The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-29 00:00:00

make precisely the same prooosal as before, only two parts,
so as to separate what related to France, under the treaty,
from our general legislation But if the hon. member for
Finsbury would not permit thie to be done for the conve-
nience of the committee, he (Mr. Gladstone must divide
against him.

-In answer to Mr. FITZ GERA LD, 1
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
proposed to add to the resolution the words " the produce
or manufacture of, or imported from France or Algeria,"
which was no more than sufficient to accomplish the object
of the treaty.
Sir H. CAIRNS observed, that under that amendment
all Spain would have to do would be to send cork to a French
port, and then it might become cork "imported from
France." (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON thought that the objection applied
with greater force to the amendment of the hon. member for
Finsbury than to the preposition of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Take the words of the former, and he would
defy any fiscal regulations to prevent the evasion of the re-
strictions he proposed. How would he prevent corks made
in Spain and passing through France being imported into
England ? He proposed not to allow the importation free of
duty of corks coming from any country the legislation of
which prevented the exportation of the raw material. Sup-
posing Spain did or intended to prohibit the exportation of
the raw material, even with his resolution, nothing would
be more easy than for Spain to send her cork manufactures
through France. They would then be subject to the re-
striction of his resolution, and the purpose he had in
view would be entirely and completely defeated. (Hear,
hear.) No one had alleged that there was any prohi-
bition in Friince against the importation of the raw mate-
rial ; and, therefore, there could be no reason why we
should not permit free importation of manufactured
corksfrom France. Having once agreed that in accordance
with the treaty with France corks coming from France
should be admitted duty free, the house could enter into the
consideration of the question whether it was expedient,
consistent with our legislation, practicable, or consistent
with our fiscal regulations, to adopt the proposal of the hon.
'member for Finsbury, and to say with regard to Spain or
any other country, " unless you allow the free exportation
of the raw material we will not allow the manufactured
article to come in duty free." If they did that, every man
would see that when the cargo of cork arrived in port they
would not know whether it should pay a duty or not until
they had ascertained whether it had come from 'Catalonia
or Andalusia, and whether there existed at the timer a pro-
hibition upon the exportation of the raw materiel All
these complications and difficulties would check and baffie
the ingenuity of any custom-house oficer, and lead to the
utmost confusion in all mercantile transactions, so far se
the article of cork was concerned. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the words proposed by his
right hon. friend were consistent with the French freatts
but those of the hon. gentleman were not.
Mr. BUNCOMBE said that the Government bad only to
enter into fresh negotiations on the subject. The Emperor
of the French was too sensible, too wise, and too just a man
not to accede to the alteration.
The committee then divided— _
For Mr. Buncombe's amendment
Against it
Majority —73
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEUQER said that
though he was not bound by a convention to which his hon.
friend had not agreed, he thought the fairest course he could
take was to move the words he had read to the house. (No,
no.) He therefore proposed to add the following words—.
"the produce or manufacture of or imported from France
or Algeria." The right hon. gentleman added that it
would be impracticable at that period of the evening (a
quarter past 12), to proceed further. The most consistent
course would be to propose that all corks, otherthan the pro-
duca imported from France, should be dealt with after they
had concluded what related to France.• (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON asked how far this committee was
free to deal with any of the items in this schedule. It seemed
to him to raise a most important question. It would be as
idle waste of time for them to be passing item by item if
they were not free to discuss them, or if they should think
fit to reject any of them.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the right hon. baronet must see this was an inquiry which
turned upon and involved the largest constitutional princi-
ples, and it was the duty of every member of that house to
answer that question for himself. The Ministers of the
Crown had an absolute power to negotiate a treaty, but that
must be subject to applying to Parliament where legislation
was required. That was a question where legislatien was
required, and until that treaty was sanctioned by the vote of
both Houses of Parliament it could not take effect.
Lord J. MANNERS said the explanation of the right
hon. gentleman was highly satisfactory ; but he trusted that
when they came to discuss the other items of the treaty they
should have a thoroughly English debate.
Mr. BALL moved that the chairman do report progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL said Parliament had a completeright
to begin with the wine duties, and reject that and every
other article of the treaty if they saw fit. It was only a
question for the discretion of Parlinment.
Sir W. FAR,9,UHAR trusted that on other. occasions
when those different articles were to be considered the house
would be permitted to ge freely into the question and reject
such articles as they thought proper.
Mr. NE WDEGATE wished to know if articles of cloth-
ing made up were to be included in the treaty ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that they were. He trusted the hon. member for Cambridge
would withdraw his motion.
Mr. BALL said he thought the right hon. gentleman,
after answering questions all night, must be physically in-
capable of proceeding further at that hour.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
could not accept the favour which the hon. gentleman offered
him. The [greatest favour the hon, member could confer
upon him would be to allow him to go on with the resolu-
tions. They might have a chance of taking these resolu-
tions to-morrow, but probably that would not suit the con•
venience of members. He trusted there would be a dispo-
sition on other days, except in cases where business of a very
urgent nature was involved, to proceed with these resolu-
tions. He trusted to be able to bring on these resolutions
at some period on Thursday evening, provided he could do
so at a reasonable hour. He wished to take the sense of the
committee of ways and means to-morrow as to the duty of
Bs. id. on British spirits, as it was desirable for the conve-
vnoietneciemmofedthiaeterlyovaefTetre
itthwaatseffdeeclitvesihvozld be given to that
Sir T. PAKINGTON said if he rightly understood the
light hon. gentleman with regard to the order of proceeding
on Thursday, it amounted to this, that as soon as any dis-
cussion that might arise on the Reform Bill was concluded,
the right hon, gentleman should proceed with his resolutions
and, as far as members on that (the opposition) side of the
house was concerned, there would be no objection to that
course. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MACAULAY wished to know how far the house
was free to discuss the propositions of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Part of the resolutions now before the com-
mittee stated that the Queen had recommended Parliament
to do so and so, and,he wished the Government to state hoW
far the house would be free to discuss these propositions.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Queen could not comply
with a treaty by barely recommending the consideration of
certain proposals to Parliament. That, in plain language,
meant unless all those engagements which required the
assent of. Parliament received that sanction. It would
therefore be perfectly competent for the Emperor of the
French, if Parliament dissented from any of the articles of
the treaty, to refuse to ratify the remainder, or to propose
new treaty.

