stated that Her Majesty's Government had no intention of proposing a measure for the universal and compulsory transfer of the collection of any of the Queen's Taxes to Government Officers. But in particular parts of the country a desire appeared to exist on the part of the local authorities to have the power of devolving the collection on the Queen's Officers; and a Bill, therefore, would probably be introduced in the course of the present Session to authorize this voluntary transfer in cases in which it was considered desirable. With regard to the order in which the Resolutions would be proposed in the Committee, it was intended that the Resolution on the Spirit Duties should be postponed till the last of the Resolutions having reference to the Treaty with France. Next to the Resolutions on the Wine Duties, he would move that referring to manufactured goods.

stated that he would amend the Resolution of which he had given notice on the Spirit Duties. Instead of moving that the Duty on Foreign Spirits be raised to 10s. per gallon, he would propose that it be fixed at 9s. instead of 8s. 6d.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is prepared to consider the propriety of commencing the scale for the transmission of printed matter at a Halfpenny Stamp for the first two ounces in weight.

said, the question of the hon. Member was rather ambiguous in its wording. If it were intended to ask him whether he had considered the subject, he would reply that he had done so repeatedly and at great length; but if it were sought to know what his intentions were on the point, he thought it would be better to reserve his answer until he could state all the reasons which had led him to the decision at which he had arrived.

said, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake), Whether the willingness which Her Majesty's Government had shown to lay on the table certain papers connected with the question of Savoy would not alter his view as to the propriety of bringing forward that evening the Motion of which he had given notice, and which, in the absence of those papers, could be only supported by matters of rumour.

said, he did not think there was any ground for adjourning this question, He would appeal to both sides of the House if it were right that the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater, in the course which he proposed to take, should be subjected to the pressure that had been put upon him. He should be sorry to see his hon. Friend (Mr. Milnes) defeated on two consecutive nights, but on this occasion he certainly did not represent the feelings or the wishes of the House. A week ago the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had requested the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater to adjourn the Motion, and, on a subsequent occasion, when a question was asked, he said he would defer his answer till that evening, when there would be a full opportunity of discussing the subject. With regard to the rumours alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, he was sorry to say he believed they were facts. The question of the annexation of Savoy had been discussed in the other House of Parliament in the absence of any papers on the subject; and if they were to make their non-production a ground for postponing the Motion, the public would begin to believe that the House of Commons had absolved themselves from discussing questions of public policy altogether, and had relinquished them to the other House. He conceived that the present was the proper time for entering into the discussion, and he should have thought that the Government would rejoice at the opportunity of entering into those explanations and affording those assurances which would place their conduct in a fair and intelligible light before the public. Owing, probably, to want of information the conduct of the Government had been canvassed in no very favourable manner; but by the result of the discussion the merits of the case must be disclosed, and he was convinced that if the conduct of the Government had been straightforward and manly, the House of Commons would confirm the view which they had taken, and the result would be rather to strengthen their hands than otherwise.

As the hon. Baronet has not concluded with a Motion his observations have been irregular.

I beg to conclude by moving the adjournment of the House.

In answer to the appeal made to me by the hon. Baronet who has just sat down, I have to state that I certainly shall not renew the application which I made to my hon. and learned Friend to postpone this Motion, either on account of injury to the public service or of any public inconvenience which would ensue from the discussion of such a Motion. But there certainly is this consideration, which I think has a great deal to do with the fair discussion of the subject, that the papers are not before the House; and although when my hon. and learned Friend formerly proposed to enter into this question I was not in a position to produce them, if the hon. Gentleman were now to move for the production of copies or extracts from the correspondence which has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and that of the Emperor of the French on this subject, I should have no difficulty in complying with that Motion. And if, as stated by the hon. Baronet, the question is to he whether the Government has behaved well or ill, and has sustained the character of the country, I do think the House would be in a much better position to act if the papers were before them. It will also be in the recollection of hon. Members who were present last night that the House, having been engaged for some hours in the consideration of questions arising out of the Commercial Treaty, and of articles of Customs relating to them, was of opinion that it would be desirable to proceed tonight with other propositions in relation to that subject. That does seem to me a reason for postponing the discussion on public grounds until after the papers have been produced. There was a hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Leicester Vernon) who had precedence of my hon. and learned Friend, and it must be admitted that the question raised by his Motion was one of great importance, and one which I dare say many persons are anxious to see determined; but he very fairly postponed it in order that the business to which I have alluded might be proceeded with. Of course it is for the hon. and learned Gentleman himself to decide whether he will proceed with his Motion.

said, he would at once admit that if the object of his Motion were to convey any real or implied censure on Her Majesty's Government, it would be most unbecoming in the House to proceed without those papers which were about to be produced, and which would disclose the true nature of the negotiations in which Her Majesty's Ministers had been engaged. But as their absence was the only ground advanced in support of the appeal made to him by the hon. Member for Pontefract, he must say that, according to the information which he had received, time was of vital moment in this matter. If the noble Lord had been able to make any statement which would have the effect of assuring him that on a future day the House would stand in exactly the same position as at present, he might have been induced to delay his Motion; but in the absence of such an assurance, however painful it might be to him personally, he conceived that he ought to persevere in his Motion.

said, he then rose to move for the production of the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of Franco and Sardinia in respect to the proposal for annexing Savoy and Nice to the empire of France. He wished to call the attention of the House to this rumoured annexation; but he would endeavour from the outset to confine himself strictly to the subject in hand—not that there were not many neighbouring topics of great interest and importance, but because, by so limiting himself to the question, he should best achieve the main object of his Motion, which was an expression of opinion on the part of the House, almost, if not entirely, unanimous. The rumour of an annexation had arisen in a strange manner, and he had found extreme difficulty in discovering its origin. Here were two countries side by side, the sovereigns of both living, as far as we know, on terms of amity and friendship; they were comrades and allies in the Italian war, and he was not aware of any grounds on which the one should be supposed to be seeking to despoil the other. Yet suddenly it became known or believed that a portion of the provinces of Sardinia were by some process or other to be transferred to France. In the autumn of last year he had received a communication from Paris, which was very short and pithy. It was in these words:—"Savoy and Nice are to be annexed by universal suffrage." He had not, therefore, been taken by surprise, and the House would see by and by how it was he was not much startled by this announcement. The rumour spread abroad and gathered strength, and in the early part of the present year the impression that these provinces were to be severed from the territory of Sardinia became so general that the loyal subjects of Sardinia, both in Savoy and Nice, began to think it time to express their fidelity to the King of Sardinia. They accordingly met in large numbers in Chambery, brought out their ancient banners, and in a firm but respectful manner asserted the unaltered loyalty with which they clung to the ancient house of Savoy. A similar demonstration took place in the county, or, more strictly speaking, in the city of Nice. He should have thought if any public act could be more than another justifiable, it would be this act of loyal subjects of their king meeting together, not for the purpose of raising a disturbance or expressing discontent, but to exhibit their loyalty, not to an exiled king, but their reigning Sovereign. These loyal demonstrations on the part of the people of Savoy soon called forth angry denunciations from the organs of the Parisian press supposed to speak with more or less precision the views of the Imperial Government. The Patrie said:—

"Two measures cannot be applied to Savoy and to Italy.…. We have a right to demand a cessation of this intolerable state of affairs, and equal justice for all. People will then see that the real inspirations of Savoy and Nice are for France."

In the time of the old French Revolution moderatisme was made a crime; but he had never before heard it charged as a crime against a people, that they had clung with loyalty to the actual ruler under whom they lived. These menaces, if he might so call them, issuing from the official or semiofficial press, produced a great deal of alarm. It was in some degree mitigated, but not altogether allayed, by the following curious statement made by the Constitutionnel, in that part of the paper which indicated that the writer expressed the views of the Imperial Government:—

"The report going the round of the journals relative to the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France is but the result of a presentiment of public opinion, and a statement based on the logic of facts. The press has been struck by the attraction felt by the population of Savoy towards France, and by the justice of a measure which, at the moment when Piedmont is to be singularly aggrandized, would give France a geographical frontier. But this unanimous tendency of the press remains completely without official impulse. What Savoy wishes for, what France desires, does not appear doubtful; but what the Government will and can do remains hidden under the veil of diplomacy. Those who assert that the affair is settled are no better informed than those who say that it will not take place. The Emperor is the scrupulous defender of the essential conditions which insure and guarantee the European equilibrium, and will certainly not allow them to be altered, either to his own detriment or that of others."

This article left the question altogether in doubt. On the 7th of February a discussion took place in that House on the question; and it then became known, from the statement of a Minister of the Crown, that the annexation of these two provinces to France had been the subject of negotiation. As to the principles on which this annexation was founded, they were of so general a nature that it was difficult to say to what country they might not be applied. It was said for instance that the people of Savoy spoke the language of France. Where was that principle to stop? If the consent of Europe to the annexation was sought on account of the sympathies of the people of Savoy with France, the people had themselves given a most distinct answer to that proposition. They have evinced a strong determination to remain subjects of the King of Sardinia. He would not trouble the House with reading the touching declarations published at Chambery; one was addressed to the people of England, the other to the King of Sardinia; but the House might learn from those declarations with what feeling the people of Savoy were animated. On the other hand the objections on European grounds against the scheme were of the most stringent character. In the first place, the northern portion of Savoy—that was to say, that portion of it that consisted of Chablais, Faucigny, and Genevois—was not, in the full and complete sense of the terns, part of the kingdom of Sardinia; the fact being that for all European purposes those provinces belonged to Switzerland, and that the great Powers at the settlement of 1815 had guaranteed the neutrality of the whole of those provinces with the same completeness and anxiety with which they had guaranteed to Europe the neutrality and integrity of Switzerland herself. If, then, the northern part of Savoy were to become a portion of the territory of France, what, he should like to know, would become of the neutrality which had been thus guaranteed? Would not France, were she to become possessed of this department of Mont Blanc, as he believed it was intended to be called, be in a position to march her troops across it with a directness which was not at present the case; would she not for military purposes envelop Switzerland, and would not the security which Europe sought to obtain by the neutrality of Switzerland, under these circumstances be almost completely at an end? For his own part, he was prepared to contend that if there were one circumstance to which more than another it was due that this happy part of the world had not been desolated by conquest, it was the fact that in a central part of the Continent there existed a mountainous district. Our forefathers had in 1815 so felt the value of that fact that they had in the most solemn manner guaranteed the neutrality and integrity of Switzerland, and he had been rejoiced to hear from the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in that decisive language, of which he was so great a master, a few days ago, that by that guarantee the Government of this country was determined to abide. Now, however, that we had it established that the neutrality of Switzerland was to be maintained, it clearly followed that the frontiers of that country on the side of Savoy ought to be upheld undisturbed, so that the integrity of Switzerland might with the greatest advantage be secured. Let any man cast his eye over the map of that part of Europe to which he referred, and he would see at a glance the danger with which the integrity of Switzerland would be menaced if the contemplated annexation of Savoy to France were to take place. She would, in fact, be jammed in between the fangs, so to speak, of two departments of France, and the maintenance of her neutrality would, he thought, be under such circumstances almost a geographical impossibility. There was, however, even a still more important view of the question which he wished to submit to the House, and one with respect to which, as far as he was aware, very false ideas seemed to he entertained. He had heard it frequently stated that treaties—since those which had been entered into in 1815—had been thought so little of, and had been so frequently violated, that we need not make ourselves very anxious about their exact observance in particular instances. Now, he could understand the way in which an erroneous view of that kind had originated, but he hoped he should be able to satisfy the House that that sort of cynical indifference to the obligations which treaties imposed had at all events no application to the engagements by which we were bound in the case of those provinces which bordered on France. Many of the engagements which had been entered into at the settlement of 1815—such, for instance, as the constitution of the republic of Cracow—might he regarded in the light to which he alluded; for, although each and all the Powers which had been parties to that particular engagement had an undoubted right to remonstrate against its violation, yet they were under no obligation to take any active steps in case such violation took place. The same might be said with respect to the Italian States. There was another class of treaties by which the ownership and enjoyment of her territories was specifically guaranteed to an independent country, as, for instance, was the case of Switzerland. There was, however, a third and a more important class of treaties, under which category came that by which this country had guaranteed, not that Savoy and Nice should be part of Sardinia, or that the Rhenish provinces should always belong to Prussia, but that those provinces verging as they did on the borders of France should not be annexed to the French Empire. That being so, a definitive treaty which had been signed between France and the Allied Powers on the 20th of November, 1815, provided by its first article that the frontiers of France should be the same as they had been in the year 1790, save so far as related to such modifications on one side or the other as were detailed in the article itself. The article then went on to describe the frontiers of France exactly as they stood at the present moment. Now, if the matter had rested at that point, the neutrality of Switzerland would have rested on the same footing as the security of the republic of Cracow or that of many other States of Europe to which no special guarantee applied; but the time was not one in which the four great Powers of Europe were disposed to leave it to the mere whim of other Powers to decide whether they would or would not acquiesce at some future day in an alteration of the frontiers of France; and accordingly, by the use of the most stringent language, and by the most stringent process known to diplomacy, every one of the four great Powers had been made to engage by separate Treaty one with the other that it would maintain in its full force and vigour the particular treaty which he had just mentioned. Another treaty had, therefore, been signed at Paris on the 20th of November, 1815, between this country and Austria, the object of which was declared to be "to fix beforehand, by a solemn treaty, the principles which they (the two Powers concerned) proposed to follow in order to guarantee Europe from the dangers by which she may still be menaced." The first Article of the Treaty was as follows:—

"The High Contracting Parties reciprocally promise to maintain in its full force and vigour the treaty signed this day with His Most Christian Majesty, and to see that the stipulations of the said treaty, as well as those of the particular conventions which have reference thereto, shall be strictly and faithfully executed in their fullest extent."

