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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 21, 1 60.

and he contended that the noble lord at the head of the
Government was hound to sustain the privileges of that
house. lie would not criticise the language of the right
hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire—he
looked only to its substantive meaning—that that house
ought to have had cognisance of that treaty, and he cer-
tainly should support it. (Heat, hear.) "What was
the reason that Parliament was asked to depart from its
usual custom in relation to treaties of this character ?
Was Government afraid of a discussion upon a treaty
upon which they professed to be so proud ? (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) If they felt the confidence in its justice
they had expressed, why not submit at once a series of
substantive resolutions on the subject, and let the house de-
cide upon those resolutions apart from all other questions,
stating their reasons if they refuse to accept the treaty why
they do so, in order that the people of France may not be
deceived ? If they wont into committee in the manner
proposed by the Government, the fact would be that the
moment a single article of the treaty was agreed to the
treaty itself would be accepted. There was another im-
portant point. If they went into committee on the resolu-
tions with respect to our own Customs' acts, and passed the
proposed resolutions, they would be passed without any re-
ference to the treaty. But next February, when Parlia-
ment assembled, it might be called upon to modify any
resolutions or statutes agreed to thus with reference to our
own Customs' duties. But, by the course proposed by the
Government, these resolutions would preclude Parliament
from making any change whatever in the arrangements
sanctioned by the treaty for the next ten years. In fact, in
that respect the hands of Parliament would be tied up, and
they would be deprived of all control over financial legisla-
tion in these respects for ten years to come. Therefore ho
said that the resolutions which the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer proposed wore not an honest fulfilment of the pro-
visions of the treaty itself, because the treaty made a bind-
ing arrangement for ten years. and he was bound to obtain
the sanction of Parliament for that period. (Hear, hear )
They must look to the effect of these commercial conven-
tions with reference to our relations, not with France
alone, but with Russia and other Powers which were directly
affected by its language and provisions. Substantially
they had to decide this question that night, Whether they
would proceed immediately to sanction the terms of that
treaty, or whether Parliament was not bound to give it
due deiiberation, to decide upon its policy, and to hoar and
to take into consideration the claims of the people
of England, who thought that their interests would be
injured by it ? (Hear, hear.) It was on that ground, and
oa that ground alone, that he intended to support the
amendment of the right hon. gentleman opposite. (Cheers.)
There had been times when Parliament had not assinied
to be so popular as it now boasted of being. Before Parlia-
ment was reformed, individuals affected by its legislation
were heard at the bar of the house in defence of their own
interests and rights. Since then the house was supposed more
truly and completely to represent the whole people through
their representatives, and believing that the course of pro-
cedure proposed by the right hon. gentleman was the only
one which would enable those representatives to give a deli-
berate and an unfettered vote upon the important questions
involved in this treaty, he felt it to be his duty to vote for the
amendment. (Cheers.)
Mr. MALINS said he had noticed with regret the tone in
which the speech of his right hon. friend (Mr. Disraeli) had
been received on the other side of the house. It was a speech
characterised by great lucidity, temperate language, and the
resolution with which ho concluded was of a moderate cha-
racter. It had been mot, and especially by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, in a tone of the utmost bitterness and sar-
casm (Oh, oh), and wh;ch was followed by the Attorney
•
General in a similar spirit and tone, because his hon. and
learned friend had denounced the amendment as " perfectly
puerile." He asked what was it that was" puerile ?" The
nation had been taken by surprise by a treaty which had
been entered into, and which had given rise to various sus-
picions and anxieties. A large portion of the community
believed that their rights and interests had been bartered
away without any consideration or equivalent (hear), that
the bargain was a one-sided one (cheers), that while we en-
gaged to admit French articles duty free, France engaged
to admit our products at not less than 30 per eent. duty.
The amendment of his right hon. friend asked simply that
that treaty should be submitted to a fair discussion, and
that the sense of Parliament should be taken upon it,
apart from the numerous other questions which were mixed
up with it in the resolutions upon which they were asked
to go into committee. Tho course proposed by his right
hon. fi ieud, namely, that they shouldfollow the precedent
set by Mr. Pitt, was free from all these objections. If the
treaty were such as to deserve the approbation of Parlia-
ment, that approbation would be given in a free and inde-
pendent manner, on the merits of the treaty itself. If not,
our domestic finance would not be complicated anti bound
up with considerations altogether foreign to the subject, and
for these reasons ho hoped the house would support the mo-
derate and constitutional proposition which had been sub-
mitted to it, The course proposed by the Government
was most unusual and improper, and no matter how they
might now deal with the a•nenduient of his right hon. friend,
they must eventually ask the house whether it approved or
disapproved of the treaty.
Lord T. RUSSELL and Mr. BRIGHT rose together, and his
lordship giving way