The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 25, IE6O.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
NEWRY.
The SPEAKER announced that he had received a com-
munication to the effect, that the petition against the return
of the member for Newry would not be proceeded with.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Blyth Harbour Dock Bill was read a second time.
PETITIONS.
The early part of the evening was occupied With the pre-
sentation of petitions relating chiefly to the Budget; against
the abolition of church rates; marriage wit's a deceased
wife's sister, Brc.
DIOCESE OF DURHAM.
Mr. HOWARD moved for a copy of any memorial or
letter addressed to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for
England, in respect of local claims from the diocese of
Durham on the funds of the commissioners, and of any
answer thereto.—Ordered.
TREATY WITH FRANCE.
Lord J. RUSSELL laid on the table the negotiations re-
lating to the treaty with France.
PAPER.
Sir W. MILES moved for a return of the quantities of
paper charged with duty, and the amount of duty received
from the year 1831 annually up to the end of 1859:
similar return of the quantities exported annually during
the like period : similar return of the quantities of foreign
paper imported annually into the United Kingdom during
the like period, and also during the month of Jan., 1860,
and of the quantities retained for home consumption : and,
return of the quantity of paper of all sorts charged with
duties of excise in the United Kingdom. from 1834 to 18.59
inclusive, and quantity thereof exported on drawback and
retained for hone consumption.—Ordered.
CEMETERY AT CLAPHAM.
Mr. H. BERKELEY gave notice of his intention to
ask a question on this subject.
EXPORTS (FRANCE).
Mr. SALOMONS moved for a return of the articles of
home, colonial, and foreign merchandise, and their values,
exported from the United Kingdom to France' during the
years 1854-1859, respectively ; distinguishing the produce
and manufactures of the United Kingdom from those of the
East Indies an.d'her Majesty's colonial possessions, and of
foreign countries.—Ordered.
ELECTIONS, &c.
Sir C. DOUGLAS med an address or return, in tabu-
lar form, of the names of all candidates,f at each of the two
last general elections, for each borough and county in Eng-
land and Wales; total cost to each elected member; total
cost to each rejetited candidate; the number of electors on
the register; tizumber of electors polled; and total cost
of the electioni— rdered.
• TISH PRODUCE, &c.
Sir S. NO 'HCOTE moved an address for return show-
ing in parallerFdlurons the rates of duty to be levied in
France upon articles of British produce or manufacture
under the provisions of the commercial treaty of this year,
and the rates of duty proposed to be levied upon the like
articles under the commercial treaty of 1787 —Ordered.
BENEFICES UNDER SEQUESTRATION.
Mr. LOCK E KING moved an address for return of all
the benefices in England and Wales which are now under
sequestration for the purpose of discharging the debts of
any incumbent, stating the names of such beneflcee, the
length of time that each has been under sequestration, the
gross amount of debts for the payment of which
each benefice was sequestered ; the population
and annual value of each, and the county and
diocese in which it is situated ' • the number of churches to
each of the said benefices ; and the annual amount paid to
the curate or curates to perform the ecclesiastical duties of
each benefice.
THE EDITOR OF "THE FRIEND OF CHINA."
Mr. E. JAMES gave notice that he would draw
the attention of the Government to the imprisonment of
the editor of the Friend of China.
WINE:
Sir S. NORTHCOTE moved an address for copies or
extracts of all Treasury minutes on the subject of draw-
baeks to be granted to the holders of stocks of wine in the
event of an alteration of duties : And, of all correspondence
which has taken place on the subject between any depart-
ment of the Government and the committee of the wine
trade, or other persons interested therein, in the year 1843
and any subsequent years.
Ordered.

MARSHAL O'DONNELL.
Mr. WYLD asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs if her Majesty's Government had received any in-
formation of the decree of her most Catholic Majesty the
Queen of Spain, by which the title of Duke of Tetuan has
been conferred upon Marshal O'Donnell, together with the
territory of Morocco upon which the victory of Tetuan was
gained ?
Lbrd J. RUSSELL said that her Majesty's Government
had received information to the effect that the title in
question had been conferred on General O'Donnell, but
there was no communication respecting the latter part of
the question.
ENCAMPMENT OF VOLUNTEERS.
. _ _

Mr. E: JAMES asked the Secretary of State for War
whether her Majesty's Government.intended to order any
battalions or regiments of the Volunteer Rifle Corpe now
formed and in course of formation, during the ensuing.
summer, to the camp at Aldershott, or any other encamp-
ment, in the same manner and for the same purposes as re-
giments of the line and militia regiments have been en-
camped.
Sir R. PEEL drew attention to a statement made by the
Secretary of State for War to the effect that
on if the
the coun -
volunteer
corps were to become a permanent iof
try, they would, with batteries, be a substitute for the Royal
Artillery. He wished to know whether this force would be
amenable to the articles of war and to military discipline
Mr. S. HERBERT denied that he had made any such
statement as the hon. baronet attributed to him. The force
in question would not be placed under military discipline
unless it was found necessary to call them out. With re-
gard to the question of the hon. and learned member for
Marylebone, he must answer in the negative, as he had no
such power as the hon. member, supposed.
MEDICAL OFFICERS IN THE NAVY.
Sir E. GROGAN asked the Secretary of the Admiralty
if he intended to carry into effect the spirit of the late naval
warrant as regards medical officers in the navy by granting
to those officers, when serving afloat, naval rank and uni-
form, with the distinctive badges of rank corresponding to
the militpry rank granted to them by the warrant, both
afloat and when serving with her Majesty's forces ?
Lord C. PAGET said that the question of the pay had
bean settled, and that the subject of the uniform would
shortly be arranged.
TAXATION FOR THE RELIEF OF THE POOR.
Mr. WHALLEY asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department whetber it was his intention to introduce
a bill for renewal of the Act 3 and 4 Vic. c. 89, exempting
the pretlts of stock in trade, and other property liable by law to
be taxed for relief of the poor, from being so taxed ; and, if
he ether such bill would be introduced at such a period
of the
tsession as to admit of inquiry by a select committee
as to
anyh inquiry e
the grounds
for
such exemption, either in connection
with
C. which
may be ordered as to the assess-
ment of the income tax under schedule I), or otherwise.
Sir G. LEWIS said it was not his intention to intro-
duce a bill to continue the acts in question.

DUTY ON BARLEY,

,Lord H. TAI NNE-asked the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer whether he was prepared to remit the duty on barley
malted for agricultural purposes?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said this
subject had very often been discussed with-the budget, but
up to the present time no arrangement had been made for
he remission of the malt duty, and her Majesty's Govern-
ment could not entertain the subject.
DUTY ON PAPER.