A treaty in precisely the same words had been entered into with Russia and Prussia, and it was somewhat curious that, by a protocol which was written nearly at the same time, it was provided that the King of Sardinia should receive out of the common fund under the control of the great Powers a sum of 10,000,000 francs, to be laid out upon the strengthening of the Sardinian fortifications on the French side, so that it appeared they were not satisfied with simply giving him the territories in question in trust, as it were, for the rest of Europe. Now, what he wished the House specially to observe was the effect which the annexation of Nice and Savoy to France would be calculated to have upon that which, he supposed, was dear to every hon. Member at the present moment—our freedom of action. As matters at present stood, it was competent to us to stand aloof from the great Continental struggles, and to come to a calm determination as to whether we should or should not take any part in those contests. If the proposed annexation, however, took place, our freedom of action would have departed for ever, for no sooner would it have been accomplished than the casus fœderis would have been complete, and Austria or Russia or Prussia might call upon us separately, and without joint action, to fulfil our treaty engagements. If, therefore, this country were desirous not to be forced against her will into European complications, or not to expose herself to the liability of rendering herself liable to the charge of dishonour for not having abided by her obligations, it was of the deepest importance that Savoy should not be added to the French Empire. He, for one, could not consent to forget that the kingdom of Sardinia was governed in accordance with principles of which we in this country highly approved; while he, at the same time, did not wish to enter into any comparison between our institutions and those of France. It was enough for him to say that, perhaps by prejudice, he was led to prefer those we ourselves enjoyed; and he could not but think that in the present state of Europe it would not be merely a misfortune to Savoy and Nice, but to the whole of Europe, to extend in any degree the influence of French institutions in that direction. Indeed, we could not consent to the annexation of Savoy and Nice without defacing the map of Europe. He desired to say that he did not speak with anything like jealousy of the extension of France in a fair direction. He thought the acquiescence of this coun- try in the vast extension France had made for itself in Algeria was a proof that we had no jealousy of that sort; and no doubt the extension of France in Algeria had added very much to her material means. It had given her a great deal of that military strength she now enjoyed; and he thought the Emperor must feel that, if he was now strong in a military point of view, he owed a very large proportion of his military strength to the foresight and care of those great statesmen who in the time of Louis Philippe so very perseveringly went on with the determination to extend the influence of France in the north of Africa. It had been his fortune to travel in that country, and its was competent for him, as an individual, to come back and endeavour to persuade the people that it was dangerous for France to extend herself in that direction, and that she ought to withdraw from Algeria, which tended to increase her influence and strength in Europe. But he never entertained any idea of that kind, and no such idea was ever entertained in England. His objection to the annexation of Savoy and Nice was not that it would add a certain amount of population and strength to France; his objection was founded on this—that the possession of these territories by France would be the unsettlement of Europe. There was another circumstance which rendered this annexation objectionable, and that was that Sardinia was a settled Government while the empire of France was an institution very newly founded. He confessed he could warmly enter into the feelings of those Savoyards and men of Nice who preferred to belong to a settled Government and did not desire to become the subjects of the French Empire. They willingly admitted the great glory the French Empire was manifesting in the world, but they also respectfully said that in that glory they did not desire to share. It was important to inquire how and when did this scheme of annexation of Savoy and Nice originate. Was it, or was it not, true that the idea of effecting this annexation was entertained before the late war? The Emperor of the French, when he engaged in the last Italian war, obtained the acquiescence of Europe to that enterprise of his by the most solemn assurances that he entertained no scheme of personal ambition, no scheme involving the aggrandisement of France. "The Government of the Emperor," Count Walewski wrote to the Duke of Malakhoff, "being neither influenced by any arrière pensée, nor by any ambitious views, has nothing to dissemble, nothing to conceal." On the 27th of April (wrote Earl Cowley to the Earl of Malmesbury),

"Count Walewski informed me yesterday, that he had written to the Duke of Malakhoff a despatch for communication to Her Majesty's Government, in which he had given assurances that the present attitude of the Imperial Government was dictated by no prospects of conquest or ambition."—[No. 458.]

Count Walewski, approaching still more closely to the very subject of this discussion, addressed the Duke of Malakhoff in these few words:—he said,

"The passes of the Alps are not in our hands, and it is in the highest degree important to us that the key of them should remain at Turin—at Turin only."….

"His Imperial Majesty, strictly faithful to the words which he pronounced when the French people recalled him to the throne of the chief of his dynasty, is animated by no personal ambition, by no desire of conquest.…

"His Majesty has no thought, you may give the most positive assurances to those about you, of separating his views from those of his Allies."

Well, then, in a still more striking and public form, the Emperor gave assurances of the same kind when he was at Milan on the 8th of June. In the Proclamation he addressed to the Italian people, he said,—

"Your enemies, who are my enemies, have endeavoured to diminish the sympathy which exists throughout all Europe for your cause, by trying to persuade the world that I am carrying on this war only for personal ambition, or to aggrandize the territory of France. If there are men who do not understand their epoch, I am not of the number. In the enlightened state of public opinion which prevails, men are greater by the moral influence which they exercise than by barren conquests, and this moral influence I seek after with pride in endeavouring to emancipate one of the most beautiful parts of Europe."

He must frankly acknowledge that he was not one of those who placed implicit reliance on those representations, for he happened to have in his drawer a paper that led him to suspect that those words had not much more foundation, and deserved no more weight, than the bulletins of a former Emperor. It was no doubt said that men who spoke of this annexation being conceived and contrived before the war, indulged a malignant thought after the time. He was so circumstanced that he should be able to appeal to an hon. Member of that House (Mr. S. FitzGerald), who would tell them, if asked the question, that eleven months ago, in March last, when peace prevailed in Europe, he had felt it his duty to make to Her Majesty's then Government (although he was in opposition to them), a communication to the effect he would read to the House; but, before doing so, he must be permitted to say that he received it under circumstances which fully justified him in making any use of it he chose. He might have come down and read it to the House at once; but it seemed better for the public service that he should communicate it privately to the hon. Gentleman opposite. The House must not, however, ask him to give the name of the gentleman from whom he received the communication. All he could say was that, speaking on his honour, he received it from a source which made him firmly believe in its truth; and he would have the support of the hon. Gentleman opposite when he said this was no new thought or idea, but a communication he made to him eleven months ago. He repeated that at a time when Europe was at peace, when the war in Italy had not begun, he received a communication which was in these words:—

"On the evening before the marriage with the Princess Clotilde a paper was signed by the Emperor of the French, which was called a pacte de famille, not a treaty or convention, promising aid, offensive and defensive, to Sardinia; the King, on his side, promising Savoy and Nice, in return for whatever possessions he may gain in Lombardy. The paper was signed by Walewski."

The Earl of Malmesbury seemed to have desired the Earl Cowley to ask a question on the subject, but he used the word "treaty," and asked whether a treaty did not exist, instead of the pacte de famille. Earl Cowley replied on the 1st of May, 1859:—

"Count Walewski having given me an opportunity, I said to him this afternoon, but without putting any question to him on the subject, I thought it right to let him know that Her Majesty's Government had been informed that a treaty had been signed on the 17th of January last between France and Sardinia, by which the latter agreed to cede Savoy to France provided she was put in possession of Lombardy. Count Walewski replied that all he could assure me was that, up to this moment, there was no treaty whatever between France and Sardinia.… He made no allusion to the territorial question."—[No. 507.]

No disclaimer was made for a long time, and in the month of July, when the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Russell) announced to the House the conclusion of the Peace of Villafranca, he had also the happiness of being able to announce, on the authority of the statement of Count Walewski, that there was no intention of annexing Savoy and Nice. He said:—

"I am happy to be able to inform the House that the Emperor of the French has made no demand of that kind, and that there is every reason to suppose that he does not intend to make any addition whatever to the territory of France. This is most gratifying, because any addition to the territory of France, however insignificant, following on the war, could not fail to rouse the suspicions and jealousies of Europe."—[3 Hansard, cliv. 1052.]

Now, the existence of that arrangement seemed to have been pretty well concealed until he himself gave his first notice of Motion in this matter. Into that notice of Motion he introduced the words pacte de famille. It then, perhaps, became known that this was a matter which could not any longer be concealed from Europe, and Earl Granville, speaking in another place, on the 7th of February for the first time disclosed—not, of course, in complete language, but in language which very well shadowed out the truth—the existence of something like the arrangement to which he had referred. Earl Granville said:—

"We have been told by the Imperial Government that there is no question at present of the annexation of Savoy; that one of a great many points discussed before the war was the annexation of Savoy, under certain contingencies, but that those contingencies not having occurred there is at this moment no question of annexation. The French Government adds, at the same time, that, in the event of Sardinia, with the addition of Lombardy and other provinces, becoming a powerful Italian State, they will feel themselves at liberty to consider what conditions they should attach to the sanction they might give to such an arrangement."

Well, the matter, apparantly, now stood thus:—There was no doubt that before the war an arrangement was entered into that, in exchange for Lombardy, the Emperor of the French should become possessed of Savoy and the county of Nice. But the Emperor of the French having failed to conquer all Lombardy, according to the original programme, the contingency failed, and for a time France and Sardinia both acquiesced in the proposition that the circumstances under which Savoy and Nice were to be surrendered to France had not occurred. But later in the autumn, when it became obvious that the provisions of the Treaty of Villafranca were of such a kind that they could not and would not be carried into effect, the Central States of Italy began to provide for themselves and indicated an intention to become annexed to the kingdom of Sardinia. Then the Emperor of the French apparently reverted to his former proposal, and seemed to say that if Sardinia was to be aggrandized, though not in the way originally contemplated, then virtually, though not actually and in terms, there was that between himself and the King of Sardinia which would entitle him to insist on the pacte de famille. We had, happily, since been told that this annexation would not be carried into effect by the Emperor of the French without consulting the great Powers of Europe. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary stated in that House:—

"Her Majesty's Ambassador in France, having addressed the Emperor on this subject, was assured that the Emperor of the French would not proceed to a final decision on this matter of Savoy without consulting the great Powers of Europe."