Sir J. P.ABINGTON said that the answers of the Go-
vernment were evasive. The question referred, not tothe
rejection of an entire article, but of some particular item--
artificial flowers, for instance--of which there were many
comprised in one article. Was the house free to reject any
item which it thought impolitic withtut making it neces-
sary to re-open negotiations with France ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the right hon. gentlersanwas
as competent to answer that question as the Government
was. It was a matter for the discretion not only of Parlia-
ment, but of the Emperor of the French. It was not very
likely that the Emperor would throw aside the treaty on
account of the rejection of such an item as artificial flowers.
But, supposing the feeling to be very strong in France that
England was getting the best of the treaty, and that France
was made the slave of England in the matter--(hear, hear)
—it might be desirable to adopt the provisions of the treaty
with as little alteration as possible. (Hear, hear.)
AT he
hf tee rc ax
ffoers
dv wordsunive
rfsriot my
BlVillr. WIIITESIDE, the chairman
reported progress, and the house resumed.
Poisons Bill passed through committee.
and the Administering of
The house adjourned at half-past 12 o'clock.

[ADvEnTisEXlENTT]—Notice.—ln consequence of Messrs.
Lawes and Morton having just commenced 1860 with opposi-
tion similar to that which they previously advanced, and wish-
ing to do those gentlemen every justice, Mr. Thorley is induced
to enlarge his coming pamphlet, making it 64 pages instead
of 32 showing beyond doubt that their observations on the
so-called "Concentrated Cattle Food," and so-called "feeding
statistics," are without foundation ; that the Rothamsted
experiment'was not made with his food, and consequently
that this complete failure must either be through mismixtage•
ment or from buying the Condiment at the wrong shop. Tho
first impression of One Hundred Thousand Copies will be
ready about the first day of March, and may be had post free
on receipt of Three Stamps, on application to Joseph Thorley,
the Inventor and sole Proprietor of " Thorley's Food for
Cattle," 77, Newgate-street, London ; 21; Broadway, New
York, United States; Mr. J. W. Thorley, Melbourne; -Vic-
toria; Mr. Alfred Burt, Sydney, New South Wales; and of
all his agents throughout the United Kingdom.—Feb. 2;1860.
[ADVERTISEMENT.] Holloway's Pills.—Liver Com-
plaints.—The virtues of these incomparable pills are fully
appreciated in every part of the civilised world. As they
act on the general system through the circulation, there are
few diseases which they cannot cure, but they are espe-
cially efficacious in all the disorders of the liver. For these
they are an indubitable specific. They possess unrivalled
'potency for
.good, while they cannot do harm. A child
might physic itself with these pills, and without the
slightest danger, except from such excess as would make
the most wholesome aliment in the world an evil. By re-
ducing the superfluous bile, regulating its due secretion, aid
giving tone to the stomach, they effect a perfect and per-
manent cure.