The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, PEBRIJARY 24, 1860.

increase the wealth of England. (Hear, hear.) He thought
that the treaty was not one which would materially advance
the trade of this country. It might be of political value, but
upon that point he would not dwell. After referring to
the financial statement of the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. member said he
wanted to know how the year 1861-2 was to be provided for ?
(Hear.) He confessed that he should like to take from the
budget all the objectionable imposts, and further he should
like to reduce the income-tax by 3d in the pound, making it
7d. for the next year. Making it more than effect at present
would be a cruel disappointment to the just xptions of
the country. (Hear, hear.) He would only add that as re-
garded the treaty he believed it would be nugatory in opera-
tion and the reductions in the budget would be most unwise
while they were to be replaced by taxes which were so ob-
noxious, As regarded the future he was not sufficiently
imbued with parliamentary conflicts td feel anything but
pain at being obliged to offer some opposition to the right
hon. gentleman's measures, which he had brought forward
for the welfare of the community at large. But he (Mr. Hub-
bard) would not have felt himself justified in not stating to
the house the feeling which he entertained against the most
mischievous part of these measures. The aggravated form of
the income-tax and other obnoxious imposts would fetter
and injure trade and embarrass traders, and would obstru.ct
that enterprise which had extended the influence of this
country over the world.
Mr. E. BAINES said that as a representative of one of
the laigest towns in the country he would ask permission to
state his views of the budget, but he regretted to find that he
had to follows gentleman so high in financial authority as the
hon. member for Buckingham. He, however, was comforted
by the assurance that there was a still greather authority in
the mercantile world than the hon. member, and that was
the public funds, and they had experienced a rise after the
debate of Monday last; the opinion prevailing being that the
budget would be carried by a large majority of the house.
The funds had not only advanced, but all chambers of com-
merce and public meetings in large manfacturing and com-
mercial towns had expressed themselves favourable to the
great measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and upon
the whole they had received the decided support of the press.
(Hear, hear.) He believed that a considerable majority of
the house would pronounce that the measures would be as
safe as they were comprehensive, and that they were as
wise as they were bold. (Hear, hear.) He could not help ob-
serving that it was not the fact that duties on English ma-
nufactures which were now below would be raised to 30 per
cent. ad valorem in France. The duties would not, in the
opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be beyond what
they now were, and instead of English yarns and English
goods being admitted at a duty of 30 per cent., several
articles were admitted at 10 per cent., and even at six
per cent. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Bucking-
ham had also stated that the cost of the French
treaty would be 2d. in the pound income tax, but that was
a mistake, it would not be more than ld., because although
relief would be granted approaching to £2,000,000 a-year,
the loss would be only £1,000,000, and that sum repre-
sented one penny in the pound, and not twopence. The
hon. gentleman had said that the effect of the repeal of the
cornllaws was not merely that it affected the price of bread
in this country, but that it raised the price of bread abroad.
If he applied that argument to the future competition be-
tween England and France, he would find that it would
regulate the price of labour in the two countries, and that
would prevent any disadvantage operating against the Eng-
lish manufacturers. (Hear,hear.) The hon. gentleman's
speech was a minute and microscopical view of the great
plan of She Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was not upon
a small ground, but upon a great one, that he (Mr. Baines)
gave it his warm assent, first, because it would complete
the system of free trade which was begun by earlier and
distinguished statesmen ; this plan would consolidate that
system; secondly, because it was a plan which regarded the
interests of the consumers and the great bulk of the popu-
lation of the country. (Hear.) The third consideration
which recommended it to him was that it established new
bonds of friendship between England and her nearest neigh-
bour, that country with which it would be most disas-
trous for us to be at war, and most profitable to maintain
friendly relations with. With these observations heshould
conclude, merely adding that as a whole he was ready to
give both treaty and budget his warmest approbation.
Mr. P. BLACKBURN did not mean to deny the advan-
tages that had resulted from free trade, but thought it ra-
ther hard that membersopposite should claim all Sir Robert
Peel's measures as belonging to their side of the house. In
his opinion wo should derive no benefit under the French
treaty by the reiuction of the duty upon wine and brandy.
The treaty was supposed to be for the benefit of the manu-
facturers and iron and coal masters of this country, but was
it fair to call upon the people to pay a large sum of moneyin
order to procure a certain advantage for a particular class ?
It was very hard that we should be called upon to pay a
large amount to introdtce those gentlemen into a new mar-
ket. He certainly thought that was contrary to the rules of
free trade, and under all the circumstances he should sup-
port the amendment of the hon. member for Essex.
Mr. MARSH would give his support to the budget of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and only regretted that it did
not go further in allowing certain continental fruits into
this country. He was glad to see that we had entered into a
treaty of commerce with France, and believed that
the effect would be most advantageous to both countries.
France was not necessarily fond of war. Frenchmen disliked
the sea, and, as a proof that they were not fond of soldier-
ing, a substitute could not be got for a conscript under £BO,
while in this country a recruit could be had for a shilling.
(Hear, hear.) The people of England had heard of cheap
wine and cheap silk, and they might depend upon it ttie
men would have the former and the women the latter.
(Hear, Near.)
Mr. HORSFALL said he never felt a greater difficulty
than he should have in saying aye or no to the motion of
the hon. member for Essex. He was sorry that he had
brought it forward. An hen. member said he adopted free
trade in deference to public opinion, but it was the duty of
this country not only to cultivate free trade with France,
but with every other country in the civilised world. It
had been said that they ought to prohibit the exportation
of coal in time of war, but he was not of that opinion, as
in case of war, coal could be obtained from Belgium and
Prussia, and even in France itself. Still he regretted
that there had been no reference in the treaty to the
shipping trade of this country, and particularly as re-
garded the coasting trade. The house had little idea of
the amount of foreign trade which was carried on be-
tween France and the United States. From a return
which had been made up to September last of the exports
of cotton from the United States into France, for the years
185 C-57 to 1859, he found that there were in 1856-57 no less
than 415,000 bales taken from the United States into France;
in 1858, 388,000 bales; in 1859, 440,000 bales; while in the
present year it promised to amount to half a million bales.
France now showed a great increase in shipping over what
it was last year. In an official French document, published
within the last few days, it was stated that nine-tenths of
the trade between France and the United States was carried
on in American vessels. He should have been glad to have
seen in the official papers some evidence of the exertions of
their plenipotentiaries in Paris for obtaining greater advan-
tages in favour of British vessels. The hon. member here
read an extract to show the difficulties which beset British
shipping in the Mauritius. It was stated that the plenipo-
tentiaries had instructions to fix the duty on brandy at 10s.,
and if they got adequate advantages to reduce it to Bs. 2d.
The reduction in the duty on brandy made a gross loss of
• £756,000, and the amount of duties which were paid upon
home and colonial spirits were so much as £26,640,000 in
the year 1858. He had been an advocate for the abolition of
the paper duty; but had that been deferred for the present
it would have been a saving of a million, and that would
have enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have re-
duced the income tax to sevenpence, instead of increasing it
from ninepence to tenpence. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member
stated that he had received letters from several of his consti-
tuents stating that the penny tax on packages would involve
a serious item of expense to those largely engaged in trade—
in some cases to the amounted £6OO, and in one case the tax
would amount to no less than £2,000. He could, in conclusion,
bear testimony to the urbanity shown by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to deputations on the subject of the budget.