Now, if he were told by a plain man that he would not do a particular thing without consulting some other person, he might, perhaps, infer that he meant something more than the strict literal force of his words would imply, and that he would not only consult that third person, but would to some extent be governed by the advice he might receive. But when it was found that, contemporaneously with the assurance of the Emperor that he would consult the great Powers of Europe he asserted that a portion of Savoy was necessary to the Empire of France, one was led to fear that this consultation would rather be an indication on the part of France of what she meant to do, than a real question and inquiry' from her as to what the other Powers of Europe thought right. When the inquiry, which, if he was not misinformed, would soon come from the Foreign Office of Paris, arrived, and the four great Powers were consulted on this subject in the way which he heard was now intended, he trusted that the answer of England would be so closely similar to the answer of every other Government that all Europe would know that the four great Powers were of one mind. It was often said it was well that this country should be allied with France or with some other state. The truth was that alliances did not depend on proximity, nor upon caprice. The one thing on which our alliances should depend must he a community of interest. Did we or did we not desire the same thing as any other power of Europe? He believed that England anxiously desired peace. Then it followed that the Allies of England must be those who also desired peace. Would the Emperor of the French persist in this scheme? Whatever might he the natural moderation or the good sense of that ruler, he was armed with a power which had annexed to it certain conditions. That power had annexed to it this fatal condition, that he must use it. And it was gravely to be doubted whether he would be able to resist the evil counsels which might prompt him to execute this project. If he did not resist, them we should at all events have so provided that he would no longer have it in his power to proceed privily or by stealth. All Europe would know that this act, if it was to be done, would be done in open violation of treaty; and we should then come to understand our epoch, and to perceive that the rights of nations were made to depend, not altogether upon the justice of their cause, but also upon their strength. The hon. Member concluded by moving an Address for Copies of the Correspondence which has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Emperor of the French and the King of Sardinia in respect to the proposal for annexing Savoy and Nice to the Empire of France.

said, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend. He felt so deeply the importance of the subject they were now called on to discuss that he could not refrain, before entering on the observations he had to make, from tendering his thanks to his hon. and learned Friend not only for the very able and lucid manner in which he had brought the question before the House, but also for the opportunity he has afforded us of eliciting some opinions from the Government; and he presumed the Government are gratified at the opportunity which this discussion supplies of giving such explanations and assurances as may be calculated to place their conduct in this matter in a clear and intelligible light before the public, for, as they are well aware, their conduct in the matter, without some explanation from them, is liable to be canvassed, and indeed, probably from inadequate means of information, had been generally canvassed in the country, in no very favourable light. The question of Savoy not only affected the whole of Italy, but was of vast and vital importance to Europe. It not merely concerned the territorial limits or the geographical frontiers of Sardinia and France—not merely involved the independence of Switzerland, as regarded the three neutralized provinces of Chablais, Faucigny, and Genevois, but it touched the whole European comity of nations, inasmuch as it was the first attempt to make an inroad upon that charter of European tenure which was the basis of the existing territorial arrangements. It was an attempt, therefore, which either must be checked at once with a vigorous hand, or must be sanctioned by the consent of the other Powers; or else, if carried out without the consent of those Powers, it would infallibly lead to European convulsion. The Motion was brought forward in no spirit of hostility to the present Government. Up to this point he believed that Her Majesty's Government, following the policy pursued by their predecessors in a troublous and hazardous time, had been desirous of maintaining those friendly relations with other States which every Government of this country, irrespective of its politics, must seek to maintain. The Earl of Aberdeen, a veteran and distinguished statesman of perhaps, a bygone generation, had affirmed that the foreign policy of England had been more or less identical for the last thirty years—that was to say, that each succeeding Minister for Foreign Affairs had been obliged to adhere, in the main, to the policy of his predecessor. They all knew what was the policy of the Earl of Malmesbury in regard to Italy. That noble Earl had declared—and the country would, doubtless, be prepared to endorse his statement—that his own exertions, and those of the Earl of Derby's Government, saved Europe from a general war last year. The Earl of Malmesbury had also declared as publicly that the same exertions were instrumental in confining the struggle between Austria on the one side, and France and Sardinia on the other, within the limits of Northern Italy. The present advisers of the Crown, with a clear insight into the drift of affairs, had, no doubt, also been desirous to abstain from involving this country in the disputes of other nations who were our allies and friends. How came it then, that after having wisely determined on that course on the 4th of February, Earl Cowley communicated to M. Thouvenel a project of the English Cabinet for the definitive settlement of the Italian question? The heads of that scheme were, that Venetia should remain under the Austrian rule; that the inhabitants of the Central States of Italy should be again invited to decide upon their own constitution, and that if they pronounced for annexation with Savoy that Power should be authorized to accomplish their wishes; and lastly, that France should withdraw her troops from Rome and other parts of Italy. He believed that the French Minister had given for an answer that he was not ready on the moment to give a reply; but surely when he (Sir R. Peel) heard that foreign Governments were now giving or refusing their adhesion to what they called the English proposals, he was justified in asking whether we were abandoning that independent course of action which the Government of this country had hitherto wisely pursued. What had we to do with asking France to allow Tuscany to be united to Sardinia? Why, what was the answer which France gave to our request? She replied, "Let Tuscany be united to Sardinia, but I, France, will then take Savoy." His hon. and learned Friend had said that this question of the annexation of Savoy had been agreed on long ago. It might be so. But it was patent to every one that when Her Majesty's Government proposed to France that Sardinia should be at liberty to appropriate Tuscany, Franco had replied with the annexation of Savoy to France. Her Majesty's Government no doubt wished to give some practical effect to their Administration, and he greatly approved the exertions which they had recently made to extend and improve the commercial relations of this country; but it was remarkable that the day on which the Commercial Treaty was signed was the very day on which the Emperor of the French first mentioned the annexation of Savoy to Her Majesty's Government. It looked very much as if this Commercial Treaty had a very important political bearing. He did not assert that it had such a bearing, but it certainly looked something like it. They had heard a great deal lately about the conciliatory spirit of the Emperor of the French, and he (Sir R. Peel) was as anxious as any one to preserve our friendly relations with France; but what he wanted to know was, what was the cause of this sudden civility on the part of France. Was the Treaty a proof of the moderation of the Emperor, of his wish to disprove the libellous charges which had been so plentifully heaped upon him? Was the Treaty a proof of his desire to open fresh channels of communication with this country, or was it merely a sop to enable France to carry out with undiminished vigour her schemes of aggression and aggrandisement? The increase of intercourse with France was a matter of the greatest importance to this country, the channels where wealth and prosperity flowed with such increased vigour under the improved system of our commercial policy; but he hoped the House would boldly say, and that the Government would avail themselves of that opportunity of stating, that the conclusion of the Commercial Treaty with France had no reference whatever to the political condition of Italy, nor would it be allowed in any way to bind the counsels of this country as regarded the future policy of France. He had lately read the very voluminous blue-book on the affairs of Italy which had been presented to the House, and he was proud to see that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had conducted these negotiations with a dignity and a propriety worthy of the country, of his own character, and of the office over which he presided. The noble Lord must, however, remember that the friendly assurances of France were not always to be relied upon as an infallible proof of her sincerity. There was one notable instance which had made a great impression on the minds of statesmen of the day wherein it occurred. That country never made more earnest professions of friendship and amity to England than when she was about to join America in her struggle for independence. He did not mean of course, to draw any parallel between the professions of France at that time and those which she was making now; but it was remarkable that at the very time that she was giving us these friendly assurances she talked about correcting her geographical frontiers. Correcting the geographical frontiers of France! That was a most serious matter, and who was to decide upon it except the great Powers who had put their seals to the instrument which fixed those frontiers at the limit which existed in 1792? The extracts from the French newspapers which had been read by his hon. and learned Friend were very remarkable, especially as the press in France was not, as in this country, a noble engine for the circulation and communication of ideas, but was confined to the expression of the authorized intentions and objects of the Government. The Patrie of the 2nd of February, 1860, had the impertinence to say,—"The Sardinian authorities are everywhere encouraging the movement against the separation of Savoy." If the Emperor of the French wanted to take Ireland it was probable that our authorities would endeavour to prevent him.

"The Sardinian authorities are everywhere encouraging the movement against the separation of Savoy by putting down the almost unanimous wish of the inhabitants who are asking for annexation with France."

He should shortly have occasion to show that, so far from unanimously desiring to be annexed to France, the people of Savoy were unanimous in their desire either to remain subject to the present dynasty, or else, if possible, with the consent of the great Powers, to be annexed to Switzerland. The paper, however, went on to say—

"The people of Savoy have the same right as the people of Italy to declare their opinion in perfect security and complete independence."

The idea of a French newspaper making such an assertion when no less than nineteen of its contemporaries had been already, within the last few months, suppressed for declaring their opinions in what they thought security and independence! The article concluded.

"Their wishes are of so energetic a character that they have been manifested in spite of all obstacles and all difficulties. We have a right to demand the cessation of this intolerable state of things and equal justice for all."

The French ambassador in this country expressed himself excessively annoyed at that article, and he said that in a day or two there would be a soothing one in the Constitutionnel. This was the soothing article which appeared in that journal:—

"The report going the round of the journals relative to the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France is but the result of a presentiment of public opinion. The press has been struck by the attraction felt by the population of Savoy towards France, and by the justice of a measure which at this moment, when Piedmont is to be singularly aggrandized, would give France a geographical frontier. What Savoy wishes for, what France desires, does not appear doubtful."

That was a bold and hardy assertion, when he should be able to bring forward infallible proof that not only was the contrary the case, but that there was among the people of Savoy a stern determination on no account whatever to sacrifice what they called their national feeling to the political expediency of any party in France. His hon. and learned Friend had said that this question of the annexation of Savoy was not a new one, but that the agreement between France and Sardinia was signed on the occasion of the marriage of the Princess Clotilde with Prince Napoleon. Some treaty had, certainly, been signed on that occasion, although Her Majesty's Government were disposed to doubt it. The fact was, that this treaty was a pacte de famille. The Emperor, however, had well concealed his intentions until the day on which the Commercial Treaty was signed. Count Walewski, who was always flourishing beautiful phrases, said, "France draws the sword not to govern but to free," and the Emperor himself, in his proclamation to the Italians at Milan, on the 8th of June, 1859, declared,—

"Vos ennemis, qui sont les miens, ont tenté de diminuer la sympathie universelle qu'il y avait en Europe pour votre cause, en faisant croire que je ne faisais la guerre que par ambition personnelle ou pour agrandir le territoire de la France."

We might be inclined to place implicit confidence in what he said, but there was that unfortunate pacte de famille, and of all things which were hateful it was such an instrument as that. The last pacte de famille which produced any great convulsion in Europe was one concluded at Paris so far back as the year 1761 between Louis XV. and the King of Spain, and signed by the Due de Choiseul and the Marquis de Grimaldi. Another such pacte was made between the first Napoleon and his brothers, but that more resembled an arrangement between a general and his lieutenants than one between sovereigns who stood on a perfect equality. But the pacte de famille of 1761 was of a different character. It consisted of 28 Articles. There was a reciprocal guarantee of mutual obligations, and, to use the words of Article 4, Qui attaque une Couronne attaque I'autre. Perhaps, however, the most important Article was the 21st, which stipulated that the Treaty was to be regarded comme un Pacte de famille, et nulle autre Puissance ne pourra être invitée ni admise à y accéder. Such was the kind of pacte which had been formed between France and Sardinia, and he believed that no arrangements could be more dangerous to Europe. It demanded therefore the closest attention from Her Majesty's Government. Whence, he would ask, had the Savoy question originated, and how had it come on the tapis at that moment? It had a close and direct connection undoubtedly with that great Italian struggle which had been going on for the last twelve months. In consequence of the annexation of Lombardy to Piedmont, France had demanded the cession of Savoy. This had rendered the condition of Savoy one of great uncertainty, and that of Switzerland one of restless anxiety. The independence of Switzerland depended upon its neutrality, and its neutrality would be destroyed by the annexation of any part of Savoy to France. Now, the neutrality of Switzerland was guaranteed by the Act of Congress which was proclaimed on the 20th of November, 1815, signed by eight Powers, the principal directing influences being those of England and of Russia, and which declared the neutrality of Switzerland as being "dans l'intêret de toute l'Europe," and Prince Metternich himself had declared "that the Powers regarded the perpetual neutrality of Switzerland as the only guarantee of her independence." So essential had the independence and neutrality of Switzerland been considered, that during the last forty years no foreign foe had ever ventured to put his foot upon Swiss territory, which had been allowed to rest in peace amid all the convulsions in which other countries had been plunged. Moreover, with the view of confirming the neutrality and strengthening the independence of Switzerland, the Powers gave to Switzerland, in addition to a geographical frontier, a military frontier on the side of Savoy. Chablais was that part of Savoy which immediately abutted on the Lake of Geneva, then came Faucigny, and beyond that Genevois. These three provinces were neutralized and rendered almost independent of Savoy. It was laid down that in the event of war no foreign troops should pass through those territories, which, on the contrary, were to be occupied by Swiss troops. Nothing, in fact, could be stronger than the desire of the Powers to establish both the independence and the neutrality of Switzerland upon a firm basis. The very existence of the Helvetic Confederation was bound up in the maintenance of its neutrality, and the moment France disturbed the existing treaty-arrangements by the annexation of Savoy the independence and neutrality of Switzerland would be virtually at an end. What would be the inevitable consequence? There were at present about 20,000 French and 20,000 Savoyards residing in Geneva. But if Geneva were surrounded by French territory and inhabited as would probably then be the case with 20,000 Frenchmen, what would be the position of that magnificent but diminutive Canton with 40,000 within the walls of its chief city. Again if France an- nexed Savoy, she would secure the possession of the Simplon, which would bring her into direct communication with Italy, and Germany would undoubtedly demand to be put in the same possession by the cession of the St. Gothard Pass. Thus endless complications of the gravest character would arise, and the probability was, that if the Powers now consented to the annexation of Savoy, France would in a short time claim the Rhenish provinces. He would entreat the House and the Government to put a cheek to such proceedings at once. The past was full of warning. In 1792 France annexed Savoy; in 1798 she annexed Geneva; in 1802 the Valais; and those three provinces remained integral parts of the Republic and the First Empire until 1814. Surely, instructed by experience, the Powers of Europe would not allow France to begin a new career of ambition and spoliation by the annexation of Savoy. He trusted they would pay some respect to what was called national feeling. La Patrie had declared that the Savoyards were all in favour of annexation to France. Nothing could be further from the truth. He knew that the feelings of the people were absolutely antagonistic to any connection with France. He had been asked—he admitted he might prove but a comparatively weak and inefficient champion—but he had been asked to advocate the interests of the Swiss people in this matter, and in the absence of any better champion he had undertaken the task. In former years he had resided in that country in charge of Her Majesty's Mission from 1846 to 1850, embracing a period of great political excitement, and through the favour of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton he had had the advantage of becoming acquainted with the leading statesmen and most influential inhabitants of that country. He had a letter from one of the most distinguished statesmen in Switzerland, who frequently honoured him with his correspondence, one paragraph from which he would read to the House. It was dated on the 4th February, and stated—

"We have learnt that the treaty for the annexation of Savoy to France has been signed by Sardinia and France, and that no exceptional mention was made of those neutralized provinces which touch the Swiss frontier."