Baron ROT BSC II ILD asked
hh
ewelel
whether,
the time of
Chancellor of the "Ex-
chequer, if he was prepared to
state
the abolition of the paper duty, he would. grant the
back upon all stocks at paper in the hands of the stationers
bearing an uncancelled Excise label.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
proposal of Government was that
the the
Ist Julyduty
a shou
drawback
would be allowed on paper found in the hands of dealers
which had been made since thehe q Ist
uest April.
its re-
lated to the other part of tion,was
a matter of considerable difficulty, and one he could not
.then answer. He might, however, state that thethout Govcansern-
,ment would meet every reasonable wish, and wi-
iitgAny sensible inconvenience to the trade of the country.

WINE AND SPIRIT DUTIES.
In answer to a question by Mr. DUNCOMBE,
The CHANCELLOR of the EHCHEQUER said it was
his intention to proose the duties on wine in the terms of
the resolution he had laid on the table. He would take the
duties on spirits immediately after; and these would be,
on foreign spirits, exclusivie of rum, Bs. 3d. ; on rum, whe-
ther foreign or colonial, Bs. 3d. ; and the duty upon British
spirits of all descriptions would be at the rate of Bs. ld., and
that would be maintaining the same difference which at
present existed.
THE GOVERNMENT AND THE POPE.
Mr. M'EVOY asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether the Government had proposed to the French
Government, that in the event of the revolted provinces of
the Pope declaring their wish to be annexed to Sardinia,
the two Governments in concert should bind themselves to
offer no objection to the entrance of Sardinian troops, by
which the Holy Father might be despoiled of those portions
of his dominions.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. C. BRUCE entered into a personal explanation of
the conduct of Lord Elgin when in China, and deplored the
misunderstanding which unhappily took place between him
and Admiral Sir Michael Seymour.
Lord J. RUSSELL said further discussion was not de •
tillable until all the papers were before the house. He could
only say that the Government had the fullest confidence in
the honour of the noble earl, and that at such a distance of
time the different impressions on the minds of Lord Elgin
and Sir M. Seymour implied no discredit to either. As to
the recent proposals with regard to the settlement of Italy,
he did not regret having made them, and would be happy
if he could contribute to that object. It was his intention
to introduce the Reform Bill next Thursday.
THE COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE.
In rep], to Sir H. WILLOTJGHEY,
Lord PALMERSTON—The course which the Govern-
ment proposes to follow is that which I had the honour of
explaining to thb house on a former occasion. It is our in-
tention to propose ;21 committee of Customs, resolutions
bearing on all the articles enumerated in the treaty which
relate to changes in the Customs' laws, and as soon as the
house shall have adopted, or Ilispesed of those resolutions,
which by referring to the laws of Customs have a direct
bearing upon some of the engagements of the treaty, it is our
intention, without going further into the financial arrange-
ments which we intend, to propose to the consideration of
the house an address to the Crown, approving of the treaty
in its aggregate; and, of course, the address will be com-
municated to the House of Lords for the purpose of obtain-
ing a joint address from the two branches of the Legisla-
ture on the subject of the treaty.
THE CHAMPIONSHIP OF ENGLAND.
In reply to Mr. ILADFIELD,
Sir G. C. LEWIS said his attention had been called
acme time ago to the intended belligerent encounter be-
tween the two mentioned redoubted champions. (Laughter.)
Sir Richard Mayne would no doubt take care to obtain in-
formation on the subject, and he dared say, be able to pre-
vent the encounter within the limits of the metropolitan
police. (Cheers and laughter.)
ILLEGAL MARRIAGE.
Mr. COLLINS asked if the attention of the Home Sec-
retary had been called to' a' arriaee which had taken place
in the month of December last, at Registrar's Office at
Shrewsbury, between a woman and her deceased husband's
brother—(laughter)—and whether it was the intention of
the Government to advise a prosecution against the man
for perjury, which he had committed in making the usual
declaration, that no impediment existed to the marriage, on
the ground of affinity or other relationship ?
Sir G. C. LEWIS said his attention had been called to
the marriage, but he had come to the conclusion that there
was no sufficient ground why the Government should make
it the subject of a prosecution, or take it out of the hands of
the local authorities.
EXPORTATION OF COAL TO FRANCE.
Mr. HORSMAN gave notice that, on. Monday, he
should move that an address be presented to her Majesty,
praying that a communication might be made to the
Emperor of the French, requesting his assent to the omis-
sion of the 11th article of the treaty. He should, at the same
time, ask whether her Majesty's Mininsters had lately been,
as was currently reported, communicating with the Empe-
ror of the French for the purpose of obtaining a modifica-
tion of that article of the treaty. It would be satisfactory
to learn whether there was any truth in that rumour.
The motion for the adjournment of the house at its rising
to Monday was then agreed to.
THE BUDGET.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The order of the day for the resumption of the adjourned
debate having been read,
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the point to which he
meant in the first instance to address himself was one well I,
worthy the attention of the house. The house would find in
the 11th article of the treaty that it did not coincide with the
noble lord's instructions to Lord Cowley and Mr. Cobden.
Their instructions were to the effect that on the side of
Fiance there was to be a transition from prohibition and
high duties to duties of a moderate amount, and on that of
England the total abolition of all fiscal charges on French
productions. Those instructions were clear enough ; the
Emperor of the French removed the prohibition on 43 heads
leaving a duty of 30 per cent. ; but it should be observed,
that he limited his indulgence exclusively to English pro-
duce, whilst we bound ourselves to admit on similar terms
the productions of every country. The Emperor could thus
go to continental countries and say, "Don't trouble your-
selves to enter into any negotiations with England ; I have
obtained conditions in this treaty under which all your pro-
duce will enter the ports of England, whilst you will not be
saddled with the engagements into which I have entered."
He (Mr. Newdegate) contended that instead of this they
'should have limited their concessions to the produce of
France. It was true that France made great concessions
and was following in the footsteps of the late Sir Robert
Peel; but we made deficiencies, and relieved luxuries, by
increasing the burdens of the great body of the people.
What France gave up was the concession of the rich man ;
while we parted with the widow's mite. It was e. jealous,
bigoted, and an insane hatred of protection which had dic-
tated the terms of the treaty. Some of the remissions would
operate with greal injury on the employment of women, for
whom it was extremely difficult to find occupation in this
country. This blind adherence to a system that would
have such results, reminded him of the poet--
"Mar}, to man so oft unjust,
Is always so to woman."
In answer to the appeal of Mr. Bright, he admitted
that his opinions on free trade were modified—(hear, hear)—
but he would never consent to a measure which tended to
narrow the field of female employment in this country. He
would not now re-impose the corn laws if he could—(hear)—
because he had seen the evil use that might be made of du-
ties imposed on articles of necessity. It was proposed to re-
tain the duties on tea, sugar, malt, and hops. Was not the
speech of Mr. Bright a clear indication that unless the de-
fences of the country were neglected, an agitation would be
set on foot against the remaining excise duties ? This was
but the commencement of a danger to the revenue, which
former experience taught that it would be difficult to avert.