Had the hon member (Mr. Du Cane) confined his motion
to the income tax, he (Mr. Horsfall) would have supported
it
, but as he thought the reduction of the number of duties
proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give
a great stimulus to trade, he should feel bound to vote against
the motion. (lllveaaara,fhear from the Ministerial side.)
Mr. BYNG
the Chancellor of th
opinion that the budget submitted by
Exchequer was one of the best and
most comprehensive that was ever submitted to the House
of Commons. (Hear, He believed that the treaty
with France would prove to roost beneficial in rimy re-
spects, and he had little doubt that the example .would be
followed by other countries. He thou; ht the treaty would
conduce to the material advantage of eerouy. It would
g tend to consolidate and carry out the
under-
standing principles of
free trade: It would also tend to eemenetaa good
with France, and materially advance the best
in-
terests of both countries. He should, therefore, oppose the
amendment.
Mr. BEACH said he thought the propositions of the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer were
founded upon a basis more specious than solid. The finan-
cial statement was founded upon the treaty, and he rejoiced
to see the Emperor of the French a party to this treaty,
which would give him more solid and permanent glory than
any to be obtained by territorial aggrandisement and con-
quest. He would confer by these deeds the most signal
benefit on his country. But were the advantages to be
gained by England equal to those obtained by France ?hHe
thought not. The wine introduced would be of that thin,
sour kind which was not suited to the climate of this coun-
try. The articles to be introduced would not promote sae
er
comforts of the humble traders. He hoped that y next yea
a permanent reduction would be made in the estimates for
the advantage of the country at large. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. BARING said that, accustomed as he was to
speak on financial questions, it would be hardly fair or
hardly courageous in him to shrink from expressing opi-
nions which he knew were not very popular. They had to
discuss the scheme as a financial whole, of wb;ch the treaty
only formed a small part. He was not one of those free
traders who objected to a commercial treaty. Our later
policy had made such treaties extremely difficult ; but there
were two roads to the same end. They might either say,
" We quite admit that it is most consonant with the princi-
ples of free trade that there should exist a system of liberal
duties on both sides; but we will not wait until the foreign
country adopts a liberal policy—we will not punish our-
selves for the sake of punishing them—half a loaf is better
than no bread, and we will have free trade on our side,
though France or any other country declines to adopt it."
Tear, hear.) But the object of that was, by our example,
induce the foreign country ultimately to come Onto our
policy, and, to obtain freotrado or liberalduties on both sides.
There was another course perfectly consistent with the
anxiety to obtain '”ee trade--to say, "rt is quite true we
punishing ourselves, but we
may beshall sooner gain our
legitimate object—free trade' on both aides—if we hang off
for a certain time and negotiate." That course had been
adopted in many cases. But therewas considerable difficulty
in taking half one course and half the other. (Hear, hear,
f rpm the Opposition.) He hal no objection to making a
bargain with France, and obtaining certain privileges on
condition of the reduction of certain duties. But if Govern-
anent thought that a NN Ls e cor•-se with regard to France,
why did they exclude any possibility of taking that course
with regard to Spain ? Had they gone to Spain, and said,
" We are prepared to reduce
the tbe duty on Frenchrt in c wines, and
are going to do it by treaty, y giving us e privi-
leges ; if you don't do the same your w,nrs will buffer,"
there never was a moment when we should have been more
likely to succeed in obtaining our end. Unfortunately, while
making a commercial treaty with France, at the very same
moment the Government had sacrificed every possibility of
making a commercial treaty with Spain. (Hear, hear.)
"Whether the advantages to be obtained by England or by
France were the greater, gentlemen would entertain dif-
ferent opinions; undoubtedly, his impression was that
France had the best of the bargain. (Hear.) What did we
obtain? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated the

question of wine as an important question, as it undoubt •
edly was ; but in the letter of Lord J. Russell, written, no
doubt, in communication with the Chancellor of the Exche •
quer, he stated that the reductions proposed were not upon
those articles which he should have thought so necessary as
to call for his immediate consideration. But what was the
objection to the reduction proposed ? He apprehended that
it was to enable the people to obtain cheap wine, which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had described as a blessing ;
also to produce a considerable increase of trade; and ulti-
mately to yield an improved revenue. He must say hehad
found no great appreciation by the working classes of the
advantage held out to them by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer ; for of the petitions which had been presented in
connection with the proposals of the budget, those most
numerously signed were from persons who prayed the house
not to make the sale of this "blessing" too common—not to
open it to general competition. Who ever heard of persons
petitioning that the sale of tea and sugar might not be made
too common ? (Hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer
anticipated a very large increase in the consumption of wine,
but he doubted whether that expectation was well founded.
As regarded Cape wine, the consumption of which the right
hon. gentleman thought would be got rid of, he (Sir F.
Baring) could not help remarking that that wine, at all
events, had the recommendation of being paid for with
British manufactures, and if it were replaced by the same
quantity of French or Spanish wine, it did not follow that
British manufactures would be benefited by the exchange.
(Hear.) As to the predicted increase in the consumption,
ho would observe that he had heard that prophecy twice
before, and in both instances it turned out untrue. Tesan-
guine Lord Ripon made a considerable reduction in the wine
duties, but unfortunately the revenue did not recover. Lord
Althorp also made a large reduction, and the result was not
very satisfactory. A very remarkable return had recently
been made with regard to reductions of duties on tea, coffee,
sugar, spirits, wine, and malt—showing with respect to each
what the duties were in 1820 and in 1860, and what was the
consumption per head in each of those years. On sugar there
was a very considerable reduction. But what was the result?
Why, the revenue more than righted itself, and the amount
of duty increased from £3,900,000 in 1820, to £5,936,000 in
1860. This showed that the article of sugar answered the
helm, and that a reduction of duty was followed by a cor-
responding increase of consumption. (Hear, hear.) On tea
, also there was a very large seduction of duty ; but the re-
venue increased from £3,600,000 to £5,406,000. The case of
coffee was similar. The reducrions of the duty on spirits was
not followed by a similar result. There was a fall in the re-
venue on French spirits, 'a larger fall in the revenue on colo-
nial spirits, and, on the whole, the consumption of spirits in
the 40 years had not repaid them for the reductions. It was
remarkable how stationary wine had been, as regarded both
revenue and consumption. (Hear, hear.) There was, indeed,
a small increase in the revenue derived from French wine—
the duty having been reduced from 13s. 9d. to ss. 9d. On
Rhenish, Madeira, and other wines there had been a loss ;
on Cape wine, a 'small increase. Speaking generally, he
might say that the reductions of the wine duties bad not
been followed by a recovery of the revenue. On malt there
had, during the same period, been a reduction of duty, which
was not very large compared with the reduction on the other
articles which he had mentioned ; and a very large increase
in the amount of revenue was derived from that source. These
facts showed in what direction the tastes of the people lay,
and they showed at the same time where reductions might be
made with a probability of increased instead of diminished
revenue. (Hear,. hear.) But he was told there were political
reasons for entering into the treaty with France. Now, on
that point he must first remark, that if such great political
blessings were derived from a treaty with France, similar
blessings might be derived from a commercial treaty with
other countries. If they were to make friends with France at
the expense of £l,ooo,ooo,why should they not spend a small
sum in dealing with some other Power ? They had not too
many friends on the Continent. (Hear, hear.) Now, view-
ing this question neither as a member of the present Govern-
ment nor as one who looked forward to the formation of a
Government on the other side of the house, he was in a
position to express an opinion without any hesitation, and
he must say that the political aspect of the treaty was no
recommendation to him. (Cheers from the Opposition.)