The neutralized provinces referred to were Chablais and Faucigny and part of Genevois, which were included in the system of neutrality by which the Powers in 1815 guaranteed the independence of Switzer- land, and which were neutralized with the view of giving the Swiss Confederation a stronger natural boundary. The writer continued:—

"Moreover, if we are well informed, there are well-grounded reasons for apprehending that France intends to repudiate the neutrality of these provinces, sanctioned not only by the Treaties of 1815, but also by all previous treaties between Switzerland and the House of Savoy. These treaties went even further than a guarantee of neutrality, for the House of Savoy engaged never to detach these provinces of Chablais and Faucigny otherwise than to Switzerland. On the faith of these engagements we had hoped that, in the event of the cession of Savoy to France, reservation would be made for the incorporation into the Swiss Confederation of Chablais, Faucigny, and a portion of the Upper Genevois, which are essential to the maintenance of Swiss neutrality on that side, and command the Simplon. These provinces represent a population of about 150,000 souls, who, in the event of the cession of Savoy to France, earnestly desire to be incorporated into Switzerland."

That was the opinion of a gentleman who occupied a high position in Switzerland, and who had been intimately connected with the politics of France and Sardinia. He knew that the Swiss people desired above all things the maintenance of the status quo. Such was also the feeling of the people of Chablais and Faucigny, but if a change must be made they would prefer to be incorporated into the Helvetic Confederation. They were attached to the House of Savoy, which they knew to be sprung from their mountain region, and they were anxious to remain as heretofore united under the sway of this ancient family, which had shone with such éclat in the history of Europe. Up to the 10th of February last, petitions, or rather declarations, had been circulated in those communes, signed by more than 920 of the principal inhabitants, thus stating what they desired:—

"Dans le cas inattendu d'une séparation de la Savoie, le Faucigny et le Chablais ne voudraient pas être Francais, mais toleraient plutÔt leur annexion à la Suisse."

Such a feeling was creditable to those people in the highest degree. But what would be the feelings of the people on the other side of the Alps if they knew that they had acquired liberty by the sacrifice of the liberty of these small but free communities? They were ready to thank the Emperor of the French for the assistance he had rendered them, but when they knew that a part of Europe which had hitherto been free, which had carried the cross of Savoy and the tricolour of Italy through all the recent battlefields, was to be absorbed in France they must feel the deepest regret that the first hour of their deliverance should be the first of slavery to these ancient provinces. He appealed with confidence to the Government. He believed that the House of Commons would support the Government in their desire to do what was right to the people of these provinces. He trusted that the directing policy of the Government would be in accordance with the acknowledged character of the noble Viscount, at its head, and that the noble Viscount acting in concert with the noble Lord the Member for London, would be able to conduct the Foreign Affairs of this country in a moment of critical emergency with conciliation as well as power. Never was such a policy more needed. The eyes of Europe are cast upon this country to see what course she will pursue. Italy is just bursting into liberty, almost realizing the magnificent lines of Byron:—

"Italy!

Time, which hath wrong'd thee with ten thousand rents

Of thine imperial garment, shall deny

And hath denied to every other sky

Spirits which soar from ruin. Thy decay

Is still impregnate with divinity,

Which gilds it with revivifying ray."

Beautiful words! so expressive of the circumstances of the case at the present moment. It is that revivifying ray which now gilds the horizon of the Peninsula; it is that hope of soaring from ruin which now animates the people of that country. I entreat you not to quench that ray, not to disappoint that hope. I appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. I ask him to stand true to the character he has so long enjoyed, and which happily with undiminished vigour he is still enabled to maintain. I ask him to throw all the weight of his Government into the scale in favour of Italian freedom and independence. I trust that, acting in concert with France—to whom Italy really owes a debt of gratitude—he will be able not only to regulate the future of Italy upon a basis of honourable and independent existence, but also to secure the independence and neutrality of that ancient and magnanimous republic which, amidst the shock of surrounding nations, has stood, and happily still stands, as a beacon of political liberty and the home of the political exile. If the Government do not follow a statesman- like and honourable policy in this matter they will not meet with the support of this House, but if they can assure the House and can prove that their policy has been not an unnecessary intermeddling with the affairs of other countries, or been formed in subservience to the views of other nations, but has been directed to bringing the legitimate influence of England to secure the independence and freedom of Italy and Switzerland, I take the liberty to tell them that they will secure to themselves not only the sympathy and affection of tens of thousands of people in those countries, but they will be able to count upon that best reward of their services, that best guarantee for the success of their policy, which consists in the confidence and approval of every friend of civil and religious liberty.

Sir, I do not rise for the purpose of expressing dissent on the part of the Government from the observations which have been addressed to the House by the two hon. Gentlemen who have moved and seconded this Motion, not only with remarkable force and eloquence, but in entire unison with the feelings which pervade this House and the country. This question is undoubtedly one of European interest, it is one to which public attention in this country and on the Continent has been much and justly directed, and it is one on which the Government are ready to admit the House has a perfect right to demand full information as to the policy which they have pursued as guardians of the public honour in negotiations with foreign countries. The Government, therefore, give a ready assent to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman for papers, and they are willing to lay on the table, at an early day, all the papers which he desires, with the trifling but usual insertion of the word, "or extracts" after copies, & c. But I cannot help thinking that any protracted discussion would be more satisfactory when the House is in possession of the papers, and when hon. Gentlemen have had the fullest opportunity of seeing the course which the Government has taken in this matter both with regard to France and Sardinia. The hon. and learned Gentleman who made this Motion has expressed a hope that there would be a unanimous expression of opinion on this subject; but, though on the present Motion there is no opportunity afforded of formally recording our opinion, yet I am sure that no hon. Member who rises to address the House will differ from the two hon. Members in the general tenor and purport of the opinions which they have expressed. There is no man in this House, I am sure, who will not join with them in earnestly deprecating the annexation of Savoy, not upon the ground of any specific interest which this country has in that annexation, but because of the consequences to which it would lead, the mistrust it would occasion, and, as the hon. Gentleman has well said, of the unsettlement of Europe which it would create. I cannot but feel that the hon. Baronet who seconded the Motion, if he had read these papers, would not have assumed that certain things were possible with respect to which he desires a disclaimer from us. For instance, he wished us to disclaim that in entering into that Commercial Treaty we had any political object—that we were actuated by subservience to France—that the Treaty had any connection whatever with the annexation of Savoy. That disclaimer I am perfectly prepared to make on the part of the Government in the most explicit terms. Our hands are perfectly free, and when the papers are produced it will be seen that, notwithstanding the Commercial Treaty, the Government have explained to France, in clear and unambiguous terms, the views which they entertain with respect to the annexation of Savoy. One word as to the despatch of my noble Friend near me, to which reference has been made. The hon. Baronet who seconded the Motion objected to the proposals made by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary for the settlement of Italy as being a departure from the neutrality which this country ought to observe, and as giving, in the proposal to annex Tuscany to Piedmont, a pretence to the Emperor of the French to ask for the annexation of Savoy. When the whole correspondence is on the table, however, the hon. Baronet, as well as the House, will see that the charge of departing from the principle of neutrality is unfounded, and that the despatch in question is in conformity with the policy which the Government have uniformly pursued, which was to leave to the people of Italy the right to choose their own form of government, and the liberty of expressing their opinions on the settlement of their own affairs. The policy of the Government has been uniformly directed to that end. The Government earnestly desire the peace and tranquillity of Europe. But one essen- tial element in the tranquillity of Europe is the contentment and good government of the people of Italy, and those two objects can never be secured unless the people of Italy be allowed the opportunity of expressing their own wishes. It is to secure them this power that the efforts of Her Majesty's Government have been directed. That is a policy which I believe to be strictly in accordance with the intentions of the House and of the country, and I trust the result will prove that it has not been pursued in vain. Although, probably, other Members may desire to express their opinions on this subject, I hope we shall not be led, in the absence of the papers, into any protracted debate on the subject; but with such an expression of opinion as has been already elicited from the House, and as hon. Members may desire further to give, that we shall be allowed to proceed to that business which it was yesterday generally understood would occupy our attention.

Although this subject, Sir, has been brought under the consideration of the House in two speeches of singular eloquence and ability, both by the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), I think that after the promise made by the right hon. Baronet who last addressed us, it will, on the whole, be more convenient that we should refrain from giving any opinion on the subject generally until the papers have been laid on the table. At the same time I must say that I was not surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridgwater should have made this Motion, for although the Chancellor of the Duchy on the part of the Government, has expressed their extreme willingness and prompt readiness to afford all the information in their power, I must be permitted to say that the present quickness in producing papers—which must be very gratifying to those hon. Members who require information—is rather a novel disposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and had it been displayed at an earlier period of the Session would have been more satisfactory to the House. Hon. Members may not, perhaps, forget the inquiry which I made on the 2nd of this month with respect to these provinces of Nice and Savoy, and the unsatisfactory reply which I received from the noble Lord; and it was not until the chief Minister of the Crown, in another House of Parliament, had made an admission which seemed after- wards to be regretted, that I was enabled to come to this House and to urge an inquiry upon that admission which it was impossible any longer to meet with silence. What, however, was even then the answer of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs? Why, he told us this—that communications had certainly passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France on the subject of the possible annexation of Savoy to the French Empire, but they were dated so far back, I think, as last July; and certainly the impression conveyed by Her Majesty's Government was that the whole question had died away, that it was not one of that urgent and pressing interest which it is now universally recognized to be. The consequence was that the House was entirely thrown off it3 guard. An inquiry was made five days afterwards by an hon. Friend of mine who was in possession of authentic information, and it was not until he had produced that information that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to meet the House with the frankness with which I think it is always wise on these subjects for Ministers to treat the House of Commons. I thought it due to myself and others who proposed to inquire into this important matter to make these observations; but I shall scrupulously refrain from entering into the merits of the question. When the papers are in our possession I am sure we shall all feel that no more important documents could be placed in our hands, and they cannot fail to become the subject of grave deliberation.

said, he concurred in the belief that another time might better be chosen for this discussion, but he wished to make one observation. He trusted the House, in the absence of authentic information, would be cautious in allowing itself to be led away by mere idle rumours of pactes de famille, or any other arrangement whatever; but would wait until the papers were laid before them. Until that was done he hoped they would not attach full credence to the theory of his two hon. Friends, which, though made in the best possible spirit, was, nevertheless based on mere assertions, and implicated not only the good faith and honour of the French Government but also the freedom and integrity of the King of Sardinia, who was represented as abandoning the subjects of his own hereditary possessions. He was informed, on authority as good as any which his hon. and learned Friend had cited, that the reply given by the Sardinian Government to this proposition of annexation was conveyed in the simple and dignified words—"We cannot bargain away men," or, as it seemed the fashion that evening to express themselves in French, "Nous ne pouvons pas marchander les hommes." The free desires of the people of Savoy in no way tended towards a change in their political position, nor had they any wish to alter their political allegiance, and he did not believe that any change in their position would take place, unless they entirely concurred in the arrangement.