It was all very well for Mr. Cardwell to quote Adam Smith;
but Adam Smith upheld the navigation laws ; and where
were they ? (A laugh.) Some members who were loudest
in their advocacy of free trade in that house, out of that
house condemned the members as a parcel of tax-eaters,
who lived on the sweat of the people. To hear those men
speak of the benefits of free trode, one would suppose that
they thought it made the sun to shine and the rain to fall.
From M. Magne's report to the Emperor it appeared that
while our imports from France in five years had amounted
to fifty-five millions, our exports to that country had only
been twenty-six millions. What was the reason of this ?
That France was drawing the bullion from this country;
and the result was te render the revenue of France elastic,
and ours the reverse. Much had been said about the in-
crease of our trade with America; but that was greatly due
to Californian gold. The years prior to 1850 were highly
prosperous ; but the country then began to feel the pinch
of free trade, which was, however, mitigated by the disco-
very of gold in California and Australia. In 1853 the pro-
duction of gold in California had risen to seven and three
quarter millions, and in Australia to nearly ten millions. It
was this influx of gold that had prevented the free-trade
measures from operating more injuriously than they had
prosperitydomitted°n e .
Aalnl eiso
eyetly notice
tioolft
fetrheChancellor
stfraacdte,.a
n The
haoetft
hr
attributed
emEdexmocuhbree
member
increasesufoerr hadmillions Bir-
minghamo
ffhadtheplainly a
estimates, and
wthoniatdhdo wittoluild h
in hasvepotwweerlvteo
abolish indirect taxation, levy all taxes e. al Isproperty.ur y tle
house This ,wcaooesuui; dndajbnunerroi re-establishittotosuhasen tee,oat
rtoihnyemrrevenue,
eeesvauseltunthsruee
eosf,fwe uwandnihaedilhe
siynsvwt
deprivingo
were
rveed deprecatedt h es e
uc so no-f
bs eyq ua
11,
the sinews of war. (Hear, hear.)
When the hon. gentleman sat down about 20 members
simultaneously rose, chiefly on the Government side, and
their anxiety to catch the attention of the Speaker caused
considerable merriment.
Mr. BRIGHT, who claimed to be heard in explanation,
was called on, and said—l
beg to explain for one moment.
I understood the hon. gentleman to say that I wish to place
so much taxation as he has described upon real property,
that is, upon the land and buildings of the country. That
intention. I never made any such proposi-
proposed to lay any taxes upon that descrip-
tion. r $l,
neveras
h th rin conn t' ec on with land
tion of property which I did not propose to lay upon all
other property or wealth, w e e
or trade.
misrepresented Mr. NEWDEG ATE—
I would not willingly have I assurertehseenhtoend.hgiemn.tleman that
Mr. B. OSBORNE said that if Mr. Newdegata had not
solemnly assured the house that he had modified his opinion
they would have had some difiLulty in discovering the
fact. (Hear, hear.) He had raised the self• same objec-
tio ag
ns ainst free trade in 1847 as he had done now. He
even recollected that the hen. member then Came forward
particularly as the Protectionist frien 1 of the ladies. He
warned the house in those solemn tones which the house
had heard again that evening, as to the effect of what they
were going to do upon the ladies. He had not forgotten the
women of England that night ;he had not modified his
opinion with regard to them. (" Hear, hear," front Mr.
Newdegate, followed by a laugh.) He also spoke in 1847
of the effect of the import of gold from Australia upon free
trade, and in that respect also there had been no modifica-
tion of his opinions. In fact, he might congratulate the
hon. member on being the only consistent Protectionist in
that hoes:', and he would add that, however they might
differ from him, they had no right to be surprised at his
opinions, and must all honour him for his consistency and
straightforwardness. (Cheers, from both sides of the house.)
They had however a right to express surprise at the send merits
enunciated by a right •hon. gentleman who was one of the
first converts to, and apostles of, free trade—he referred to
the speech of the right hon. member for Portsmouth (SirF.
Baring) on the previous night. (Hear, hear.) That right
hon.
gentleman bad indeed somewhat modified his opinions,
asa
France.ar
appeared his criticisms on the commercial treaty
with
say that the more it Now,was with r
scrutinisednce
the to t
less
treatyobjecti
ohne m
couldust
be made on the part of free traders to its provisions.
(Cheers.) He could understand objections to the old com-

mercial treaties, which were in their nature restrictive ; but
was this treat/restrictive ? (Hear.) Although the treaty
was entered into with France, would not this country be at
liberty to deal on the same terms with every nation in Eu-
rope ? (Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen argued this question
as if all the silks were to proceed from Lyons, and all the
wides from Bordeaux, whereas in fact the field of competi-
tion 'teas to be open to all the world. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman (Sir F. Baring), a former Chancellor
of the Exchequer, influenced perhaps by that feeling which
prompted such a person to criticise the budgets of succeed-
ing Chancellors of the Exchequer in an envious spirit—
(laughter)—said, " Whatever may be the merits of this
treaty France at all events has got the best of the bargain."
Why he (Mr. Osborne) denied that there had been any
bargain in the case. If Mr. Cobden were liable to the sus-
picion of having made a bargain in this treaty, his conduct
ought to be condemned on that account. There was, how-
ever, in fact no bargain with France. But were they to be
so fanatical in their love of free trade as to refuse to assist
France in taking off prohibitory duties, from a pedantic ad-
miration of the doctrines of free trade. (Hear, hear.) Adam
Smith had been somewhat sneered at by the hon. member for
NorthWarwickshire. [Mr. NEWDEGATE : "I did not sneer
at him."] Well, at all events the hon. gentleman had rather
patronised Adam Smith. (Laughter.) He would quote a
passage of that author which showed that the right hon.
gentleman the member for Portsmouth understood rather
imperfectly the doctrines of free trade whenhe talked about
" the best bargain." Writing about commercial treatiesand
especially about commercial treaties with France, Adam
Smith said—" The disinclination of foreign governments to
enter into commercial treaties on a footing of reciprocity
has been urged as a reason why we should not admit their
commodities into our markets. It is true that the French
Government have by an unwise regulation prohibited the
introduction of English cottons and hardware into France,
thus forcing their own subjects to purchase inferior articles
at a higher price. This is aline of conduct that ought to be
carefully avoided and not followed. Because the French
Government makes its subjects pay an artificially enhanced
price for cottons and hardware. there is no reason why the
English Government should injure its subjects by making
them pay an enhanced price for their wines, brandies, and
silks. To act thus is not to retaliate on the French, but on
ourselves ; it is erecting the blind and brutal impulses of
revenge into maxims of state policy." (Hear, hear.) He
admired this treaty because, in conformity with the doctrines
of free trade, it was a step towards the removal of the pro-
hibitory system of France, and because he hoped the result
of Mr. Cobden's exertions would be that that system would
ultimately be removed altogether. Now he was very sorry
to hear the hon. member for Warwickshire the other night
endeavouring to get upananti-Gallican feeling on this sub••
ject by talking of the treaty as a submission to France.