He had never joined in the attacks which had been made
on the Emperor of the French ; he had never concurred in
the opinion that he intended to invade this country ; but,
nevertheless, he would ask on what ground they were to
make such great sacrifices for the sake of the French alli-
ancencein?
hy was the income-tax to be so largo ? Not ac-
cordg to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because of, any
falling-off in the revenue, but because the Government were
obliged to propose such enormous naval and military esti-
mates. (Hear, hear.) He wished to see our relations with
France of the most friendly character but at the present
moment he was certainly not anxious that there should be
any intimate alliance with France as far as her conduct in
Italy was concerned. (Opposition cheers.) His noble
friend (Lord J. Russell) was, he hoped, satisfied with regard
to the views of the French Government. The policy of
England, however,was that Italyshould be free—that Italy
should be powerful—that Italy should be independent of
foreign countries, whereas the policy of France, so far as
he could understand it, was that if a powerful Central State
were formed in Italy, France would be bound to obtain
some equivalent to protect her. (Hear. hear.) That was
not the policy of England, and he hoped the treaty would
not have the effect of making her a party to transactions
which seemed likely to take place before long with regard
to the acquisition of territory in Italy. (Hear, hear.) So
much with respect to the treaty. He would not enter
into the details of the tariff ; simply remarking that, while
the present Chancellor of the Exchequer entertained the
opinion that it was desirable to get rid of the duty on
small articles, his colleague, who formerly filled the
same office (Sir G. C. Lewis), had expressed a contrary
opinion. He would leave them to settle the difference be-
tween themselves. The question to be determined, how-
ever, was not merely whether they should remit the duty
on small articles, but whether they should transfer the
taxation on those articles to mercantile transactions con-
nected with them. (Hear, hear.) Alter the clear and able
speech of the hon. member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard)
he would not waste the time of the house by entering into
that subject; he would only express a hope that they would
not, under the notion that they were carrying out free
trade, commit the great mistake of interfering with the
frerelom of the movements of trade. (Hear, hear,) The
remission of the paper duty would be a very great benefit to
trade—that was the best point in the budget. (Hear.) The
only question was whether the remission could be made with
safety to the revenue. (Hear, hear.) He thought there
would be a vast spread of the paper mite ufacture provided
sufficient materials could be obtained. The right hon. gen-
tleman talked in his budget speech about coaches made of
paper. From a recent work on Japan it appeared that the
people of that eountry walked about in great-coats made of
paper. (Laughter.) Now, his main difficulty with regard
to the budget was the state in which it would leave the
finances of the country. (Hear.) On that point he would
recal the attention of the house to the principal objection
mule to the income tax when it was first proposed by Sir
R. Peel. No objection was made to his tariff, except the
ordinary ones against ,free trade; but the income tax was
objected to especially, on the ground that it would be im-
possible to make it permanent—that, some time or other,
such a feeling would be raised against it that the Govern-
ment would be compelled either to impair its efficiency or
to abandon it. The question for the house now to consider
was whether the revenue would be safe with £10,000,000 de-
pending on an income tax imposed for cne year. (Hear.)
Since it was first levied there had been several narrow
escapes from losing it. It was first imposed in 1842 for a
period of three years. In 1845—the honeymoon of free
trade—it was renewed for three years longer without much
objection. In 1848 the Government of the day were com-
pelled to relinquish the additional twopence, and it was very
doubtful whether, if it hai not been for the disturbances
which broke out that year in France, public feeling would
have allowed it to be continued at all. (Hear.) In 1851 it
was proposed that it should be renewed for three years, but
Parliament would only renew it for one year—the amend-
ment to that effect being proposed, riot by a Conservative,
but by Joseph Hume, the honest apostle of free trade.
(Cheers.) In 1852 there was a committee on the income
tax, and it was ultimately renewed only for one year. In
1853, on the motion of the present Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, it was imposed for seven years. But did any one
believe that would have been done if expectations had not
been held out by the right bon. gentleman that measures
would be adopted which would have the effect of getting
rid of the tax at the end of that period ? (Hear, hear.) He
had refreshed his memory by referring to the right hon.
gentleman's speech on that occasion. It was one of the
ablest histoi ical and financial speeches to be found in the
records of the Parliamentary debates. The budget was not
like the present one, it was not formed in the same mould.
crlear, hear.) The two budgets differed—the eloquence
was the same. (Laughter.) The present proposal was to
renew the tax for one year. Did that proposal leave the
finances of the country in a safe condition ? (Hear, hear.)
He said nothing about the pledge given by the right hon.
gentleman in 1853, as pledges could not always be redeemed,
but he must say that he should have expected the right
hon. gentleman to tread in the path which he himself
7f.(
hli2e,auou,,n9r.),Woo;ofheoer aboutf e
Wrightu n
bd e theyztlo2l
a 5 to
117:1:0;0,
poaisnted out. (Hear, hear.) •Taking the expenditure as it
i theng taxesf o r a surplus.ta do
it;
that the Government had nothing to do but to clap on an
income tax of 10d. in the pound, and keep up the war duties
on tea and sugar. But, supposing they did that, they would
still have a deficiency of nearly £2,000,000, and that must
hOld,adelhlgeaowyte a deficiency of
be made up by additional taxation. letr, hear.) That
seemed to be a formidable position—not lightly to be dealt
with—and one which he earnestly the house to
consider, and not to be led away y eloquent talk about the
blessings of free trade. (Hear.) lie quitee agreedt about the
otTensider what
blessings of free trade; bat he asked
might happen supposing that at the endulof
should have a deficiency of £12,000,000 to meet. If theyey
f t
should have a new Parliament it would be not unwise for
them to have been for a year or two. (Hear, hear.) But
they would have a new constitution. (Hear, hear.) This,
however, he would say, it would not be wise or statesman-
like to leave to them a deficiency of £12,000,000 in the
revenue. (Hear, hear.) He would entreat the house to deal
i 1 this question seriously, and not leave such a legacy to '
a new Parliament, for by such a course they might incur
'le loss of their credit—they might sacrifice their character
ar 'I position in the face of Europe, and, finally, risk their
power of obtaining money when they wanted it. (Hear.)