said, he was willing to believe what had been slated on the part of the Government by the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) that the correspondence, when produced, would prove that Her Majesty's Government had all through been opposed to the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France, but he thought official men were apt to attach too much importance to correspondence. What he complained of was that the general policy of the Government, however, in Italy had been marked by an abnegation of those principles of public law by which the relations of countries had hitherto been governed, and on which all civil politics must ultimately depend; and he was convinced that if Her Majesty's Government had not encouraged rebellion, annexation, demonstrations, and schemes of settlement in different countries by upsetting the treaties on which international law had previously been based, nothing would ever have been heard of this proposal for annexing Savoy to France. Few events in the recent history of Italy had given him more concern than the position in which the Sardinian monarchy was placed by the ambitious and unprincipled policy of Count Cavour. On both public and private grounds he felt great respect for and even attachment to the illustrious house of Savoy, and he saw with much pain the humiliating and dangerous position in which the King of Sardinia, the head of that house, was placed. No doubt a considerable increase of territory had been acquired in Lombardy. But it had been acquired by means of an unjust war, and he believed that this apparent aggrandizement would cause the ruin of that ancient and illustrious dynasty. The King of Sardinia had been involved in an unjust quarrel by promises of assistance on the part of France. A time would probably come when France would no longer be prepared to march armies into Italy to support the King of Sardinia; and Austria, backed by Germany, and possibly by Russia, would once more take possession of Lombardy, and perhaps march to Genoa and Turin. They were told that France had gone into Italy from a love of Italian liberty and independence, but the real motives were now apparent, and the tortuous policy which had dictated the whole proceeding. The consummation of the humiliation of the Sardinian Monarch was this project which had been assented to for the separation of the countries of Savoy and Nice from his Crown. He (Mr. Bowyer) remembered another King of Sardinia, bearing the same name as the present monarch—Victor Emmanuel, who with a very small force had gallantly defended the passes of Savoy against a French army for a considerable time. That gallant monarch, he felt sure, would rather have placed his head upon the block than relinquish the ancient inheritance of his house—the place where for nearly eight centuries his ancestors had been buried—and from which the name of their dynasty was derived. It would hereafter be a sarcasm to style them princes of the house of Savoy. In this question of annexation the House might discern an indication and example of the policy which the Emperor of the French was pursuing. A plan was adopted for transferring these provinces to France, and now we learn what the plan was; money was expended, secret agents employed, and public manifestations, or what were called such, in favour of France were made. He thought English statesmen should hear with distrust what was published of these manifestations in other countries. Before he left Rome, he was told by one of the Ministers that a public manifestation in favour of France would soon be made in that city. It did take place; but the thing was perfectly understood, how it was managed and where the money came from. Another strong French manifestation had been managed in Nice. It all indicated an ambitious policy on the part of the French Emperor, to which they ought all to open their eyes. He should rejoice in the good understanding between France and England. It was for the interest of both countries, and the rest of Europe that those countries should be on good terms; but he thought the cultivation of a friendly feeling was a very different thing to the policy of subserviency he had remarked, and with great regret, on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The Emperor of the French knew very well how to manage Her Majesty's Ministers. He knew he had only to talk liberalism to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs about "civil and religious liberty all over the world," and to use other phrases of the same kind, and he could lead him as he pleased. Under this influence, Her Majesty's Government had been induced to sanction an unprincipled policy, a policy of intrigue, of annexation, a policy of everything that could disturb mankind; and which, if carried further, would unsettle the whole of Europe and lead to some great convulsion. He would not go into any discussion of the affairs of Italy; but he would mention one fact that showed the danger of playing into the hands of France. What occurred in Florence? There the Minister accredited by Sardinia to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, M. Boncompagni, who was in constant communication and on intimate terms with the Duke, that Minister, at the instigation of France and Sardinia, conspired to overthrow the Prince to whom he was accredited, and at whose Court he resided. He was made the means of conveying money to the officers of the Tuscan troops; he corrupted the army and brought about the revolution. When it was completed that Minister, accredited to the Court of Tuscany, became the head of the revolutionary Government established on the expulsion of the Grand Duke. He was afterwards appointed a sort of Viceroy over Central Italy. Not one word had been said by Her Majesty's Government in reprobation of such conduct. And by not protesting against such dishonourable proceedings they were abetting a system subversive, not only of all political security, but of the mere principles of honour between man and man, and without which they should all be picking each other's pockets, and cutting each other's throats. After this transaction, the next thing was the landing of French troops at Leghorn to assist the revolutionary party; and by this means the Emperor subverted the Governments of what were called the Dukes, and caused the insurrection in the Romagna. It was done only by a foreign invasion. The Government should have its eyes opened by such a system. The object of the Emperor was by keeping every state in a condition of uncertainty, and by fomenting revolutions, to obtain a paramount power in Italy. He now refused to have Tuscany annexed to Sardinia unless Savoy was annexed to France. He thus showed how false were his professions of disinterestedness when he invaded Italy. He said everything should be done in Italy without foreign intervention; yet he had 50,000 men in Lombardy, and a large military force in other parts of Italy. Wherever there was a movement in Italy, there some connection of the Emperor was found actively promoting it. Thus at Bologna there was Count Pepoli, a relation of the Emperor by marriage, and receiving a pension from him. The Emperor intended to make the Mediterranean a "French lake," and he would succeed in doing it. Yet they always spoke of him as their faithful Ally; but if he were not the master of 600,000 soldiers they would talk of him in a very different tone. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had of late years pursued a system of bullying the weak and truckling to the strong which was discreditable to this country. Violent attacks were made on the Government of the Pope and the King of Naples. The noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the noble Viscount had repeatedly spoken of that King with contempt and sarcasm. All this was directed against a Government supposed to be weak. All Governments known to be strong were treated with respect. They heard nothing said of the French deportations to Cayenne, of the French police, of the total destruction of all liberty of thought and speech in France. Nor did they hear anything of the suppression of liberty of thought and speech in Italy, where liberty was supposed to reign. They heard nothing of these things, done by the instigation of the Emperor of the French; but he must always be spoken of with respect; nay, he was eulogized in terms of the most fulsome adulation. He did not say this was not prudent; but he did not think it magnanimous; he did not think it even wise; and of this he was quite sure—it was not English. The people were beginning to open their eyes to this system. He had heard it said that this country had never since 1814 stood higher, so far as regarded her relations with foreign Powers, than she did at the present moment. Yet notwithstanding that statement, we were going to content ourselves with entering a simple protest against the march of French troops into Savoy. He saw nothing dignified in mere protestations which were no more than an admission of impotency. The reason why we pursued a course such as that was, that the Government had placed themselves altogether in the hands of Prance, partly because they thought the independence of Italy might result from her interference in its affairs, partly because they entertained the expectation that The Emperor of the French might do something against the Pope, and partly also because they felt an interest in the constitutional kingdom of Sardinia, and desired to see its territories extended. But, although the Ministers of England were so completely bound up with France, he did not think her people were so; and he, therefore, hoped we should adopt a policy more consistent with our interests and the welfare of Europe.

contended that, as the happiest consequences had flowed from the withdrawal of the Austrian troops from the Romagna, so the withdrawal of the French troops from Rome would be likely to be followed by equally beneficial results. He did not, therefore, concur in the peculiar view of the question which the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken advocated, while he was of opinion that the correspondence which the learned Gentlemen had criticized was of a nature to reflect the highest credit upon the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Again the panegyric bestowed upon the temporal power of the Pope by the hon. and learned Member was utterly devoid of foundation. He did not blame the Holy Father individually, but the system on which his Government was based. It was his firm belief that if the principle of non-intervention were carried out and Central Italy were left to emancipate herself, the freedom of a land whose prosperity the nation at large had so much at heart would, notwithstanding all the complications by which her progress to independence was beset, ultimately be secured.

said, he would suggest that as the discussion had, in deference to the views of the Government, been carried on only within a certain limit, an early day, when the subject might be more fully entered into, should be fixed.

said, that he hoped that as the speeches which had been delivered that evening on the question before the House were calculated to produce a great effect on the country, the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would inform hon. Members whether he would lay the papers relating to the ques- tion on the table of the House at an early day, in order that the discussion might he resumed as soon as possible.

There have been certain observations made in the course of the present discussion, and certain questions raised, which I think require some explanation at my hands. I may in the first place state, in reply to my hon. Friend who has just spoken (Mr. Kinnaird), that the papers to which he refers are already in print, and will be produced within a day or two; and while upon this point I may remark that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks seems to think that I have shown reluctance to give information on this subject to the House. [Mr. DISRAELI: I said you refused to produce the papers.] Well, the truth is, that when a question was asked upon this point by the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion, I replied in accordance with what was the exact state of the facts as they existed at that time. Some days after that question was put to me a discussion with respect to the contemplated annexation of Savoy to France arose in the other House of Parliament, in which my noble Friend the President of the Council took part, and I placed in his hand despatches relating to the question, which I had received on the morning of the day on which the discussion came on, in order that he might be able to explain the position in which this question stood. The right hon. Gentleman will therefore at once perceive that I could not produce the papers for which he asked at the time at which he mentioned the subject in this House. I may say generally, with respect to the production of papers, that I think there are certain rules to which we ought to adhere. When in our correspondence with a Foreign Government we have stated the views of Her Majesty's Government it is not desirable to lay the despatch containing those views before the House, until the Foreign Government to which it is addressed has had time to receive and to return an answer to it, if it should deem it right to do so. I, it is true, addressed a despatch to Earl Cowley, to be submitted to M. Thouvenel, which has not been answered, but we have no difficulty in producing it, because it might have been answered before now if it had been deemed desirable to reply to it. I may now observe that I listened with great pleasure to the speeches of my hon. Friends who proposed and seconded the present Motion. I must at the same time say, with respect to that family compact to which one of my hon. Friends alluded, that we have no diplomatic information to the effect that such a treaty as he describes was entered into before the war broke out between France and Sardinia; and I believe both have repeatedly denied that any such treaty exists. That the question which is involved in this discussion has been and is still agitated I cannot deny; and I may perhaps now proceed to refer to some of the remarks which fell from the hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth(Sir R. Peel) with respect to it. He said very fairly, alluding to the condition of Chablais and Faucigny, that the Powers of Europe guaranteed the neutrality of those territories; that if they pass into the possession of France that guarantee will have been of no effect, and he expressed a hope that no such arrangement will be made. Now, I think if the subject were confined to that part of Savoy which borders on the Lake of Geneva, it would not be a matter of difficulty to obtain from France the cession of that territory to Switzerland. We did not however look to that object. What we wished was to preserve the whole of Savoy, and we did not discuss the particular question to which the hon. Baronet alluded, and on which, no doubt, Switzerland looks with intense anxiety. Another subject to which the hon. Baronet alluded was the four points to which Her Majesty's Government proposed for the settlement of the affairs of Italy. I beg the hon. Baronet to consider what was the state of affairs just immediately previous to the proposal of a Congress. The Austrian Government had declared that if a single Sardinian soldier should go into Central Italy they would at once march their troops to oppose them. On the other hand, the Emperor of France declared to the Austrian Ambassador at Paris, that the moment a single Austrian soldier crossed the Po, the French army would be marched to oppose them. Consider how critical, how dangerous to the peace of Europe, such a state of things must necessarily be. The remedy was to open the Congress. It was said this extremely critical and dangerous state of things cannot last much longer, because the Congress is about to meet, and will provide a remedy. But then it was agreed by France, in communication with Austria, that the Congress should be indefinitely postponed, and at the same time none of these declarations were withdrawn. There was the same danger, if occasion arose, that Sardinian troops might be marched by order of the King of Sardinia, of Austrian troops being marched to resist them, and of a French army being marched to resist the Austrians. Was it not natural for a Power anxious for the peace of Europe, that dreaded the renewal of the war, to make propositions which they thought might prevent the renewal of such a calamity? We did make those propositions. The first was, that neither France nor Austria should intervene in the settlement of the affairs of Central Italy without the consent of the other European Powers. We did not, it is true, obtain the assent of Austria to that proposition, but this we did obtain—a declaration, made both at Vienna and in London, that the Austrian Government wished no more to interfere in the affairs of Italy beyond their own frontier; that we might rely on it, although Austria would not give up claims she thought just, although she would not give up treaties which bound her to maintain the rights of certain Sovereigns, yet she had no wish or intention to maintain those treaties by force of arms. This alone we looked upon as a great gain and a great security for the maintenance of the peace of Europe. Then we went further in the fourth proposition, and said that if the States of Central Italy determined upon any form of government for themselves we should object to any attempt by force of arms to overthrow that Government, and if the Government they selected should be in favour of annexation to Sardinia, we should not object to that arrangement. This was in conformity with the whole principles we contended for from June to January—namely, that the Italian people themselves should decide with regard to their own government. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer), I am happy to see, has been able to speak his mind to-night. It must have been very painful to him, charged as he was with the whole sentiments of the Pope and the Cardinal, not to have been able to express his views before this time. We have now heard those opinions—we have now heard what the hon. Gentleman thinks of the "manifestations" of public opinion in Central Italy. He seems to think that those "manifestations" are not of much value. There are, no doubt, "manifestations" of no value, but there are also "manifestations" caused by bad government and which are apt to be symptoms of revolution. The hon. Gentleman has perhaps heard of a "manifestation" that took place once on Hounslow Heath. There was an adviser of the Sovereign in those days who was asked by the King what it meant. Such an adviser as the hon. Gentleman said it was nothing; it was only the soldiers shouting for the acquittal of the seven Bishops; but the King knew very well what that was; he knew very well what a "manifestation" meant, and he saw the danger which threatened his throne on that occasion. It is dangerous for Sovereigns to rely on such advisers as the hon. Gentleman, who seems to think that discontent is to be appeased and revolution prevented by merely telling Princes to go on with their Government exactly as it is. We have heard of Princes who had violated the fundamental compact under which they sat on the throne, and who withdrew from their dominions; and such appears to be the case of the Grand Duke of Tuscany—a case very similar to that which on one occasion happened in this country. Sir, with regard to this immediate question, I have one thing further to say. Whatever the more violent newspapers of France may say, although there has been a great deal of excited opinion in France in favour of the annexation of Savoy, I cannot but think that is a course which the Emperor in his wisdom will long hesitate before he finally determines to adopt it. I cannot but see—every one must see—that it would produce distrust for two reasons. The one is that such a policy would be in contradiction to the proclamation—that magnificent proclamation, I must call it, even at the risk of being accused of flattery—which the Emperor addressed to the Italian people of Milan; and the other reason it would create distrust is this—other encroachments of France have begun in small beginnings only on one side of the country, and yet have been afterwards carried by her armies to the territorial disturbance of Europe. I am afraid if Savoy be annexed to France, although there may be a meeting at Chambery in its favour, even although the Powers of Europe might give a reluctant assent, it would be the precursor of a long period of distrust and apprehension. I believe that it would not tend to the strength of France. A country such as France—inhabited by a race so warlike, and at the same time possessing within itself such vast resources—with such wealth, such union, does not depend for its security, its independence, or even its power, upon the question whether its frontier is advanced somewhat nearer to the top of the Alps, or somewhat nearer to the banks of the Rhine. It depends on its own resources, on the spirit of its people, upon the unconquerable spirit of independence which rules in that people, upon its warlike qualities, which from time to time have been called forth, and perhaps never more than last year excited the admiration of every nation in Europe. Such is the security of France. We have known what has happened to France in our days. In 1792, before she acquired Savoy, when her people was in a state of disunion and apparent anarchy, when she was attacked by a formidable league extending from Turin on the one side to Berlin on the other, she was able by her own innate strength and the careful military disposition of her forces to repel the invader and even to conquer the very territories from which she had been attacked. The tide of conquest which then began rolled on until at length her frontier extended from Hamburg on the north to Rome on the south. Was she then more secure? On the contrary, three years after her frontier had been so extended her enemies entered the capital of her dominions. It is, therefore, I say, not the right policy for France—it is not the secure policy for France, to attempt to extend her frontier. Her present ruler, without emulating those brilliant conquests which his uncle made, has, as is well known, established his throne by the sagacity and prudence of his character. Having watched that character—seeing the mistrust likely to be excited, seeing the apprehension and even the hostility that would arise if the Emperor persevered in this project, I cannot but hope that the project will be abandoned, to the general satisfaction of Europe.

