him to be one of the most im-
portant provisions of the treaty, to which, however, no re.
ference was made in the correspondence which had already
been presented to Parliament. The provision to which he
referred was contained in the 11th article of that treaty,
which ran as follows: "The two high contracting Powers
engage not to prohibit the exportation of coal, and lay no
duty on such export." In the correspondence he found two
references to coal, and only two. The first was in a de-
spatch from Lord Cowley to Lord J. Russell, dated Dec.
23, 1859, in which Lord Cowley said Count. Waleweki had
called upon him the day before, and stated that he had had
a conversation with Mr. Cobden, which was likely to lead
to important results, and amongst other arrangements he
stated that the French Government might give its consent
to the admission of British coal at the same duty as Belgian
coal. In this despatch (No. 2) from Lord J. Russell to
Lord Cowley and Mr. Cobden, his lordship said, that no
great interest was excited in this country as to whether
the duty on British coal imported into France was high or
low. The treaty was received at the Foreign-office on
the 31st of January, and Lord John Russell wrote on the
same day acknowledging the receipt of it. Now through-
out the whole of this correspondence, neither in the
erigheal proposition of Count Waleweki, nor in the proposal
now fully developed by Lord J. Russell, nor in the despatch
of Lord Cowley which accompanied the treaty, nor in the
last letter of Lord J. Russell conveying her Majesty 'a satis-
faction at the arrival of the treaty, was this engagement
ever hinted at. It would seem as if they had consented to
throw it into the bargain just as if it were a matter of very
slight importance. He did not suppose any one would con-
tend there was any reciprocity in this matter. It was quite
true that the treaty applied to both countries, but he did
not suppose we should ever find ourselves importing coals
from France. He did not wish to lay much stress on the
circumstance that by engaging not to impose our export
duty on coals we thereby deprived ourselves of raising a
revenue from that source. The questisn appeared to him
to bear another and a more dangerous aspect. He took it
for granted that if there were a coalition of the other mari-
time powers against this country the struggle would be
with steam-vessels. In this country we had left off alto-
gether constructing sailing vessels, and at a great expense
were now constructing steamers. France had been carrying
on the same operation, and at one period even more rapidly
than ourselves. He believed that all the other maritime
powers had done the same thing. It seemed to him that all
other things being equal, in any future maritime war the
advantage would be with that power which was best sup-
plied with coal, and which had the power of cutting off the
supply from the other countries. That was the position in
which it appeared to him this country stood at present, for
not only did we possess coals in muck greater quantities
than any country in Europe, but it so happened that we
possessed that peculiar description of coals which was best
adapted to steam navigation, and which went by the name
of steam coal. From the greater density of this coal,
which was found in South Wales, it could be stowed into
a smaller space than the ordinary kind, and from careful
experiments which had been made it had been ascer-
tained that 100 tons of it would go as far as 144 tons of
other coal. This kind of coal was not found in large quan-
tities in Belgium or in Germany. We had the power of pre-
venting this coal from being exported, and a power which we
could exorcise, if expedient, without offence, inasmuch as it
was a mere matter of domestic legislation. He would cite
one or two instances, by way of illustration of the danger of
parting with this power. He would suppose that whilst this
treaty was in force France should find herself engaged in
war with some country which was in friendly relations with
England, we should find France drawing from England a
materiel which she used in warfare against a country which
might have all our sympathies. It might be, too, that the
issue of the war depended to a great extent on naval opera-
tions, and upon the equipment of steamers, and upon their
power of keeping at sea. Again, by this treaty, French
merchants might, while we were at war with another coun-
try, take this coal to neutral ports, from which it might be
taken inland to ports that we were blockading. Again, we
had treaties with most European powers containing the most
favoured nation clause, which would enable them to obtain
the coal while we were at war with France. All the facilities
which by this treaty were accorded to France were intended
to be accorded to other countries. But supposing there
was a coalition of the great maritime powers of Europe
against this country, as there had been before, up to the
very moment that hostilities began the whole of the powers
would be enabled to supply themselves with this coal,
which might be used in steamers, by which a descent might
be made on our shores ; and it might be that the Go-
vernment of the day might be forced to precipitate the war,
by striking the first blow, in order to put an end to this
et: te of things. He believed that this treaty, so far from
having the effect anticipated from it, would have a directly
contrary effect. If he were not very much mistaken, there
was one thing of which the people of this country were ex•
trernely jealous, and that was anything like tampering with
the source of their naval power. What were the words of
tho Prime Minister of England a few weeks ago, in answer to
a deputation that waited upon him ? Why he said that the
very existence of England depended on her preponderance at
sea. It had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
the treaty would knit together in the bonds of amity the two
great nations whose conflicts had shaken the world, but he
(the Earl of Airlie) saw in this provision of it a fearful
source of mutual jealousy and discord, and probably of war;
and it was in the interests of peace, because he desired in his
heart that the alliance of the two nations should be one of
friendship between the peoples, as well as the Governments,
that he deprecated this provision, and hoped the Govern.