Mr, BRIGHT—I have listened with more thanusual in-
terest, and not less than usual pleasure, to the speech of
the right hon. baronet the member fo : Portsmouth. It
has reminded me forcibly of the sort of budget speeches
which those who wei a in this house 20 years ago were
accustomed to listen to, and such as some of us who were
not then in the house were accustomed to read. It seems to
be the speech of a mind clinging very much to the past, and
filled nith excess of doubt with respect to the future. Every
part of it held up some hobgoblin to alarm the house as to
a policy which the expei:ence of the house since 1811 has
proved to be most wier. We were told what dreadful things
would happen, and how much we should disappo'nt many
( it of doors ; but, unfor innately for the right hor . gentle-
man's at gument, there is but one voice I •om one end of the
country to the other w;th regard to the propositions which
the Chanc tor of the Exchequer has laid before us—(hear,
hear)—and if this debate goes on—as I presume it will not—
into any of the of next week, we shall have that ap-
parition of dissohing views which the right hen. gentleman
aiu:ees d question.
to iunt
m.
h re en the
ft (civ itself mover
a hoe (Hear,
,
isor hear.)
e oa a
if rn. v)
thise
very
It once in a debate described in connection with an Indian de-
spatch ; and, last of all, there will be scarcely any one to
vote
amendment."That(Hear,
heei
sts hear.)
thee a r
house,. )
wholeTthee
n.
y states
fair olt
cognising the necessity of providing for the increased ex-
-Ifnancial year, is of opinion it is
not expedient to add to tghe
existing deficiency by din:apish-
ing the ordinary revenue, andt
ei it is n
country e preparedby
yr
e eg
fiam tfatal
reimposing
n
i only
et
the
incomepoin t h e
taxjust
a t allow,
expectations'of h
unnecessarily high rate." that
amendment is carried, it must of necessity
b
coming

to the commercial treaty with France, but to the whole
scheme of the Government, (Hear, hear.) It insists upon
that which is the great blot of the scheme of the Govern-
ment—the income tax—at the, amount proposed ;it opposes
all reduction of duties whether of customs or of excise, and
it refuses to give effect to the treaty with France. It is, in
fact, against everything but expenditure. (Hear, hear.) I
do not complain of this at all. I thank the hon. member
for Essex for bringing the matter before the house and the
country in a form in which it cannot be mistaken. (Hear.)
He wishes to throw out the budget, to reject the treaty, and
to overthrow the Government. (Hear.) The result of the
success of this amendment, if not a dissolution, and will be
at least a new Government, a new Parliament, a new bud
get, increased taxes, indirect taxes, and a tax, I presume,
upon imports, and at the same time estrangement with
France, which, I think, would be very unfortunate. (Hear,
hear.) But on this subject there is extraordinary unani-
mity in the country, and I believe Parliament will decide
in accordance with the opinion of the country. (Hear.) I
have reasons for liking this treaty with France. It has been
the object of my most ardent wishes—it is now the object of
my most cherished affections. (Hear.) Not longer ago
than July last year we had a discussion in this house on the
financial policy of Lord Derby, which was introduced in a
very remarkable speech by the righthon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Buckinghamshire. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
spoke after him, and I was permitted to address the house after
both. On that occasion I claimed the right hon. gentleman as
a convert to the opinions of my honourable friend the
member for Rochdale. On that occasion I took the
liberty of urging on the noble lord at the head of the
Government and the noble lord the Foreign Secretary
to attempt some arrangement with France, so that those
two great countries might be united in one common bond
of friendship by the exchange of the productions of each.
I should like, with the permission of the house, to read as
extract from that speech. I was advising the Foreign Sec-
retary, or rather telling him what I should like to do if it
should happen that I was in his position. I told him I
should say to the French Government—" We are but 20
miles apart ; the trade between us is nothing like what it
should be, considering the population and products of the
two countries. We have certain things on this side of the
Channel, which, owing to the duties upon them, bar the
intercourse between the two nations. We will reconsider
these duties and remove them. We have also an extraor-
dinarily heavy duty on the greatest of the products of the
soil of France—the light wines of your country—by re-
moving which we might lose about £1,500,000 a-year, more I
or less. The only persona the Emperor of the French can-
not cope with are the monopolists of his own country. If
he could offer them the prospect of 30,000,000 of customers
from this country would not that be an advantage to them
as well as tons ? I believe, if that was done honestly, and
withoutfinesse, it would be bringing about a state of things
which history will pronounce to be glorious." (Hear.) This
is apart of the observations which I ventured to address to
the house in July of last year. Not more than a week after
I made these observations a communication was entered
into between a distinguished person in France and my hon.
friend the member for Rochdale, with a view to discuss the
probability of carrying out this treaty. (Hear, hear.) That
being so, the house will excuse me it I say I feel the greatest
satisfaction that her Majesty's Government are enabled, by
the liberality of the French Government, to come to an ar
rangement the good of which to both countries it is impos-
sible to calculate. (Hear.) Many strange objections to the
treaty have been taken, but the real objection has beenkept
in the background. I have been told, by persons who seem
to have a prodigious affection for free trade, that these
treaties are most inimical to the principles of free trade. But
if any one had offered in 1840, or in 1846, to make a com-
mercial treaty with this country, under which we were to
abandon any protection, with the exception, I believe, of
that protection which was supported by the Anti-Corn-Law
League, would any person then have been in favour of what
lam now told is in such great danger ?—would they have
accepted, with the greatest enthusiasm, a treaty made for
such a purpose, at such a time ? No doubt they would. And
the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) put the proposition in the
shortest and most concise form possible when ho said the
other day, " I support commercial treaties when they are in
favour of free trade ; but not when they are opposed to it."
(Hear, hear.) The hon. member for North Warwickshire,
who spoke the other night, said that he regretted this
treaty as an act of submission to France; and he gave ut-
terance to that sentiment in tones almost tragic—so
deeply did he feel the humiliation we were undergoing.
Now, I have understood that there is a party in France
which says just the same thing—but throwing the degrada-
tion upon France, not upon us. I offered the other day to
read a letter from a statesman, formerly connected with the
Orleans party; and he regretted that the Government of
his country had entered into a treaty with England so hu-
miliating to France—(hear. hear)—and which showed how
vast were the sacrifices to Europe which France was willing
to make in order to obtain a strict alliance with England.
(Hear, hear.) Other persons say we are giving so much
mere than we get. This is an objection difficult to answer
from the free trade point of vie-v. But if we are standing
on the ground which the hon. member for North War-
wickshire occupies, the objection could be easily answered.
And I think the hon. member for Leeds to-night very ably
met that argument. (Hear, hear.) He showed that to a
considerable extent not only that it was not true from the
hon. gentleman's point of view, but that the very reverse
of it is true if that he assumed, which protectionists must
assume—that whoever makes the greatest reductions makes
the greatest sacrifices. Upon the face of the treaty nothing;
is more clear than this, that so far as concessions go—l
wish I had another word to use, but I have no other—the
French concede five times as much to us as we do to them.
But it has been argued that the articles upon which we
make the concessions—let it always be supposed that I am
speaking as a protectionist —(laughter)—and if I do not
speak with common fluency in that character I may be for-
given—(hear, hear)—it is admitted by every one that the
only articles upon which we are making any present sur•
render of revenue of any importance are the articles of wine,
brandy, and silk; but if the hon. gentleman were a French •
man he would be positively appalled at the list of articles ;
not articles of less importance than wine and silk, but of
more importance, upon which France is making concessions
to us. Surely metals of all kinds, of which we export
£17,500,000 a-year, machinery of which we export X 4,000,000
a-year ; cutlery, of which we export nearly £4,000,000
a-year ; cotton yarn, of which we export £9,500,000 ; cot-
ton cloths, of which we export £37,000,000 ,• linen yarn, of
which we export £1,600,000; linen cloth, of which we ex-
port £4,300,000; earthenware, of which we export more
than X 1,250,000 ; woollen yarn, to the extent of £3,000,000;
woollen cloths, to the extent of more than £12,000,000; and
leather, to the extent of more than £1,250,000 a year—
sums making together more than £95,00,000 sterling per
annum. Surely, if France, who has absolutely prohibited
all these articles, has reduced their duties to a point at which
in all probability a very large trade will be opened up
with this country, even the honourable gentleman him-
self is far too honest and intelligent to insist that
the wine, brandy, and silk which will be imported
will exceed in value those articles which I have
named. But it has been argued What sacurity
have you that you will have an importation of these articles
into France ? Why, because it is said in the treaty thatthe
maximum duty upon our manufactures is to be 30 per cent.