brought up the Report of Committee on the Customs Acts.

said, he wished to ask when it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an expla- nation on the subject of the additional Article of the Treaty which had been laid upon the table that evening.

said, he would do so in Committee. He wished them to move, in accordance with the understanding come to on the previous evening, the Amendment of the Resolution adopted in Committee by substituting for the"31st March, 1861,"the words"31st December, 1860."There-solution had reference to the duties to be charged on wines, for a given time from the present in lieu of the duties and drawbacks of Customs now charged or allowed. As the Resolution originally stood it imposed the 3s. duty "until March, 1861, inclusive." First Resolution read 2°, and amended, by leaving out, in line 4,"March 1861,"and inserting "December 1860,"instead thereof; and by leaving out, in line 10,"March 1861,"and inserting "December 1860,"instead thereof.

said, that in rising to move the third Resolution, he wished, in the first instance, to make the explanation for which the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had very reasonably and properly called with respect to the nature of the additional Article laid on the table that day as an appendix to the Commercial Treaty with France. The object of that Article was very simple, and was fully explained in its recital. The Treaty proceeded on the principle that in cases where a commodity was liable to Excise duty in England, the same commodity, when imported from abroad, should be liable to a Customs' duty equal to the Excise duty chargeable upon it when produced at home, and likewise comprehending an allowance for any money charges that might be entailed on the home-producer by the operation of the Excise regulation. He would not then enter at length on an explanation of the point that arose, but would simply state the fact. Upon a strict investigation it appeared that the differential duty of 2d. established in our law between colonial and home manufactured spirits, which primâa facie constituted the proper allowance to be made to the British distiller on account of the cost to which he was put by the indirect operation of the Excise regulations, did not, however, amount to a full compensation for those regulations. It, therefore, became necessary to make some provision for putting the British distiller on a footing as nearly as possible of equality with the Foreign distiller, now that he was about to be subjected to a general, and perhaps a sharp competition. The state of the case was accordingly made known to the French Government, who met it in a spirit of the utmost liberality, agreeing with the greatest readiness that the general principle of the Treaty, which recognized compensation for Excise regulations as well as for Excise duty, should be applied to this particular case with greater accuracy than in the body of the Treaty as it stood. On that account the change had been made in the scale of duties upon spirits, which he should explain more specifically when they came to vote on the Resolution relating to that subject. The additional Article of the Treaty reciting the grounds of the proceeding, likewise recited that the duty on French brandies and other spirits should be raised to a point beyond that indicated in the body of the Treaty and of course, also, to the point indicated in the amended Resolution now on the table. He should then move the third of his amended Resolutions,— "That the duties of Customs chargeable upon the goods, wares, and merchandise, herein after mentioned, imported into Great Britain and Ireland, shall cease and determine, namely, 'Agates, or Cornelians, set."

said, that as far as the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer went, it was satisfactory, but he had hoped it would go a little further, and would have indicated a desire to do still more justice to the spirit trade.

said, he would remind the hon. Member that the question now before the Committee was upon the Resolution, which related to agates, cornelians, & c, and had nothing to do with the spirit duties.

said, that he wished to repeat his inquiry whether the article of the Treaty now before them was not ap- plicable to the admission of the produce of the whole world, as well as to the admission of that of France? On a former occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in answer to his question, informed the House that the article was applicable to the admission of French produce only, and not to the admission of the produce of all the world. However, he (Mr. Newdegate) had referred to competent authority on the subject, and had by that authority been assured that, as the Treaty stood, Her Majesty would remain under an obligation to the Emperor of the French to admit the commodities mentioned in its schedules free of duty, whether they were the produce of France or of any other part of the world, the Emperor of the French admitting in return only the produce of the United Kingdom, not including even the Colonies. Now, it appeared to him that that was an absurd position, for if it was the desire of the British Government to admit the produce of all parts of the world, why had they put themselves under an obligation to the Emperor of the French in order to do that which they might have done without his assistance? The Emperor of the French was not in a position to stipulate on the part of all the world; and if he assumed the right to do so it would be very wrong of Her Majesty's Government to admit any such right on his part. Indeed it was a manifest absurdity; and it appeared to him that the matter should be re-considered by both Governments. Supposing that Parliament consented to the provisions of the Treaty, what would be the position of the Emperor of the French! He might say to the other nations of the world—to the Zollverein, to Spain, or Austria—"Do not trouble yourselves to negotiate with England: she is bound by treaty obligations to me not in any case to exclude your produce for the next ten years, even if you exclude from your markets every article of her produce and manufactures." It was but Christian charity to suppose that that was an oversight on the part of the negotiators. For ten years, however, if the Treaty stood, England would not be able to obtain a release from her obligations; and, therefore, if that House was anything more than a mere record-office they would not accept such a stipulation.

said that the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that by the first words of the 5th Article of the Treaty Her Majesty had contracted an engagement with France to abolish the duty on the importation of certain articles, not only when they were imported from France, but also from any other country. In fact, to name one country by way of illustration, that Her Majesty would be bound to receive any of the articles mentioned in the Treaty on the terms therein specified, if they came from Japan. [An hon. MEMBER: Or from Austria.] The Government were advised that that was not the real effect and construction of the Treaty. In the answer which he had given to the hon. Gentleman on a former evening he had stated what they were advised would be its true effect and construction. It was undoubtedly true that in the fifth and other Articles it was not stipulated that the commodities, the duties upon which were to be abolished or reduced, should be the produce of the dominions of His Majesty the Emperor of the French; but the words were general, and it was a canon both of law and good sense that where general words were used they should be construed with reference to the declared scope and purpose of the instrument. That was in this case set forth in the preamble, where it was declared that the high contracting parties "are equally animated with the desire to draw closer the ties of friendship which unite their two peoples, and the wish to improve and extend the relations of commerce between their respective dominions;" and the doctrine upon which the Government had proceeded was, that this preamble indicating clearly the intention of the instrument—which was indeed plain in every line—it was not open to any one to hold a construction so exaggerated and unsupported as that of the hon. Gentleman. He admitted that his construction involved an absurdity, and it was another received doctrine that a construction which involved an absurdity should never be put upon any instrument unless it was required by the words of the instrument. In this case no such necessity arose. The words of the fifth Article must be read with the words of the preamble, which showed plainly that this Treaty referred exclusively to commerce between the respective dominions of the two high contracting parties, and left no room for the construction proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

said, he could assure the Committee that he had not brought this matter forward without having pre- viously consulted high legal authority on the construction of the whole Treaty, to ascertain not only the effect of the words to which he more particularly referred, but also to ascertain whether there were other words in any other part of the document which would be held to mitigate the absurdity of which he had spoken, and he was advised that there were not. He hoped the Attorney General would, by favouring the Committee with his opinion, be able to relieve him from the impression on his mind.

said, that he understood the difficulty arose this way. The 5th Article of the Treaty was, "Her Britannic Majesty engages to recommend to Parliament to enable Her to abolish the duties on the following articles." The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) thought this amounted to an engagement, not only with France, but with every nation in Europe. Were it not for the circumstance that a high legal authority had given an adverse opinion, he (the Attorney General) would not have found any difficulty in the clause. The Treaty was a contract between the two nations alone. France did not contract on behalf of all the nations in Europe, neither did Great Britain bind any other nation in Europe. It would be a great absurdity for France or for Great Britain to contract on behalf of the great Powers of Europe, without any engagement with them to do so. The result was that the Treaty as a contract could not bind any other Power in Europe; its obligations rested with the two Powers alone. The Treaty was between two parties—they were the domini—they could alone release, alter, or discharge, that contract. The key to the construction of the Treaty was plainly enough given in the preamble, in which the motive which animated the two high contracting parties was declared to be a desire to promote the mutual interests of the two countries and draw closer the ties of friendship between them.

said, he would submit that although the commerce of England with other nations than France was not affected by the Treaty, yet France had obtained by it the right of introducing into England the articles produced by those countries mentioned at fixed rates. The objection stated went only to this, that if we wished to obstruct the introduction of the manufactures of other countries, we could only do so directly, as indirectly such manufactures might be introduced into this country through France.

said, he did not think it at all likely that France would be the indirect means, for instance, of bringing Spanish wines into our markets to compete with her own. The French people would have good reason to laugh at so silly a discussion upon so great a subject, and he trusted they might be allowed to pass on to the discussion of matters of real importance.

said, he thought that this point was of too much importance to be treated so lightly as hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed disposed to treat it. He himself did not feel satisfied with the explanation of the Attorney General, and thought his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire had good reasons for objecting to the mode in which some of the articles were framed. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to have lost sight of the distinction between the 1st and 5th Clauses of the Treaty. His observation amounted to a condemnation of the language of the first Article; because, if all the subsequent Articles were limited by the preamble, the words "from the United Kingdom" in the engagement of the Emperor relative to the importation of goods must be surplusage. Where one found in two articles a marked difference of language it was natural to suppose a difference of meaning intended. He thought the Committee ought to have some more satisfactory explanation from the Government upon the point.

said, he thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Selwyn) for supplying him with an argument, which, in his answer to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, he had omitted. There were in this Treaty correlative engagements; and if there were any ambiguity in the expressions used the language of the one would supply the meaning of the other. It was clear the engagement in the fifth Article was a correlative engagement to that contained in the first. England contracted on behalf of her manufactures, and France on behalf of the productions; and the more formal and exact expression used in the one case helped the Committee to determine what was the nature of the correlative engagement in the other—the one being a consideration for the other. Again, there was no better rule of interpretation than this,—that where there was ambiguity in the words the rational interpretation should be adopted rather than the unnatural and absurd? And it would be absurd to say that we, in consequence of what France did in our behalf, should introduce articles to rival and compete with the articles admitted from France.

said, the Resolution before the Committee referred to "articles to be made free of duty (under treaty);"and the words of it were,

"That the duties of Customs chargeable upon the goods, wares, and merchandise hereinafter mentioned, imported into Great Britain and Ireland, shall cease and determine."