The hon. member had indeed in that respect been rather
imitated by the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud
(Mr. Horsman), who had come out this session as a whig
of the year 1787. (Laughter.) If they turned to the debates
of that period they would find a speech of a Whig of the
same kidney, if he might use that expression, as the right
hon. gentleman; he referred to the speech of
the suspected
author of " Junius," Sir Philip Francis, who was a re-
markably good-natured man. That gentleman drew a
fearful picture of what was to happen if Mr. Pitt's proposal
to adopt the French treaty were carried. He conjured up all
sorts of evils i he talked about submission to France being
such as the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Horsman) had done;
and he concluded by saying that if the treaty were adopted
the people of this country would be "civilised out of their)
virtues and polished out of their capital." (Laughter.
Now he (Mr. B. Osborne) deplored this new attempt to work
upon the prejudices of the country. lie might say of this
treaty—
" It is twice blessed,
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."
(Cheers.) He felt satisfied that if the provisions of the treaty
weep carried out there would spring up a good understand-
ing between the peop.le of this country and the people of
France, wich would eventually enable Parliament to cut
down the preset monstrous expenditure in the army and
navy, which was creditable neither to the house nor to the
country. (Hear.) Tbe answer to all this rhodomontade—
for such it really was—about submission to France was very
forcibly pointed out on the previous night by the hon. mem-
ber for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). That hon. gentleman
observed that, while the value of their exports to America
was £22,000,000, the value of those sent to France—their
next neighbour, nearer than Ireland herself—was only
£5,000,000; and yet her Majesty's Government were blamed
(Hear. He
tend to do away with that anomaly.
for entering into a treaty the carrying out of)
whic
wanted
h would
to know why their trade with France should not be as great
as their trade with America. Mr. Pitt and Adam Smith
both thought there was no valid reason why it should not
be so. Now great exception had been taken, particularly by
the right hon. member for Stroud, to the 11th article of the
treaty, relating to coal. The right hon. gentleman had in •
yoked the sympathy of the country by remarking that the
supply of coal was not likely to last more than 300 years. He
(Mr. B. Osborne) would not enter into that question at
length, but he believed the right hon. gentleman was geolo
gically wrong. (Hear.) He had only taken into account the
Newcastle coalfield; he had left out South Wales altogether.
(Hear, hear.) He knew that many persons had shared in
tithe alarm felt on this subject. The late Mr. Warburton,
for example, who was a member of this house, had quite a
monomania on the subject—his opinion that the supply. of
coal would not last long being so strong that he even denied
himself a fire. (Laughter.) B e hoped the right hon. gen-
tleman (Mr. Horsman) would not allow his apprehension to
carry him so far as that. (Renewed laughter.) But the
right hon. gentleman went further. He tried to make out
that the one object of the French government in entering into
the treaty was to lay up enormouse stores of coal for its steam
fleet. Was he not aware that it would be almost impossible
to do so, because—to say nothing of waste—there would be
great danger of spontaneous combustion ? (Hear, hear.)
After all, this was a mere bugbear. (Hear, hear.) The
letter of M. Chevalier must have carried conviction to the
mind of every one who had read it, and shown that this
objection was not well founded. Without this treaty the
Emperor of the French could obtain as much coal as ho
wished for. But now, what would be the effect of striking
this article about coal out of the treaty ? The point was
very ably put by a coalowner, who remarked that the effect
of the change would be to render the French Government
dependent to such an extent on English coal that any in-
, terruption of the supply must be attended with the most
disastrous results to the navy and commercial marine of
France. The truth was that coal was now made to serve
much the same purpose that corn did during the free-trade
struggle. He now came to the wine duties. The right
hon. member for Portsmouth scoffed at the notion of re-
ducing those duties, observing that nobody cared about a
reduction, and that the only petitions on the subject were
petitions against a new class of persons being allowed to
sell wine. Why, the right hon. gentleman ought to have
reflected that that was a licensed victualler's cry, and that-
when Parliament was interfering with a large interest
like that it was natural that they should not care about
the introduction of the general use of wine, but desire
the people to stick to the old black strap and adulterated
beer. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentlenian said the re-
duction of the wine duties had never led to any sensible in-
crease: of the revenue—instancing, especially, Lord Al-
thorp's reduction in 1831. Did: the instance thus given
bear out the argument of the right hon. gentleman f In
1831 Lord Althorp lowered the duty on French wine from
7s. 3d. to ss. 9d. What was the result of that change?
Before the reduction the duty produced £77,000 in a cycle
of ten years, afterwards it produced £110,500. Reductions
of duty had, he believed, in every instance led to a corre-
sponding inorease in the consumption. He maintained
that the wine duties were, to use the words of the present
Chancellor of tho Exchequer on a former occasion, "a
scandal to our tariff." They kept our products out of nine-
tenths of the markets of Europe, and they ought to be re-
duced not merely on financial but also on sanitary and
moral grounds. Hon. gentlemen opposite said that wine
stTielnia.t waTshbeecdanutsye theney
sdsee
di t onew wines
be ys
low-mclaa
NeTsacse sas ilvu luxury
u r yt
a x.
amounted to 250 per cent., while that on high-classed wines
was only 25 per cent. on the value. Thus, having made it
impossible for the poorer classes of this country to purchase
wine, hon. members turned round upon them, and said they
did not want it because it was a luxury. (Hear, hear.)
This objection was very well answered in the report of Lord
Chelsea—a report which he may say did that noble lord
great honour, and fully justified the late Chancellor of the
Exchequer for having placed him in the position that he
did. (A Member—" He was recalled.") He (Mr. B.
Osborne) thought the noble lord was very ill-treated in that
respect, and had a motion been brought forward to that
effect he would have supported it. Lord Chelsea pointed
out in his elaborate report that in the seventh century
wheaten bread was a luxury, and gave convincing proofs
that it was by a system of excessive taxation that wine had
had been made one. (Hear, hear.) In the year 1689 so
great was the taste for French wines that an act of Parlia-
ment was passed to prohibit any commerce with France for
three years, it being declared in the act that the demand for
French wines was so great that it had injured the revenue
of the country. In M'Culloch's " Commercial Dictionary"
there was a very curious account of the effect of the Methuen
treaty in 1703 in changing the tastes of the people. Ho be-
lieved that if the wine duties were reduced to the extent
proposed there would be an enormouss trade in French
wines. No one could rise from the perusal of the report of
the committee on import duties which sat in 1852 without
feeling satisfied that many great benefits would be derived
by this country:from a reduction of the duties onwine. Mr.