to be reduced in three years' time to 2.5 per cent., it does not
follow that the duty is to be maintained at 30 or at 26 per
cent. (Hear, hear.) And at present, as I believe is stated in
the treaty—and as I know the fact to be—it was provided
that the duties were to range from 10 to 30 per cent. Some
new bills with regard to some 30 of these articles have been
introduced, and there is no fixed determination on the part
of the French Government to exercise their right of keep-
ing them up to 30 or 25 per cent. But when that conviction
is forced upon the nation, which must take place immedi-
ately after this treaty has received the sanction of Parlia-
ment, specific duties will be arranged ; and with regard to
those trades which are opened under it, I am assure upon
the best authority that if the results of the treaty are good
now, they will then be better still. (Hear, hear.) As a
proof of what we may do in trade when this treaty comes
into operation, I may say that the tariff of Franco as regards
this treaty will be fully as liberal as the tariff of the Uited
States—(cheers)—and yet your trade and navigation re-
turns just furnished show that to the United States we ex-
port not less than £22,600,000 worth of the manufactures of
this country. France may not consume so much of our
manufactures man for man, but taking into consideration
the facts that I have now told the house, and which no one
can call in question we are permitted to come to the conclu-
sion that our present trade with France, which is almost
nil, will swell up to an amount which will end in making
them our very best customers on the other side of the Chan-
nel. If I were to refer to any particular article in this list, I
might take that of machinery. An hon. gentleman on the
other side of the house, who generally votes with the Oppo-
sition, has voted with us on this question. Is there any mis-
take then, as to the opinion of his constituents on this sub-
ject ? (Hear, hear.) It is no use attempting to blind that
hon. gentleman with arguments of party warfare. He
knows what his constituency think of this treaty, and I ven-
ture to say his constituents are better judges than many
hon. gentlemen who have not considered the question.
(Hear, hear.) I will now come to the late Chancellor of the
xchequer. There was a time when the right hon. gentle-
man was not the leader of a great party. He was a giant
then in another field. He vacated a lofty position then to
assume ono which is more laborious. I know not whether
the line which he has now taken is to any extent more use-
ful than the line he abandoned. But in those very valuable
books, published partly for the education, and partly—and
perhaps rather more for the amusement of his countrymen,
he has described the mode of living of an English nobleman
of great wealth at Paris. He says :" " Lord Monmouth's
dinners at Paris were celebrated. And after de-
scribing the luxury of these entertainments, he proceeds :
—" But the effect was destroyed by the mere circumstance
that every one of these French dinners was served upon
cold plates. The reason of this custom, or the necessity
which a nation so celebrated for its gastronomic tastes;
would gladly remove, is that originally French porcelain is
so britt.'!, that it cannot endure the proper amour t of heat."
(Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman, with an instinct
which I cannot too much admire, brought Fs political saga-
city to bear on this subject. "Now, if," he said, awe only
had that treaty of commerce with France—(cheers and
ae ,
n
laughter)—such as has so often been on the point of com-
adaothhveeetd french,*l
com-
pletion, to give our unrivalled porcelain in exchange for the
wines of France—(laughter)—the dinners of both nations
w
thefegrlisthhewfioruslt timedga in th
gain ightftil
beverage, lives,
would
pelra treast'h' —er (al anuegxhptreere)s—i
eann,
wd
hhi
eecolnrcelceudmes
w eoivtu rd
n g b
dineee
argument,i va
ei .
h
mend to the hon. gentleman s supporters, "an resistible
argument to prove the advantages of a commercial recipro-
city." (Cheers and laughter.) One other of those horrid
phantoms which has been raised to alarm simple traders
throughout the country has been based—if a phantom can
be based—upon the question of coals; and there is run-
ning in the minds of some honest peoF'e this notion, that
we can do exactly as we like with regard to contraband of
war ar all these subjects, over which England was sup-
posed to be yarairount as empress of the seas. But only
last summer, dm ing .'le war in Italy, a discussion was car-
overnment, of which the right hon. gentleman
was a dklinguished men bcr, as to the propriety of declaring
I coal to be contraband of war. At that time hon. gentlemen
car-
viedthe in
t6l
sup-
ported ee English paperF, particularly these wl ieb sup-
may recolect in the English newspapers statements made
that the French Government were building a great number
of flat-bottomed boats, ss hich were said to be particularly
beach.
wanted for the conveyance of coals, but were admirably
adapted for landing soldiers upon a sandy
did happen that this discussion was going on, eend Well, it
to France,
papers, supposed not .o be very favourablt France,
were discussing the question. The French Government
did orde-.• boats for the convey ing of coals to their arsenals,
lest the Engli-h Government should adopt so hosje a step
as prohibiting them. 'But there ariived at Marseilles two
vessels from the United States laden with coals ; and do you
suppose your notion Of what 41 contraband of war, and your
notion of England being mistress of the seas, could very
long prevent the United States from supplying either France
or Austria with coals ? (Hear.) But this question of coals,
with reference to the revenue of Francel is a mere bee-

toile. A statement has been made during the last few
days in the newspapers on this subject. The whole quan-
tity of coal imported into France is 160,000 tons. The ex •
treme cost, therefore, to the French Government, if you
were to prohibit the export of coals, would be not more
than an additional 6s. or 10s. a ton; and the extreme cost
would be £BO,OOO, not very much to a Government which
was in the exigency of war. And, therefore, for any man
to raise this question of coals shows how contracted must
be his views, and how small his information. But another
point which has been raised is, that the benefits to France
are immediate, while the concessions to this country from
France are prospective. All I can say is, that if I were a
Frenchman, I should say it ie a great pity my Government
does not follow the example of its English neighbour. Surely
if both countries have been greatly in error, that which
soonest escapes from its error will gain the most. But it
is clear that the Emperor of the French cannot act in this
question without some preparation. He does not object to
reduce the duty in July of this year, from any doubt of the
good sense or the justice of the policy he is proposing. But
he knows that great changes cannot be made too rapidly in
the face of many prejudices, and some time must be given
to reconcile public opinion at large. It has also been said
that we were allowing ourselves to act according to the,
convenience of the French Emperor, who takes this oppor-
tunity of escaping a discussion on this subject with his own
subjects. But, Sir, we are not responsible for the French
constitution—we have quite enough to do to repair the
breaches in our own. But very likely in France there were
difficulties such as we experienced in 1846, when Sir Robt.
Peel proposed to repeal the corn laws. This is, in fact,
one of the concessions which the French Government is
bound to make in any great change of policy. No doubt
in France there are now just the same symptoms of op-
position as prevailed here upon the question of the repeal
of the corn laws. They all remembered that Mr. Chowler
—(laughter)—who said that the farmers had more horses
than any other class of men in the country, and that they
knew how to ride them—(laughter)—and he added he be-
lieved they would much rather ride upon Manchester than
upon Paris. I hope Mr. Chowler is now penitent and con-
verted—(laughter)—but there are men of this class in
France; and what do the French Chowlers say ? (Laughter.)