It did not say from France; and the inference might be that the productions not only of France but of any other part of the world were meant.

said, that discussions of this kind arose frequently from the fact that hon. Members did not attend to what passed before them. He had already stated that the words "articles to be made free of duty under treaty" were no part of the Resolution. They did not enter into the mouth of the Chairman of Ways and Means at all; he did not put them to the Committee; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had stated to the Committee more than once that these words were simply put over the Resolution for the convenience and information of hon. Members. They referred to articles to be made free of duty and also to articles under the Treaty; but they were not meant to bear any such construction as the hon. Member (Mr. Howes) had sought to give them.

said, there were certain silk manufactures carried on in Spain. Supposing a French merchant purchased in France goods that had been manufactured in Spain, he would be clearly entitled to export them to this country under the Treaty; but, supposing an English merchant bought Spanish manufactured goods in this country, be would not be at liberty to export them in France under the Treaty, because they were not articles of British manufacture.

said, that was a new point, and he should think, though he had not had an opportunity of consulting any authority upon it, that his hon. Friend was right—that, inasmuch as the importation of Spanish manufactures from France might be understood to be a matter pertaining to the commercial intercourse between the two countries, such importation, on a fair and liberal construction of the Treaty, might fairly come within its spirit. That might be so. On the other hand, it was quite clear that the rights of England with respect to exportation to France were limited, by express and perfectly intelligible words, to British productions and manfactures.

said, that the case put by the hon. Member for London would be impracticable, even if his construction of the Treaty were correct, because if Spanish goods passed through the French Custom-house before being sent here, they would have to pay the French Customs duties, as well as any duties levied here. In this way, for instance, Spanish wine would have to pay two duties.

said, the first Article of the Treaty only applied to articles of British production and manufacture imported "from the United Kingdom into France." According to the interpretation put upon the Treaty by the hon. and learned Attorney General that Article was correlative to the fifth, and he, therefore, wished to know whether the words of the latter Article were to receive the same interpretation as if the words "from France into the United Kingdom" had been inserted in it; so that as Australian produce were excepted from the importation of British goods into France, Algerian productions would similarly be excepted from the imports into England?

said, he thought, from comparing Article 5 with Article 1, that Her Majesty had clearly contracted with the Emperor of the French to admit the produce of all the world. Article 6 made the case still stronger. He believed the difficulty arose from careless wording, and a too slavish adherence to the terms of the letter of the noble Lord the Secretary of State. The Attorney General's only argument was that it could not have been intended to bear the construction which he (Mr. Newdegate) had put upon it. There was no doubt of that, but if Parliament sanctioned it the result would be as he had stated.

said, he could not suppose that the Emperor of the French had intended to enter into a contract by which he should open the floodgates for the commerce of all nations. Such a construction was inconsistent with the expressed objects of the Treaty. He wished for information upon one point. It appeared that Spanish goods could not go from England into France, but they could be imported from France into England. He would refer to Articles 7 and 8, which contained the same extended views with regard to France and more restricted with respect to England.

said, that he based his interpretation not upon an hypothesis as to intention, but upon the intention as it could be collected from the words of the instrument. Supposing the case which was present to the mind of one hon. Member, that the Emperor of Japan were to send a ship freighted with manufactures and products of Japan to England, and we were to decline to admit it upon the terms of the Treaty, the Emperor of the French would have a ground of complaint of infraction of the Treaty and a casus belli. ["No!"] That really was so monstrous a proposition that it did not need contradiction. The nature of the Treaty was a larger contract on the part of France than on the part of England in this particular. All things coming from France were to be imported into this country provided they came within the description contained in Article 5. That was a concession made for the benefit of French colonies. Any production which had found its way into France might be imported in French bottoms into this country. On the other hand, the articles to be imported into France were articles of British produce or British manufacture, our system being much more liberal than theirs. The benefit of the Treaty, however, ensured to France alone, who would have no right to ask for its extension to other nations,

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not answered the question. What he wished to know was whether the produce of the French colonies was to be admitted direct from the colonies into this country; and, if so, whether the produce of British colonies would be admitted into France?

observed that the case put by the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had not been fairly dealt with by the Attorney General. The case was rather, supposing a French subject with a French vessel had bought a cargo of goods in Japan, would he be entitled to the benefit of this clause?

, in reply to the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. S. FitzGerald), said, that, if the assumption was correct that the first Article did not extend to British colonial productions, then by the same rule Article 5 would not extend to French colonial productions. He must not, however, be considered as subscribing to that interpretation.

The property of French colonists coining direct from a French colony?

repeated that every production coming from France itself would be entitled to admission into this country provided it came in under the description in the Article. With respect to the case of French colonial productions coming direct to the United Kingdom from the colony, if the right hon. Gentleman's construction was correct, they could not enter. But having regard to the preamble of the Treaty, his (the Attorney General's) construction was, British colonial productions, being a production of part of the British dominions, would be admissible into France direct from the colony, and the same rule would apply, of course, to French colonial productions, because the contract was, that the relations of commerce should be extended between the respective dominions of Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French, and that term must include the colonies of each. As to the case put by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), he would say that if a French ship went to Japan, and there took in a cargo of Japanese commodities, and imported them direct to London, she could not be said to come from any port of the French dominions, and, therefore, was not entitled to the privileges of the Treaty.

said, he would admit that it was not enough in the case he had put that the goods should be imported in a French ship; but suppose they were also imported by French subjects.

said, there was nothing in the Treaty about French ships or French subjects; the reference was to the dominions and the produce of the two countries. As far as he understood the discussion, there was a disposition to complain that the terms set up in behalf of France were in a certain respect wider than those established on the part of this country, and that this constituted a grave defect in the Treaty. The history of this matter was this:—The intention in the first instance had been to provide for the produce of England and France, irrespective of any question about goods imported from the two countries. As far as he could remember, he believed that the enlargement of the terms on the side of France must have been assented to by the English negotiators at Paris with- out express reference to the Government at home. He did not hesitate to say, however, that if that were so, the Government were perfectly prepared, as a matter of principle, to stand by the terms of the Treaty us it stood, because they did not instruct the negotiators to introduce into it any limitations whatever, except those which were necessary either to secure equality for our own producers or which were required by the exigencies of our revenue. That was a question of principle, and the Government would have thought it wrong to take their stand upon any other limitations, or to refuse to France any commercial privilege except such as they were compelled to decline from one of those two considerations. But this was hardly a point for discussion now. It entered into the whole spirit of the Treaty; it constituted the essential difference between this and other abortive treaties made with different countries in former days; and at the proper time the Government would be prepared to defend the arrangement in this point of view. For the present, he hoped the Committee would proceed with the business more immediately before them.

said, the question was not one of principle. An opinion had been given by the Attorney General as to the interpretation of the Treaty, and he wished to know whether, under the 5th Article, it would be competent for French subjects to introduce the products of French colonies into the United Kingdom direct from those colonies when, in the correlative clause, no such privilege was given to English subjects.

said, he found the question was expressly answered by the 18th Article, in which the Emperor of the French contracted, on behalf of one of the colonies of France, that its products should be imported into the United Kingdom direct from that colony. According, therefore, to the well-known maxim ex-pressio unius est exclusio alterius, although French colonial products might be imported from France into this country, and British colonial products might be imported from the United Kingdom into France, the only exception in favour of direct importation from a French colony was in the case of Algeria, while direct importation from a British colony into France was prohibited.

observed that under the 13th Article the ad valorem duties were to be converted into specific duties, the medium prices during the six months preceding the date of the Treaty being taken as the bases for such conversion. He wished to ask whether it had not been discovered in Manchester that, prices in the last six months having ruled some 50 per cent higher than on an average of 10 years before, the specific duty would be not 30, but 45 per cent; and whether a deputation had not represented this unexpected result to the right hon. Gentleman.

said, the hon. Gentleman was a good deal in advance of him in his knowledge of what was going on at Manchester. He had not heard, and certainly be had great difficulty in believing, that prices had ruled so high there within the last six months as to have advanced 50 per cent on the average of the last ten years. No such deputation had waited upon him, and no representation had been made to him on the subject. It should be remembered that this commutation of the ad valorem duties applied to French as well as to English commodities, and the Government had great reason to be satisfied, and more than satisfied, with the fairness of the arrangement made as to the general provisions of the Treaty. No rated duty could be fixed on these articles without the consent of both Governments, and, of course, it would be the duty of the British Government to see that no rated duty should be imposed higher than the duties prescribed by the Treaty.

remarked, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Blackburn) must have a very exaggerated idea of the prosperity of Manchester if he supposed that during the last six months the price of goods had risen 50 per cent. Certainly, the Manchester manufacturers were prosperous, but not to that extent. At the same time, any conversion of ad valorem into specific duties, on the bases of prices within the last six months, would establish a very erroneous duty, because there had undoubtedly, during our time, been a considerable advance in prices. He had an objection to Article 13, relative to charges on operations in warehouses as it was his belief that it would operate most injuriously, and in fact it would be almost impossible to carry it out.

observed, that after all he was not so very far wrong in the observation he had made; for it appeared, from the statement of the hon. Member for Manchester, that the average price there, during the last six months, had been over the average price of the last ten years; and he could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that some gentlemen had come up from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce to have an interview with the right hon. Gentleman.

said, that with reference to the 18th Article of the Treaty, which specified that the arrangements of the Treaty were applicable to Algeria, both for the exportation of her produce and the importation of British goods, he wished to ask whether the same advantage was to be given to any of the British Colonies as was there given to Algeria?

said, that whereas we stipulated for the productions of the United Kingdom generally, France stipulated for those of France, and also, by a separate Article, for those of Algeria also. To that extent Algeria was a favoured colony.

said, it would appear that the Government did not originally contemplate any favour being shown to any of the colonies of France, but the negotiators having shown a favour to Algeria the Government did not think it [worth while to demand any corresponding favour for the Colonies of Her Majesty.

said, that the noble Lord was entirely mistaken. The Government gave their entire approval to the 18th Article, because France was in a position to deal for Algeria, but England could not deal for her Colonies in the same manner. The great colony of Canada, for instance, had lately been raising her duties on manufactured goods, to the great dissatisfaction of many persons in England, who considered the duties established as protective duties against British manufactures. How would it have been possible, then, for the British Government to stipulate that certain French articles should be admitted free of duty into Canada? The exclusion of the British Colonies from the Treaty was a practical testimony to the liberty they enjoyed.

said, he understood then that England had no power to grant privileges to her own Colonies. The privileges of a colony were not to be considered, because they could not deal on behalf of a colony.

asked whether, if a cargo of goods were shipped from Ceylon to Britain, and thence to France, they would come under the same regulations as the produce of England itself?

said, he must answer that question with some hesitation and reserve, as the question was not approached by the Treaty.

said, that admission proved that the words in Article 1, respecting "British manufactures imported from the United Kingdom into France" did not include the produce of the British Colonies.

asked whether Her Majesty's Government contemplated making a supplemental treaty with respect to the British Colonies?

replied, that was a matter to be decided by the Colonies themselves. At present it was the intention of the Government to go through with what they had in hand before entering on any other question.

said, he believed that the Treaty was a Gordian knot, which could only be unravelled in one way, and the result, sooner or later, must be an appeal to the sword. The apparently unimportant article now under consideration really raised an important question. The question of apples was one of considerable importance. The whole race of Freetraders—as well the original and consistent Free-traders, like the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), as the recent converts of the doctrine, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer—had lately taken the line of ignoring the existence of the rural districts altogether in their financial arrangements. It was well that the attention of the inhabitants of the rural districts should be called to this, for unless, like other interests, they combined together for their own protection, they might very soon find the best part of the burden of taxation shifted to their shoulders. Apples, and other articles of that sort cultivated. were mainly produced by men who had but small patches of land—two or three acres—and who had little other produce on which to depend for their subsistence, and he could not understand on what principle the right hon. Gentleman now voluntarily proposed—for he had not heard of any meetings of the apple-growers or the apple consumers to petition for a reduction—to submit them to a competition with the foreign producer.

said, he had expected a dissertation upon Norfolk biffins from the hon. Gentleman, but he was surprised at his observations on the Treaty. The hon. Gentleman, however, might depend upon it that, if any differences should arise between the two great nations, parties to this Treaty, which could not be settled except by the sword, the hands of the country would be strengthened, not weakened, by the Treaty.

said, he was the Member of a Commission which had discussed the question of removing the duty on apples, and it was then shown that it would be largely for the benefit of the poor. The foreign apples came in at a time when the English were out, and therefore the home-grower would feel but little injury.