Cyrus Redding, in speaking of the beneficial effect as re-
garded shipping, gave it as his opinion that the result of a
reduction of the duties would be that whereas there were
now employed in the wine trade 120 vessels of 250 tons
each, there would be employed 600 vessels of 500 tons each.
What would be the effect of the proposed reduction on the
tastes of the artisan ? They all deplored the excessive use
of spirits and other strong drinks. What was the evidence
of Mr. Barker, one of the largest licensed victuallers in
London ? He said—" I sell over the counter in glasses a
pipe and a half of port per week. I find that there is a
growing taste for wine, and I believe that if the duties were
reduced the consumption would be doubled." Another
witness, Mr. Short, said that he sold two pipes and a half
of wine per week on draught—port, sherry, and bucellas.
He was asked whether he drew champagne and claret, and
he replied, "Yes, from the bottle." He went on to say that
he charged 4d. a glass for port, 7d. for champagne, and 6d.
for claret. He added, " The duty is so hh on French
wines that I cannot sell them as I could wish; if the duty
were lower, people would prefer them to port. Artisans of
all sorts take their glass of wine; Irish labourers frequently
carry home a bottle of port to their families." (Laughter.)
" I may remark," ho said, " that the taste for port is de-
creasing, and its use is most prevalent among Irish
labourers." (Great laughter.) He (Mr. B. Osborne) was
at first puzzled to discover why the taste for port was de-
creasing, but he afterwards perceived that it was owing to
increased
adulteration. It was calculated that not less
ha £400,000 had been lost to the revenue in ono year
owing to the adulteration arising from high duties.
(Hoar, hear.) Let the house observe what was the compo-
sition of the port which Irisi labourers took home. In the
evidence of Mr. Basquet he found
a receipt for making
port, showing what an effect high duties had in poisoning
the people. That receipt was as follows :—" Take cider, 45
gallons ; brandy, 6 gallone • port, 8 gallons''—there was a
little port in it---;(laughter)—" ripe sines, 2 gallons. Stew
the latter in two gallons of water. Press off the liquor. If
the colour does not come out strong enough add tincture
of red sanders. When bottled put in each bottle tincture
of catechu, when you will produce a fine crusty appearance
(Laughter.) Soak the end of the corks in decoction of
Brazil wood and alum, which will give it a fine appearance
of age," (Renewed laughter.) This was the thing called
port—this was the stuff which poor Irish labourers took
home in a bottle, and he supposed no ono but an Irish la-
bourer would get over such a decocti. n (Great laughter.)
All this adulteration was encouraged by the excessive rato
of the wine duty. (Hear.) Mr. Pitt complained long ago of
the great loss to the revenue which the high duty on wines
caused to this country. Ile (Mr. Osborne) believed that
loss was nearly double now. Something might be said as
to the use of wine among the sick poor, and that was a Very
important consideration. So far from this being an unini-
th right hon
it was
. ba-
portant matter, as it was represented by
ronet the member for Portsmouth to be, bee thought
of the greatest importance not only to the health, bu
w t to
the morals of the people of this country. (Het:tr.) He as
surprised to hear the hon. member for the King's County
say the other night that this wits the Worst budget for Ire-

land that was ever brought forward. He could not see that
difference. He believed that what was commercially good
for England must be commercially good for Ireland. With
regard to the paper duty, he thought the right honourable
gmeinettlaekmeaniatheepp.meeenbielger
tfhorießhuaekidgnegtham.
Hsehirecumghedt e
tea greathave
accepted its principle and then he might have opposed
its details in committee. (Hear, hear.) Against some
of those details he (Mr. Osborne) was not prepared to say
that he might not have joined the right honourable
gentleman. He was not prepared to say that taking off the
paper tax at this time was quite prudent, nor because he
liked the budget so much was he ready to swallow also the
paper duty. With regard to the income tax he felt very
much in the state of other hon. gentlemen ; he did not like
to pay that tax. But it was a little unfair of the member for
Portsmouth to twit the Chancellor of the Exchequer with
what he said in 1853. The right hon. gentleman made no
promises in 1853, he only indulged in anticipations that if
things went right they might be able to take off the income
tax in 1860. The member for Buckinghamshire said we
were paying the extra 2d. income tax to enable him to give
his imperial pupil a lesson in free trade. But that was not
the case. They must remember that since 1853 an addition ,
of £8,000,000 had been added to the army and navy expen-
diture. He agreed it we s necessary to make a large outlay
on these services, but he did not anticipate that it would be
required of them to keep up that outlay every year, and he
felt sure that if they agreed to this treaty they would be
securing a capital policy of insurance for the preservation
of peace. (Hear.) He was of opinion that if the income-
tax was to last for ever it would be right and just, for all
these things righted themselves at last ; but if it was to be
shifted from year to year it would turn out a weapon of de-
struction. (Hear.) He himself liked the budget sufficiently
well to take it even at its high price. Hon. gentlemen op-
posite said they disliked this budget because it was a Man-
chester budget ; but when Mr. Pitt brought in his budget
it was called a French budget. (Hear.) Gentlemen oppo-
site, if they had any political creed, ought to be free-
traders. (Hear.) There was not one member on the Trea.
sury bench who started in life as a free trader. (Hear.)
He supported the budget because it was a Manchester bud-
gat derived from the greatest man in finance who ever lived
—he meant Mr. Pitt—(hear)—and therefore hon. gentlemen
opposite ought to give this bunget their most ardent sup-
port.
Mr. BARING was surprised to hear that this treaty
wit no bargain. Trade was reciprocity, and reciprocity
begot commerce. When the hon. gentleman said that the
treaty was no bargain, he could not understand him. lf
it was not a bargain, -why did the Government have re-
course to the treaty? (Hear.) He was anxious to have a
free intercourse between countries; and if they could ob•
taro it in no other way they should ebtain it by treaty. He
hoped it would have the effect of soothing the asperity
that was growing up between the two countries, and it
would have that effect if it was mutually beneficial. It was
said that if they altered the treaty they would offend France.
But they had not yet lost the right of free discussion,which
was the privilege of Englishmen. There were persons in
Franco who said they did not want coal. Then, if not, why
was that article introduced at all P They had a right to
discuss commercial treaties upon English grounds and Eng-
lish considerations. But he said that to make a treaty it
ought to be well timed—it ought to be carried into imme-
diate effect. (Hear, hear.) But France was not to act
upon it for 12 or 18 months. Was that perfect reciprocity. I
Then, again, he did not think that the correspondence laid
before the house showed that the interests of this country
had been well guarded. No written paper was laid before
them till the 17th January, and on the 23rd of January the
treaty was signed. (Hear, hear.) There ought to have
been some document to show that the Board of Trade had
been consulted. That did not appear to have been the case.