Why, that this treaty would have to be rent by cannon shot
(Hear, hear.) That is !nuch the same sentiment in shorter
for Bucks did not, think, speak with quite the fairness he
and severer languat v.l he right hon. gentleman the member
should have done when, in discussing this treaty, he spoke of
my hon. friend the member for Rochdale as a secret negotia-
tor, as if there was anything not perfectly honest and credit-
able in the course my hon. friend has taken. (Cheers.) Sir
R. Peel came into office when thane was a deficiency of
£2,500,000. I think the right hon. gentleman the member
for Portsmouth was responsible for the finances at that
period. I do not say so for the purpose of throwing any slur
upon the financial reputation of the right hon. gentleman,
because it is a melancholy but curious fact, so far as my ob-
servation has gone, that the Whig party never yet produced
a Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Laughter.) But Sir R.
Peel found that deficiency. It was a chasm something like
that which the right hon. gentleman would make us believe
there was in the floor of the house, but not so wide or so deep
as he described. What did Sir R. Peel do ? He did not add
5 or 10 per cent. to the taxes, as the right hon. baronet had
added 5 per cent., but without success. No ; and he did not
say there would be a deeper chasm next year, and what
dreadful thing would happen if we did not fill up that
chasm with direct taxation. Bat what he did was—ko made
the chasm deeper and wider. He found it 2} millions, and
he reduced the customs duties on 750 articles, by which he
lost £27o,ooo—by the reduction of the duty on coffee, he
lost for the time £170,000. He reduced the duty on timber,
by which he lost £600,000, on stage coaches £70,000, and on
the smaller export articles £lOO,OOO. The amount of the re-
duction was precisely that caused by the commercial treaty
with France, and male the chasm which was represented
by £2,500,000 no less than £3,700,000. This was exactly
the course taken by the present Chanchellor of the Exche-
quer. Ho (Sir R. Peel) proposed his budget with such
apology and such an amount of fear—apparent at least—
which, when now read, seems laughable—l had almost said
was astonishing. He knew the materials which sat behind
him. (Laughter.) He knew the party he was leading. He
travelled on with them at a snail's pace for an hour and a-
half by the cluck before he took them to his perilous avowal
that they were to be asked to endure an income-tax of 7d.
in the pound ; and at that time Sir R. Peel knew that an
income-tax was so unpalatable to the great owners of pro-
perty, wheavere our legislators, that he proposed it only for
a short period. lam not sure he thought that would be its
termination; and he proposed it in a manner, too, that was
by no means just, because I believe he felt that a just in-
come-tax, even with his great majority, could hardly have
been passed in Parliament. Well, his income-tax instead of
£3,700,000, produced £5,000,000. The chasm was filled up,
there was no deficiency, and the surplus, of course, en-
abled him to do other things; and the income tax from that
time to this has enabled us to doother things, some of which,
I am sorry to say, Sir R. Peel would have much regretted
if he had lived,l and some of which, I belie*, had
Sir R. Peel been Minister, never would have been done.
Now, at that time the hon. gentlemen opposite supported
Sir R. Peel. They saw the chasm of £2,500,000, and they
allowed him to take off another £1,000,000 to make the
chasm deeper ; and yet they supported him in this proposal
of a 7d. income tax to fill it up, and they did so although
opposed by a very large portion of the members on this side
of the house. Why, then, should you quarrel with the po-
licy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He was then one
of your Ministers. (Hear, hear.) Since then our exports
are double, indeed almost treble. But, although I have
spoken thus far in approbation of the treaty and the other
fiscal arrangements—especially the abolition of the duty on
paper—l am quite sensible of the blots—especially that one
great blot in the statement of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer—a very foul blot, which would tarnish the charac-
ter of the Government, and which, if something be not
done to remedy it, I venture to promise will make their
tenure of office not at all a protracted one. (Laughter.) I
allude to the frightful and scandalous expenditure. I have
a word or two to say to the Government on this matter ;
because when giving, as lam anxious to give, a most hearty
support to the general scheme, it would be unjust to my
own convictions, and to the interests of the country, if I
omitted to point out where the conduct of the Government
is now partly, and will be by and bye entirely, con-
demned by the country. We heard some gentlemen say
that £30,000,000 after all was a cheap price to pay for
the security of the country; but :those who have got
the expenditure of the £30,000,000 feel themselves no
more secure than when the expenditure was £15.000,000.
I heard half-a-dozen of the First Lords of the Admiralty
assure the house that the defences of the country were
perfect, and that the country was in a state of
security ; and I found their successors unsaying all that
their predecessors had said, and assuring the house that un-
less they would pay some more millions the wished-for se-
curity could not be obtained. And yet there are gentlemen
so simple- minded as to say, after all, that the expenditure
has no reference to France. Since 1853 the military and
naval estimates have been doubled. Let us see what has
been our course regarding France since 1853. In the fol-
lowing year, 1854, there was the Russian war, when the
blood and treasure of the country was needlessly wasted in
the Crimea. In the same conflict the blood of the subjects
of the Emperor of France was also shed, as I believe, need-
lessly. That war concluded, you negotiated with the Em-
peror of the French as your friend and ally in 1856. At
the end of that year, in concert with the French Emperor,
you were acting upon the Governments of Italy, and espe-
cially upon Naples, from the Court of which you withdrew
your Minister. In 1857 you were, by a course which I
think most foolish and most criminal, involved in a struggle
with China. At that time you received—l don't know
whether you solicited, but at any rate you accepted—the
cordial assistance of the forces which the Emperor had in
the East. In 1859-60 you have, by the unwisdom of ano-
ther of your representatives, involved yourselves in another
war with China; and, contrary to every principle of sound
policy, and to the interests of England both here and in the
East, you have negotiated with the Emperor to conduct
with you operations for which a great English and French
force are on their way to the China Seas. So that from
1353 to the present time, for good or for evil—too often, I
am afraid, for evil—you have been in close alliance with the
French Government. In 1860 yen negotiate a treaty of a
most important charketer, more unfortunate, I believe, to
the true interests of this country than was ever before ne-
gotiated ' • and what are the instructions which the noble
lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs addressed to Lord
Cowley and Mr. Cobden ? Speaking of the commercial
treaty, the noble lord says :—" Its general tendency
would be to lay a broad and deep foundation in
common interests for that fiiendly intercourse, and
to confirm that amicable alliance which so happily exists
between the two nations." (Hear.) You observe that the
phrase is not "which is henceforth to exist," but which
now "so happily exists." And what does the treaty itself
say in its introductory paragraph? "Her Majesty the
Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
and his Majesty the Emperor of the French being equally
animated by a desire to draw closer the tie of friendship
which unites the two peoples, and wishing to extend the
relations of commerce between their respective dominions,
have resolved to conclude a treaty for that purpose. (Hear.)
Now, what can be the reason why, with these instructions,
with this treaty ratified, with this perfect amity, with this
drawing closer of the best bond which can unite, not two
Governments only, but two peoples—why, I say, with all
these things, have we this gross increase in the estimates ?