ment would use its influence with the Government of France
to allow it to be revised. He wakanxious to know at what
itti mweuthis
upt rnot pu onsi ae la wt e was s,
wa t
htle ;Is b
ta er o ch e
nobled,
lordb y
twhom,the
Foreign a d hso
w
cretary received information of it, whether it was laid be-
fore the Cabinet, and what communications upon it took
place with Lord Cowley, who did not seem to have been
consulted about the making of this treaty.
Lord WODEHOUSE said there was no objection to the
motion, but he did not think the papers asked for would
I had taken part in
give
With ..naorbdletafriLeonrdd acllotwhleedy:thieilecdaritnafionnynation he required.
the treat's, as our ambassador at Paris, but it was notorious
enough that the treaty was principally negotiated by Mr.
eCloabvdenenth.
aTrthe ielanoolafle lord had d
the treaty,
bwyewlthattolgtrewa length on the
eleventh engagenottoe
Prohibit the expoi cation of coal to France, and nut to lay on
an export duty. But it was now fully admitted to be not at
all desirable to lay an export duty on coal ; it had been at-
tempted, and was then laid aside by general consent. There
was another clause of the treaty, the nineteenth, or "most
favoured nation" clause, by which we engaged that there
should be no prohibition of the export of any article to
France which was not prohibited to be exported to any ether
country. In spite, therefore, of the noble lord's picture of
the terrible effects of allowing our coal to be imported into
France, the export of it could not have been prohibited by
us without at the same thne prohibiting its export to every
other foreign country, and such a measure of general pro-
hibition the Government would have been very loth to
adopt. The noble lord had spoken of the dan-
ger and inconvenience to this country of not
being able to prohibit the exportation of coal to
France in case of impending war. But it seemed to him that
if we were (which he trusted for many long years to come we
should not be) in such a position with regard to France, that
it was necessary to prohibit the export of coal lest it should
be employed for hostile purposes against ourselves then such
a measure would he adopted by the Government of the day
on their own responsibility, whether this clause in the com-
mercial treaty existed or not, and then the mere fact of this
clause being set aside under such circumstances would
searcely add anything to the angry relations between the
two countries. As for reserving the use of our steam coal
entirely for our own navy, we could
venting its export for any purposes.
Bountlyttdowatshaatnbyartpireele-
u
Englishe manufacturers
j
of great importance to the French manufsaectoufr,erws,haenndthonee
which they fairly expected to have th
wore admitting the competition of
in the French market.
considered
oi sf waswh t an one-
sided were
reatthough he did not deny that some years
l'hetrEeaatryl,otfh He
given to France, great
R D
immediateV I C E E
advantages
protested against the_ pe
hencewitwithout
o Englandutmightciti it.eobeltaauinseabdyvwanhttaeghems,efrwomereb ounHde,
sretractiug that condition, to give away
our coal,
ression or for defence. There was no
country for egg
which he regarded as the great power of this
their claret and silk against our coal, It
ifFrance.were t
d to be at war
observed also, that if we happened
should be
t h e power' also
o
hen neutral, France
with
equality
ituisnoiasiettaningd