Then the differential duties on shipping were never con-
sidered. He was told it was only a treaty of commerce and
amity, and not of shipping. But why was not the shipping
considered ? Why, that was one of the great grievances of
which they had to complain in their commercial relations
with France. (Hear.) They had had a negotiator in the
person of Mr. Cobden, without any positive in-
structions. What was Mr. Cobden's principle with
regard to trade ? That it was for the interests of this
eountry to abolish all indirect taxation. A meeting was
held at Liverpool, at which the hon. member for Roch-
dale was not present, but he wrote a letter of apology
in which he expressed a hope that the day might come
when no indirect taxation whatever would exist.
If, when he was appointed one of the negotiators for the
treaty, they approved of that principle, they should also
have told Parliament, if they did not, they ought to have
told 'Kr. Cobden. The opinions of that hon. gentleman upon
indirect taxation were, that the sooner they did away with
Customs duties the sooner they obtained the salvation of
their country. But was that the feeling of noble lords and
right hon. gentlemen opposite who composed the Cabinet ?
Tho treaty appeared to him to be very carelessly and very
loosely drawn up. As for the reduction of the duties on
French wines, he believed the only effect it would have
would be the introduction of low Spanish and Portuguese
wines. But the whole treaty was a mere speculation, and
he believed ne one could tell exactly how it would turn out.
His own opinion was, that as soon as markets were open in
France for English goods, they would flock there as they
did to Australia and other places. He believed, in the first
instance, that their exports would be very large—that the
foreign markets would be glutted..that much money would
be lost in endeavouring to establish a market, but at last
the French merchants will get disgusted, and things will
again return to their normal state. The French people
were very prudent and very frugal; they did not spend
much money in trade, and he therefore believed those mar-
kets in France for English goods will turn out as he had
anticipated. (Hear, hear.) For his own part he should
have been quite willing to reduce the duties, es-
pecially on small articles consumed by the poor, if
he could so, or see his way clearly. Let the house
look at tho condition of their finances, and they would see
they had not the means to reduce their taxation. There
was no surplus, and if there were, other claims de-
manded a previous attention. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
gentleman the member for Birmingham brought forward
an embryo budget in his speech at Liverpool some time
since, when he stated that all former budgets were all for
the benefit of the rich, and not of the poor. He was a
great advocate for a tax on property, and promised the
poor a complete remission of taxes. Well, then, he ap-
proved of the present budget, and could say to a poor man
"Drown all the cares of your labour in cups of cheap claret.
(A laugh.) Your wives can wear an abundance of cheap
silk dresses and ribbons , and he could tell the peasant that
he might have plenty of cheap gloves wherewith to till his
field. (A laugh.) But what could he say of a war tax being
kept on tea and sugar, which was one of the poor man's
necessaries? The hon, gentleman said he had an attachment
for the treaty, because, as he supposed, it was his own off-
spring. But what did he say to the duty of 30 per cent., or
to the case of railway iron, where a duty of 50 per cent. was
charged ? He, for one, as he already said, would be glad to
see the wine duties repealed, if there was a surplus, and
when the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer talks of this being a great financial epoch, and al-
ludes to the great advantage of the terminable annuities
falling in, he ought to remember there was no such thing,
for they were already spent. (Hear, hear.) It was the wish
of the people that great armaments should be prepared, and
more than the terminable annuities disappeared in that pro-
ject. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the Secretary
for Ireland said last night they could utilise these two mil-
liens. But how could that be done when they were already
expended—and expended long before they were received?
But to make up for the deficiency the right hon. gentleman
puts his hand into the pockets of the poor income tax payer
and makes him pay. It was not his intention to allude to
the prediction of the right hon. gentleman, and how it turned
out. Circumstances do change, and opinions change also ;
but ho would say that, though he abandoned the idea of
putting an end to that tax, he had no right to raise it.
In his opinion it would have been much better to keep on a
small indirect taxation and a moderate income tax, and
the burden now complained of would not be so grievous
or so oppressive. (Hear, hear.) Besides, if they depend
entirely on the income tax they subject the Government
and the credit of the country to any changes that may
suddenly arise, and which may have disastrous conse-
quences. He believed the income tax interfered most in-
juriously with the wages of labour, because, if the revenue
of a gentleman were reduced by being compelled to pay a
considerable amount of income tax, he must of necessity
employ fewer persons. He agreed with the hon. gentleman
the member for Leeds, that many other circumstances con-
spired of late years to make this country prosperous in ad-
dition to commercial reforms, such as the discovery of gold
and other advantages. He also believed that the great
railway system had its effects, because it brought labour to
wherever it was required, and reduced the cost of trans-
porting goods from one county to another. He agreed
with hon. gentlemen opposite that an extension of their fo-
reign trade was a great benefit ; but they were wrong in
saying that it was all owing to free trade. Was it not true
that the 10d. income tax would tell on the labour of the
country, for those who had to pay that tax, and were stinted
in their means, must of necessity diminish labour. That
was the opinion of Lord Brougham in 1842, and it was quite
clear they could not tax the rich man without injuring the
poor man. It was also a dangerous tax to rely on in time
of peace, and if he wanted a proof that it would not be per-
manent, he need only refer to the time of Lord Liverpool,
when the country rose en masse and swept it from the
statute book. That time may come again. They may
have popular budget after populer budget, because the peo-
ple will imagine so when taxes are remitted, but the income
tax was not necessary. There was no necessity for taking
off the paper duty. They did not want a supplemental
tariff regulation which diminished their indirect taxation.
Had they acted on a principle like that they might have
concluded the treaty with France, supposing it to be ne-
cessary, or have paid off the Exchequer Bonds coming,
duo, or else have reduced the income ti.x to Bd. He be-
lieved that that system of taxation was improvident and
dangerous—unsafe even in time of peace, but doubly un-
safe in time of war. Supposing war to come, what tax
would they impose P Weuld they increase the income tax
to 25., 35., or 4s. ? They would tell him, perhaps, that
that was their only resource. They hon. member for Bir-
mingham taunted his opponents with supporting Sir H.
Peel and a 7d. income tax, and asked why they did not now
support the right hon. gentleman and a 10d. income tax.