(Cheers.) It is a wonderful inconsistency—it is altogether
illogical—somewhere there must be a great and patent hypo-
crisy. (Cheers.) Somebody must be guilty of an immorality
the darkness of which I am at a loss to find words to de-
scribe. (Renewed cheers.) If, hon. gentlemen opposite, you
had fixed upon this blot—if you could have had, shall I say,
the patriotism to do that—if the hon. gentleman the mem-
-1 bar for Essex had moved a resolution to this effect—
" Whereas her Majesty' s Government has recently concluded
a treaty of commerce with the Emperor of the French, this
house does not see the necessity of increasing. the estimates
beyond the £26,0:)0,000 which were voted by Parliament
last year"—if the hon. member had proposed a resolution
like that, it should have had my support. (Hear, hear.) If
£26,000,000 will not give you perfect security, rely upon it
£30,000,000 will not—(hear, hear)—for it is not money—it
is not large votes of Parliament—it is not increasing the
taxation of the people that can give you the security which
you wish for. (Irear, hear.) I condemn this expendi-
ture, and I think it is an insult to the intelligence of
Parliament. (Cheers.) Am I, therefore, hostile to
any interest in the country when I speak in these
terms ? Am I speaking hostilely to the feelings and in-
terests of the country ? Thera is no reek on which so many
dynasties have foundered as the rock of a reckless and need-
less expenditure. Am I!epeakine, hostr.ely of the aristocracy
of this country? Why, what has destroyed aristocracies
more than the corruption engendered by a lavish expendi-
ture of public money, and the diesontent which it must al •
ways excite amongst the people. (Cheers, and cries of
" Oh.") Am I speaking against the military services of
the country ? Those services should be the defenders of
the rights and the prosperity of their country, but they
should never be allowed to grow to such an extent or be fed
with such profusion that
" Increase 6: appetite doth grow
With what it feeds upon."
and they become not a blessing but an evil of the greatest
magnitude. (Cheers) It may be that the Cabiaet has had
hard work to make up its mind upon this question; for
when it holds out this commercial treaty with one hand,
and this £30,000,000 of military estimates in tho other,
there must be contending in it two principles utterly di-
verse—(Opposition clieers)—and if that contention goes on
fir another year we may promise ourselves another change
amongst the ..entlemen who occupy the Ministerial bench.
(Cheers.) But public opinion may change, and even hon.
gentlemen opposite may change their views. Iha ee heard
hon. gentlemen on this side, and especially the right hon.
gentleman the member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring)
refer in the language of apprehension to what the next Par-
liament TM,' do. Now, sir, I am not afraid of the next Par-
liament. I us not think it will make any great changes, but
I shall be glad if it is more economical than :the present,
and if it adheres to the principle of direct taxation. The
£10,000,000 or £12,000,000 which is raised by the income
tax is not about to come off, except bi• the reduction of the
estimates. (llclr' hear.) You svD, not go bank to excise
or custom-house duties, (Cheers') The principle has
been irrevocably laid down that the vast expenditure
which you incur, not for the sake of the working people—
for they are much the saule
it; 41 coitAtries—but tor the
3.

defence, as you think, of your own property, that vast ex-
penditure must be defrayed by the property :And not by the
indirect taxation of the country. (Loud cheers.) The pre-
sent expenditure and an income tax are inseparable, and the
sooner the hous_e makes up its mind to that the better.
(Hear, hear.) Let it not be supposed, however, that lam
speaking in favour of the income tax as it now exists. I be-
lieve with the hon. member for Buckingham (Mr. Hub-
bard), whose speech to -night every one has heard with great
pleasure—(hear, hear)—that the income tax, as it now ex-
ists, has become intolerable. I judge that from the number
of letters which (I daresay in common with every other
member), I receive every day on the subject. I judge it
also from what I see in the columns of newspapers, and
from what I hear from those among whom Imix. But lam
in favour of the income tax thus far ; it is a direct tax, and a
tax upon means. I support it now, objectionable as it is,
because we have at present a compensation for it. A time
will come—it may come next year—l think it probably will
come next year— (Opposition cheers)—certainly it will come
if the estimates be not largely reduced—when you will be
put in this difficulty—you will not be able to dispense with
the income tax, and the country will not tolerate it in the
shape in which it has hitherto been levied. (Cheers.) But,
sir, the question now is not the income tax, for nobody has
proposed to abolish it. The question is between the propo-
sitions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the amend-
ment of the hon. member for Essex. lam in favour of the
propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can
speak with certainty as to the opinions of my constituents,
and as to the universal sentiment of every public assembly,
so far as I have observed, which has been gathered together
to consider this question during the last 10 days. The right
hon. gentleman's scheme is a great scheme. If it had not
been for the L 30,000,000 of warlike estimates—(laugh-
ter)—what a scheme it might have been 1 (Cheers.) I
heard the right hon. gentleman tread on that thorny
path which led to the £30,000,000, and I thought there
must be, somehow or other, a conscience—which is not
always a convenient partner for a Chancellor of the Exche-
quer. (Laughter.) I thought that if the right hon. gentle-
man had been able to carry out the logical results of his
own principles—the principles embodied in that treaty and
in that tariff—there would have been a much larger reduc-
tion of duties and a much greater relief afforded to all classes

in the country. (Hear, hear.) He spoke of the patience of
taxpayers—don't try that patience too far. (Cheers.) I will
not ask you to be afraid of the people. I will ask you only
to be just to them and just to yourselves. It is not the poor
man alone who suffers from injustice. He suffers now, and
heavily ; but there is a suffering that comes hereafter, as all
history teaches—the hostility that comes upon the rich if
they continue an expenditure and a taxation that are need-
lessly oppressive to the poor. (Cheers.) I say that this
scheme is a great scheme, and therefore I support it It re-
lieves industry by reducing the customs, and it abolishes
one of the worst excises that ever crippled the industry and
the enterprise of a people. (Hear, hear.) It extends the
hand of friendship not only to a great Government, but to
a great nation across the Channel ; and amongst mush
darkness in Europe it is a spot of light. It opens to my
mind a prospect
" Bright as the breaking East,
As midday glorious."
I think it is a measure of great justice to England, and a mea-
sure of great friendship to France ; and I am convinced
that, acting and working through the means of these two
great nations, it will be found hereafter a measure of great
mercy to mankind. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. WHITESIDE said there was but one sentiment in
the speech of the right hon. bart. the member for Portsmouth
that he at all regretted to hear. The right hon. baronet ad-
verted to the possibility of his not sitting in any future Par-
liament. He believed, notwithstanding the criticism of the
hon. member for Birmingham, the character of the right hon.
gentleman, his conduct in that house, his good sense, and his
moderation, entitled him to the respect both of his
friends and of his opponents. To the speech of the right
hon. gentleman the hon. member for Birmingham had given
no reply. The opinion of a statesman of experience met
with no favour from the hon. gentleman, who listened to
his arguments, of which he did not approve, rather with a
smile of contempt. The " hobgoblm" fears of the right
hon. gentleman he dismissed with a word. The whole
speech of the hon. gentleman was rather a reflection on the
class of politicians to which the right hon. gentleman be-
longed, but the hon. gentleman kindly excused it, as the
Whig benches were never known to produce a Chancellor
of the Exchequer. But the hon. gentleman made a mis-
take ; if he would allow him to correct a slight error of so
accurate a speaker. The hon. gentleman said he supported
Ithe policy of a section of the Administration. That was a
mistake ; they supported him—(cheers and laughter from
the Opposition)—and he had not hesitated to announce
that whenever they might misbehave, that was to say,
whenever they might differ from him, he would dismiss
them, as it belonged to his high prerogative. (Cheers.)
How complimentary to the noble viscount at the head of
the Government and the eminent persons who assisted him!
But let the hon. member for Birmingham recollect that the
noble viscount had defeated him, and that having had a
fair fight with him, he had not found him so feeble an an-
tagonist. The hon. member said that all England agreed
with him, and that Parliament—that was the House of
Commons—would agree withhim. Henever heard a stronger
argument against Parliament, for surely no Parliament
could do his bidding more effectually. The hon. gentleman
had informed them that night of the circumstances out of
which the negotiations for this treaty sprung. No one had
said that the negotiations should be made public, but only
that the negotiators should be known. The hon. gentleman
told them that the whole thing arose out of a speech which
was made by himself. (Cheers and laughter from the Op-
position.) He read an extract from that speech, and pointed
out how Mr. Cobden, travelling with that extract in his
head, was employed to negotiate that most glorious treaty.
Now, some of the ablest men in the country, and of the
soundest minds, and some who loved it as dearly as the hon.
member for Birmingham had ventured, not in a spirit of ill-
will or animosity towards France, but in the performance
of their duty, to point out the blemishes and defects, not of
a treaty, but of a partial and one-sided instrument. The
hon. gentleman said that the treaty was a masterpiece of
wisdom and liberalityon the part of the French Government,
because the duties upon many articles were reduced to 30
per cent. Was the hon. gentleman, however, authorised to
say that the great staples of England would be admitted
into:France under thr.t scale of duties? Had he any right
to say that the duties would be any less than what the
letter of the treaty expressed ? He maintained,, on the best
authority, that the linen yarns of the North of Ireland would
not find an entrance into France on any such terms. Nay,
more ; the finer class of yarns, which were now admitted by
weight, would, equally with the coarser kinds, for the future
be practically prohibited by the treaty. Ricardo, Maccul-
loch, and other eminent writers, had condemned the prin-
ciple of commercial treaties, and this would prove no excep-
tion to the rule. As regarded the export of coal, it was
especially open to objection. The engagement of the treaty
respecting it was an engagement o s the part of this Govern-
ment not to prohibit the export of coal for ten years. If
the treaty were good to that extent, similar treaties with
Portugal, Spain, and Russia would also be good. (Hear,
hear.) The hon. gentleman laughed at the idea of coal
being deemed contraband of war; but he (Mr. Whiteside)
had looked into the writings of eminent recent French coo-
nsmists on this subject, and they laid it down distinctly
that coal was contraband of war, though at one time it was
not so, when coal was less in demand for war purposes.
The price of the coal to the French Government was not
the question; for it was known that French coal broke
into small splinters, and would not move their
war ships. Mr. Pitt's treaty of commerce and naviga •
tion of 1787 was not one-sided ; for it gave equal com-
mercial benefits to both the contracting Powers. It was one
of the most unfortunate circumstances connected with this
question that in France there was no legislative body that
had the opportunity of pronouncing upon it. He had ob-
served that the hon. member for Birmingham was disposed
to patronise absolute governments, and to censure those
who ventured to control their inordinate ambition. Did the
hon. gentleman recollect, however, when he spoke of Rus-
sia, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the faithful
counsellor of that celebrated Cabinet which drifted into war
with that Power ? Was he of opinion that those Ministers
deserved censure for entering upon that war ? If so, ought
ho not to hesitate in his extreme approval of the scheme be-
fore the house ? He had passed a reflection but little credi-
table to the Chancellor of the E xchequer when he suggested
that there were those in the Cabinet who urged on high.
estimates. That was a most sweeping censure, in his opin-
ion, to pass on the right hon. gentleman. If that were so,
and the policy of that faction were not his policy, it was his
duty to denounce it. The hon. gentleman had intimated too,
to a section of a great political party, that the hour of their
doom had come, and that they could not long enjoy the ad-
vantage of his favour. He could not understand the course
taken by the hon. gentleman in regard to the corn laws,
nor his observations with respect to the estimates. If he
disapproved of the estimates why did he not grapple with
the Ministry who proposed them, and censure their extra •
vam*ance ? Why did he not attend when those estimates in
all their extravagance were before the house, and not leave
the laborious and ungrateful duty of examining the expen-
diture to other hands ? The hon. gentleman had referred
to the China war, but did he believe that an army of 30,000
men was the best means of conciliation ? Why did not
the hon. gentleman stand up and oppose that war on
the ground of its inhumanity and barbarism ? (Hear,
hear.) What use was it to tell them that he dis-
approved of the war, and at the same time sup-
port the Minister who counselled and sanctioned it ?
The hon. gentleman was in favour of peace and peace esti-
mates, but how could he reconcile it to his views that while
in favour of peace he supported a Minister with war esti-
mates? (Hear.) The two positions were utterly irrecon-
cileable. The hon. gentleman had told them how the last
Reform Bill was carried under threat of force and violence.
Might it not also happen that another Reform Bill would
again be carried by violence and clamour P The hon. gen-
tleman over-estimated his own power. When was it that
he had become displeased with violence ? The hon. gen-
tleman had told them that ho was not opposed to the aris-
tocracy. Well, that was consolatory. The aristocracy of
the country would stand notwithstanding the assaults of
the hon. gentleman, and not because of the toleration which
he accordd to them, but because of their unflinching pa-
triotism, their usefulness, their exalted wisdom, and their
great public services which had endeared them to the coun-
try that they adorned. (Hear.) Turning from the hon. gen-
tleman, he would now come to the propositions of the right
hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had
listened for four hours to the speech of the right hon. gen-
tleman without once winking, and he could do no more for
Cicero. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman had told
them that the predictions of 1859 would have been fulfilled
if it had not been for the Russian war, but the right hon.
gentleman forgot that he himself had been a party to the
war. (Hear, hear.) The house would indeed concede to
him the talent of filling the Exchequer, but they should
likewise concede to hinithe talent of emptying it effectually.
(Laughter.) He now proposed to fill it with an income-tax
of 10d. in the pound, but it was clear, with the Chinese war
foreshadowed,
that its vast expenditure already too clearly
that !I, would leave him with a deficit of £12,000,000.
Indeed it was manifest that lid would have proposed
even at income-tax of ls., if it had not been through
fear of the hon. member for Buckinghamshire. It was said
that the reduciion of the duty on wine would load to a
vastly increased consumption ; that, in a word, like tea
and coffee, it would in time even become to the poor man a
necessary of life. What did the experience of the Continent
prove in this matter ? Au inquiry had been insii..uted into
the subject, both in France and Belgium, and the result ar-
rivc.l at was that just in proportion to the consumption cf
tea, coffee. and cocoa amongst the people was the consump-
tion of wine in the inverse ratio. In other words, when the
consump ion of tea coffee and cocoa waslargo, the consump-
tion,er of wine was small. (Hear. hear,) How hon me they
to expect an increased consetoptien among the people of this
country? It would not t4ltO place; but it was not too late
for the righ- hose gentleman to amend his plan and with•
draw his propositions in regard to the reduction of the wine
duties, (Hear, hear.) But if lie wanted evidence on this
oint, he would simply quote against the Chancellor of the
Exchequer the right non. gentleman the member for
ford University (Mr, Gladstone). The right hon. gentle-
man bed, is teenier years, opposed propositions ter the re-
duction of the duty on wine, and if his arguments were
good then for the purpose, he (I\lr. Whiteside) would ask
the house whether they should not also be taken as good
for the same pnrpso ma this ocoasion P (Hear, hear.) Why
that was it kr-0141404 to MUM the duty ? Not for the
pur-