(Hear, hear.) But that was quite another matter—for the
advantages were not so obvious or so apparent. At this
time the house was called upon to perpetuate the income
tax at a high rate, and because they (the Conservatives)
opposed it, they were taunted with acting in a spirit of'
party. The question of taxation ought never to be made a
party question, nor was it now, and he for one should not
look upon the coming division as evidence of a party con-
flict. For himself, he could truly say that he should unite
with the greatest reluctance in a vote that would have the
effect of displacing the Ministry. He should certainly vote
against the budget as it then was, but in so supporting the
amendment of his hon. friend the member for Essex, lie
desired to mark his sense of the displeasure which existed
abroad at relying on the system which was now adopted of
voting away the public money when there was a deficiency
in the Exchequer, and trusting to chance for its reshra •
tion. (Cheers from the Opposition.)
Mr. M. GIBSON heard with regret that. a gentleman of
such high authority in the commercial world as the last
speaker should have entirely condemned the policy of the
budget, and should have invited the house altogether to set
aside the financial arrangements proposed by her Majesty's
Government. He recollected that the hon gentleman
had been the uniform, the persevering, and the consistent
opponent of the commercial reforms which had taken place
within the last few years; and he should have preferred to
see the hon, gentleman take his old ground rather than rest
his objection to the budget on the penny or twopence of
additional income tax which it might involve. (Hear.) For
the hon. gentleman did not propose to get rid of the tax
altogether. It was a mere question of a penny, or at the
most twopence ; and to use the figure of the hon. member for
Stamford (Sir S. Northcote), they would purchase a penny
reduction of the income tax at a very dear rate if they paid
for it by the sacrifice of the French treaty of commerce aufl
the remissions of duties which had l?eea proposed by her

Majesty's Government. He reg? .etted to find that the hon.
member for Essex was suppor(ieck by the leaders of the Op-
position ; for he had been in hopes that the motion was put
upon the paper merely for the purpose of enabling a certain
section of the Conservative party to place on record their

hostility to free trade principle s.' The leader of the Oppo-
sition had stated that free' trade, principles were good ones ;
but he believed it could be shown that voting for the reso-
lution would be understood as announcing that they were
bad principles. The hon. member for Norfolk was at direct
issue with his leader, the right hqm. member for Bucks.
He said openly that free trade was bad, and he was there-

fore right in voting for the motiou of the hon. member for
Essex; but he (Mr. Gibson) could not understond how the

right hon. gentleman who professed to think that the prin-
ciple of free trade was good could hesitate to carry that prin-
ciple further. (Hear,'hear, ) The house was asked to take
a strong course. It was invited to refuse the Queen the
means of carrying into effect the treaty which had been con.
eluded with France. Undoubtedly the house approached
the consideration of the question perfectly free and unfet-
tered. (Hear, hear.) Hon. members were at liberty to take
that course which their sense of what was demanded of

them by the public interest might make them feel it was
duty to adopt. But before the house deliberately refused
to give the legislative power necessary to enable the Queen
to carry into effect the treaty which had been concluded, it
ought to be satisfied that there were good and sufficient
grounds for taking so strong a step. Now, without talking
of Mr. Pitt's treats, of 1786, there had been repeated at-
tempts made within very recent periods, and by different
admini itrations of both parties, to conclude a commercial
treaty with France. In the years 1839-40, a joint commis-
sion, composed of representatives of both countries was en-
gaged in trying to frame a commercial couvention very simi-
lar in principle to that which has lately been concluded. The
whole of the commissioners agreed to such a project, but from
one cause or another the attempt failed. He believed that
another attempt was made by the administration of Sir
Robert Peel ; but at all events he remembered Sir Robert
Peel saying, when he introduced his reform of the tariff in
1842, that he reserved the question of the wino duties because
he had hopes of effecting a commercial treaty with France.
(Hear, hear.) The administration of Lard Derby, in 1852,
also attempted a treaty. (Cheers.) He found the fact stated be-
fore a committee of that house by a witness who was called to
give evidence relating to some difficulties connected with
local and differential es on shipping. That gentleman, who
was the registrar of the Board of Trade, said that, " Under
Lord Derby's administration it was proposed again to have
renewed the proposal for a commercial treaty with France."
(Hear, hear.) Then the witness went on to add, " I think
that what took place in Lord Derby's time had more special
reference to a commercial treaty as distinguished from the
' naviesition question. The proposal was for a commercial
treaty, but the French insisted on combining it with the
navigation question." (Cheers.) According to this gentle-
man's evidence, which he (Mr. Gibson) believed to be strictly
true, Lord Derby was engaged in 1852 in negotiating a treaty
resembling very much in its principles that which had now
been concluded. (Hear, hear.) Lord Malmesbury, too, had
occupied himself very earnestly in endeavouring to further
the import of coals into France. (Hear.) Repeated com-
plaints had been made that the coal trade was injured by the
difficulty experienced in getting an extended import into
France, and Lord Malmesbury, very properly alive to the
best interests of this country, did what in him lay to induce
the French Government to remove duties for the purpose of
increasing the import of coal into France. Well, the French
Government asked the noble lord what he would give them
in return ? Theyasked him if he should have any objection
to reduce the duties on French brandy ? And what was
Lord Malmesbury's answer P He said it would be too limited
an operaton for a commercial treaty to confine it to coals and
brandy, and he proposed that they should have a treaty for a
revision of the customs duties on both sides. (Loud cheers.)
If that were so, what was the reason of this extreme objection
on the part of the followers of Lord Derby and Lord Mal-
mesbury to a commercial treaty which had been ratified and
which was founded on precisely the same principles P And
now, when the most enlightened statesmen, both Conser-
vative and Liberal, had been trying for years to bring about
what they all stated to be so desirable a result, viz., some-
thing to increase the commercial communications between
the two countries • and when a treaty had at last beea actu-
ally ratified, objections were urged against empowering the
Crown to carry out the arrangement. That was the position
in which the house was place. The member for Essex had
very fairly said that he objected to a commercial treaty, be-
cause he was a Protectionist, therefore he most consistently
opposed the budget ; but he (Mr. Gibson) repeated, that he
could not understand how gentlemen opposite, who had
adopted, and he believed sincerely adopted. the principles
of free trade, could be acting on this occasion with the hon.
member. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet the member for
Stamford (Sir S. Northcote) made a statement which, if
correct, would be a very serious objection. He said Govern-
ment had bound themselves in savour of France to reverse
the Methuen treaty with Spain. He thought the hon. ba-
ronet had fallen into an error, for he imagined that because
he saw a certain scale of duties depending on a certain
amount of proof spirit that they were bound to that amount
and blued by the treaty to give a supposed protection to
France as against Portuguese wines. The effect of the
treaty would be nothing of the kind. If the hon. baronet
would look at the 6th article of the treaty he would find
that her Majesty recommended to Parliament that the duty
upon wino of a certain number of degrees of proof spirit
should not exceed Is. per gallon, and so that up to 36 deg.
it should not exceed ls. 6d. per gallon ; but that was the
maximum. If they pleased, they might reduce the duties to
as low an amount as they thought fit, or abolish them alto-
gether. Government had not in any way bound themselves
to establish a differential duty in favour of French as against
Portuguese wines. France would no doubt be glad to see
that all duties were abolished. This was a matter intro-
duced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to
our own internal and domestic legislation. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. baronet the member for Portsmouth (Sir F.
Baring did not object to a treaty with France, but would
rather not have entered into it, except they had entered in-
to one with Spain and other countries. That reminded him
of the old doctrine of 1842, when it was said "Do not make
a commercial treaty with one country until with all." He
(Mr. Gibson) said this commercial treaty with France was
to be taken on its own merits, and he believed it would con-
fer great and important commercial and political advan-
tages upon this country ; and glad as he should be to con-
clude a commercial treaty with other countries, he would
not be deterred from making one with France because we
had not been able at the same time to make one with Spain
and Portugal. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet also
stated that the right articles for r eduction had not been se-
lected—that instead of selecting spirits and wine, the Go-
vernment should have taken tea and sugar, because expe-
rience had proved that by the reduction of duty on tea and
sugar they might hope to have an increased consumption,
which would make up the loss in revenue, but they could
not hope for such results from a reduction of duties on
spirits and wine. It should he observed that when Sir It.
Peel reduced the duty on brandy from 22s 6d per gallon to
15s, what was the immediate consequence. Why, an ox •
tension of consumption of about 60 per cent., and during the
next threo years a complete recovery of the revenue. And
the reason why the experiment had not been successful
with wine was, in his opinion, that they had never gone low
enough. They had never reduced the wine duties to a point
at which it could be introduced into a new field for consump-
tion. It did not go beyond the wealthy classes, who were as
ready to give one sum as another. But by an adequate
reduction it was to be hoped that they would find con-
sumers of wine among classes of people who had hitherto
net been able to enjoy it. But then, said the hon. member
for Essex (Mr. Du Cane), " you will interfere with the
consumption of the national beverage." As a Protectionist.
the hon. gentleman considered that beer should be pro-
tected as against wine. But when the plait of the Govern-
ment was aopted—as he believed it would be—it would be
found to give a very sufficient protection against wine. A
gentleman of his acquaintance had lately made a small pur-
chase of that wine of which it had been said it would injure
the consumption of the national beverage. He bought a
cask of wine in France containing 40 gallons for 64f, which
which was about 535, and the present duty was 11 guineas;
and under the new scale of duties, at ls per gall, the 40 gal-
lons, at a cost of 535, would have to pay a duty of 40s. Now
upon 53s worth of beer, according to a careful calculation
which ho had made of the duty on malt, he would pay a
duty of 13s. He had taken the maximum. It therefore ap •
peered that the national beverage would have an ample
protection. Then, as to the 3d article of the treaty, there
had been some misapprehension as to the differential duties
en shipping. It was supposed by many that this article had
given some sanction, or some fresh vitality, to a system of
restrictions in France which would be injurious to British
shipping. He would call the attention of the house to an-
other view of the question, viz., that this article merely re-
lated to the two precediug articles, and it meant merely
this—that those duties were not to be interfered with by
the rates of duties therein mentioned. (Hear, hear.) And
the whole had simply relation to the trade which might
grow up between England and France from the effect of
the mutual reduction of duties. It only referred to the
dim set trade between the two countries. (Hear.) There were
no differential duties on English ships between England
and France. English ships went into French ports from
England carrying English produce and manufactures pre-
cisely on the same footing as French ships; but if a Dutch
or American ship should go to France from England with
British goods, it would be subject to differential duties, to
which British ships would not be liable. The opponents of
the treaty ought to like these duties, because they really
were a protection upon British and French in the trade be-
tween the two countries, He (Mr. Gibson) did net like them,
and he wished they were abolished. But what would be the
effect of their abolition as regarded the direct trade ? When
British manufactures were sent to France, they would be
carried by ships of all nations on the same footing as they
could now be carried in British and French ships only.
(Hear, hear.) He approved of that principle. The two
contracting parties did not wish that there should be any
future misunderstanding, and therefore they.had inserted
the 3.1 article. The navigation laws were loft as they were
befOre the conclusion of the treaty. They would, it was
hoped,be dealt with by a future arrangement—he trusted he
should see a liberal navigation treaty, as well as a liberal
commercial treaty. The hon. member for Liverpool (Mr.
Horsfall) was mistaken in supposing that the differential
duties had reference to anything but that to which he had
adverted. But the hon. gentleman would be gratified to
hear that the differential duties paid by British ships going
front America with cotton to Havre—though not to be
abolished, were likely to be reduced. This formed no part
_
of the treaty ; but the announcement to which he referred
was in the Honiteur of the 20th February, 1860, finder
lb
s a
stated that the duty on cotton would in future be
instead of per lb. ; and it was an error to supposi that the
'
third article related to the differential duties relating to the
direct trade wi. h France.
Mr. lIORSFALL explained that he had made no refer-
ence to the 3d article, beyond rnnarking thttria considerable
difference of opinion existed as to its opera
Mr. GI BSON said he had merely eadieaveoured to explain
what would be the operation of the article, and he believed
his view was the correct one. He would appeal to the
agricultural interest, The
an d was a eon -
gentlemen connected with the
cee
budget was celled a commercial budget,
si madeto it
witiwat4ttihecoßuil•iittirsi4esf;eo:
It was said that it overlooked the interests cf those co
nected with land. He believed it to be anh ag icultural bund.".
get. (Laughter and cheer:%.:.o)rontea ki;nue,wc.
mer had always felt in reference to_fr,e,e truck. It was tthhiesir
and 4gTieultural classes buy
if the consuming classes
their food, lot tho term
articles in the
aintdw !Lis' ctihre obvious case._ of doing_ justice to
) There was
the farmer now that they had exposed tum to free Importation
of corn and flour in this country. (Hear, hoar.
no reason why lie should leive the price of those articles
raised by the operation of protective duties. (Hear, hear.)
He found that the British farmer had a very strong case in
favour of this French treaty. Ace ird ing to the return}; of
wheat imported into this country,itaenreezte,:i
ort V to
,420,321
*R,7180532
worth of wheat in 1859, end 28 p
worth came from Vrance, There was imported from
France 00 per cont. of wheat and flour into England in
1850. The latter imports amounted to, from all the world,
£2,392,295 ; and out of that France sent £1,954,247 , mels-
big a total of wheat arid flour froiu Vraepe, Ig* •of
£1,347,471. Alig.lit,T4 the liritist+ eilValer say with jstice
that, if people 44-dtueir 4nti floes from France, he
ought te he aligwod to flaw his brandy and silk from ihat
country—(hear, hear, and laughter)—on free trade prin-