• "Apples, of and from British Possessions,
• Arms as denominated in the Tariff.
• Brass, manufactures of.
• Brocade of Gold.
• ———of Silver
• Bronze, manufactures of, or of metal bronzed or lacquered.
• Canes, Walking Canes or Sticks, mounted, painted, or otherwise ornamented.
• ———Umbrella and Parasol Sticks.
• Caoutchouc, manufactures of.
• Cherries, raw.
• China or Porcelain Ware, Plain, Painted, Gilt, and Ornamented."

said, the mode of levying ad valorem duties on these articles had been a subject of great alarm among his constituents in Staffordshire. He, therefore, wished to ask whether the ad valorem duties which, under the provisions of Article 13, were to be converted into specific duties, would be calculated upon a medium price taken upon an average of different articles, or upon a medium price taken upon each specific article, inasmuch as plates differed from each other in cost, according to their style of manufacture, almost as much as pictures.

said, the hon. Member's question was certainly of great importance, and he would give what explanation he could, but that explanation must be founded upon the language of the Treaty, and upon that only; and, therefore, upon evidence which was as much before the hon. Gentleman as before himself. It might be that, upon a rigid examination of the Treaty, parts would be found requiring explanation; but the Supplementary Convention referred to in Article 13, would not touch any points in which there was likely to be a conflict of opinions or interests. It was emphatically declared in the Treaty that in no case was the duty on the great bulk of British manufactures to exceed 30 per cent ad valorem. It was proposed by Article 13 that the ad valorem duties should be converted into specific duties by a Supplementary Convention, but if those specific duties were not settled, that ad valorem duties should continue to be levied. Where they were agreed upon the fairness of the rated duty it would be passed; and if not, they had the remedy of retaining the ad valorem duty. In dealing with the question of rated duties it would be the duty of the English negotiator to satisfy himself that in no one article would the duty imposed exceed the value, and if it amounted to 30 per cent of the rated value, it would be the duty of the English negotiator to refuse it. Everything that had taken place was calculated to show that nothing could be fairer or more straightforward than the views and intentions of the French Government with reference to these duties; and he entertained a very strong impression that there would be but very little difference on the subject between them when the Treaty came to be carried into execution.

said, he wished to call attention to the great difference that existed between the English and French china and porcelain with reference to quality. The French had as many as seven descriptions, while we recognized only three—namely, coarse ware, common china, and porcelain. It was desirable that in any Supplementary Convention these distinctions should be clearly ascertained. If the French Government were disposed to meet the tiling in a fair spirit, they would adopt the American system; let the English manufacturer put his price on the commodity, with his invoice certified by the Consul, and take it on the 5 per cent principle. It should also be recollected that the manufacturers in the interior of England had large imposts in the way of inland carriage, and that France imported some 15,000 tons of clay, and a corresponding quantity of stone from this country for her manufactories on the coast of France.

said, he rose to propose that the article of cork should be omitted from the Resolutions. He did so in the interest of the cork-cutters of England, who were a small but an important branch of the skilled industry of the country. Those hon. Gentlemen who deprecated interference with the Treaty on the ground that it might give offence to France need be under no alarm in the present instance, as there was nothing in his Amendment which could interfere with the interests of that country. France could not produce sufficient cork-wood for her own consumption, and therefore why it should have been introduced into the Treaty he did not know. In 1842 he had advocated the cause of the cork-cutters in this country, whoso interests were nearly destroyed by the reduction of duty at that time. There was this peculiarity in their case, that they relied entirely on the material which came from Spain and part of Portugal. The people of Catalonia, where the best corks were produced, from the moment the duty was abolished, had petitioned their Government not to allow the exportation of the raw material, and the Government consented to their request. The supply, which was not of equally good quality, was then derived from Andalusia and Portugal; but it was well known that since the present Treaty had been published the people of Andalusia in like manner were about to petition against the exportation of the raw material. If the Spanish Government consented to that petition, no raw material could come in here, and these men would be ruined. But if the English Government would secure them a supply of the raw material from Spain, they were ready to compete with any part of the world. Under the new tariff Spanish wines could be imported at the lowest duty. The least they could expect, then, from Spain was that its Government would allow this raw material to be exported. In addition to the duty, a penny was to be levied on every package; this would fall very unequally on the raw and manufactured article. By the duty and the tax together the raw material would be taxed 8s. 4d. per cent, and the manufactured article only 6½d. per cent. The trade could not stand against that. As he had said, they did not object to free trade, provided they could obtain a supply of the raw material; but unless that could be done they would be ruined as well as many other industries, such as floor-cloth, shoe-sole makers, life boats, and other interests, into whose operations the cork manufacture entered. He should move that the words "Corks ready made and squared for rounding" be struck out of the Resolution.

said, he believed there were some parties interested in maintaining the duty on the partially manufactured article. If that were not the case, he had no objection to removing at once the duty on corks squared for rounding. But that might be discussed hereafter. As to the penny package duty, he was not aware that all cork was imported in bales; but the penny would be a very simple matter of adjustment. The Government did not intend to levy a penny on all packages quite irrespective of value. As far as any restraints existed on the exportation of the raw material from foreign countries the Government would use every exertion to obtain the removal of restrictions; and he thought that the concession from Spain, in consideration of other concessions contained in the Treaty, might in fairness be asked and expected. This was not the first time they had heard of the cork trade in debate. There was no article which, in the legislation of 1842, had excited so great a degree of attention as that of cork wood, and he was quite ready to admit that the waste as between the raw material and the finished article was, perhaps, greater in the case of cork than in that of almost any other commodity. But if those circumstances afforded a sufficient reason why the trade, of whose interests his hon. Friend was the advocate, should be protected, he could only say that we must be prepared to adopt as a permanent rule the principle of Protection. But how, let him ask, stood the facts of the case? Why, the particular trade in question had been greatly enlarged since the principles of free trade had begun to be partially applied. In the years 1841-2-3 we had imported on an average into this country 2,606 tons of cork wood; in 1856-7-8, 5,114 tons, or nearly double that amount; and in 1858, 6,579 tons, or little short of the amount which had been imported when a monopoly existed. Nay more, an increased export trade in corks had since then been established, for whereas in 1841 we had exported only 92 barrels of British-made corks, we had in 1857-8 exported nearly double that amount—or 1G3 barrels. His hon. Friend, however, contended that the question was one in which France had no interest; but the fact was that France supplied us with three-fourth of the total quantity of cork imported, while Spain and Portugal between them supplied us with only one-seventh. Catalonia, he might add, was not the only country on which we depended for our supply of cork wood; it was grown in France, in the southern provinces of Spain, and in Morocco, in which countries, as far as he was aware, no restraint upon the exportation of the article existed. It would therefore, he thought, under all the circumstances of the case, be most unjust to levy a duty upon the importation of cork from France, who threw no difficulty whatever in the way of the export of the raw material, because it so happened that Spain, in respect to one of her provinces, had prohibited its exportation. Under these circumstances he could not assent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. All that he could do for the meritorious persons whose cause his hon. Friend had advocated was to follow the precedent which had been set in cases where the immediate repeal of a duty would too sharply affect a particular duty—that was, postpone the operation of the law for a certain time, which in this case he could not fix at a later date than the 1st of April, 1862.

said, he was glad to perceive that the hon. Member for Finsbury had at last found out that free imports did not, in all cases, mean free trade. He regretted, however, that the hon. Gentleman entertaining the views which he had just submitted to the Committee, should have deemed it to be his duty to vote a few evenings before in favour of the general scheme of the Government. But be that as it might, he (Lord J. Manners) had no hesitation in following the example of so venerable an authority on the subject of free trade as the hon. Member in voting for the retention of so innocuous a duty as that to which this Motion related, bringing in as it did some £7,000 or £8,000 a year to the Exchequer, and which had not been made the subject of complaint from any quarter.

said, he hoped the Committee would consider the question in a spirit of fairness, and without any desire on the part of hon. Members to twit one another with their departure from the principle of free trade. Some time ago he had felt it his duty to deal with the question before the Committee; and the consequence was that a deputation of cork-cutters had waited upon him for the purpose of stating to him their views of the proposed abolition of the duty. He could add that they had discussed the subject with great fairness and intelligence. The fact was that they did not object to free trade; they only asked for free trade. They were ready to compete upon equal terms with the foreign manufacturer; but those terms, they contended, would be denied to them if corks were allowed to be freely imported into this country while the raw material of which they were made was not allowed to be exported from the district in which it was grown in the greatest perfection. That was not free trade, it was protection to the foreigner. The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been an increase in the trade since the reduction of the duty in 1842; but he (Sir F. Baring) would explain to the Committee what it was that had really taken place. In 1842 there was a considerable reduction of the duty upon manufactured corks. Immediately afterwards the Spanish Government prohibited the exportation of the cork wood from Catalonia, where the best material was grown. The result was that the manufacture of best corks in England had ceased. It was true that the manufacture had since that time largely increased in this country, but it was confined to the production of the coarser descriptions of the article. Spain still allowed the coarser material to be exported, and the cork-cutters here, by their industry, had been able to keep up and increase their trade. But he would ask was the present proposal fair—was it common justice to our own people? Was it fair that the manufacturer abroad should have a monopoly of the best kinds of the raw material, and that he should then be allowed to import the manufactured article into the English market free of every duty? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that they might feel assured the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would use his best exertions to get rid of the prohibition of the export of cork wood from Catalonia. He (Sir F. Baring) supposed that some exertions were used when the prohibitory duty was imposed, but, so far from their having any effect, he believed the Spanish manufacturers were pressing upon the Spanish Government to extend the prohibition to the coarser material. If that were done the unfortunate cork-cutters would be in the old Scriptural position of having to make bricks without straw. They did not wish to interfere with any country from which the raw material was freely exported. [The CHAN-CELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Hear, hear!] If the right hon. Gentleman would only take off the duty on manufactured corks, the produce and manufacture of the countries where there was no prohibition of the raw material, that would meet the case. He hoped that some consideration would be shown to persons who, in common justice and fairness, were entitled to it.

said, it appeared to him the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had put the case in so clear a manner that it did away with the necessity of arguing the subject in any other light. He might mention, however, that he had received many communications from various parts of the country, representing the great hardship which was about to be inflicted on these poor people. The whole Treaty was a system of protection to the foreigner and of free trade for the Englishman, and it applied most grievously to the cork-cutters. They could not rely on the noble Lord's (Lord J. Russell's) influence with the Court of Spain, seeing that he had been led to believe that the Spanish Government would not permanently occupy any portion of the territory of Morocco, which it now appeared would be done. He wished to hear, before the division which he hoped would take place, some reason, other than a blind adherence to a vicious principle, why they should reduce to absolute starvation some thousands of their fellow subjects, including great numbers of women and children.

said, that he had presented a petition from Dublin signed by persons engaged in the cork trade, in which they stated that if this provision of the Budget were carried out their trade would be abolished. In consequence of the tariff of 1842, the manufacture of the finer article had totally ceased, and it was only in consequence of the reduction of the duty on glass, causing a larger quantity of corks to be used, that the cork-cutters had been able to maintain their trade.

said, the proposal they were going to vote upon was whether they should put a high duty on manufactured cork coming, not from Catalonia, but from where it might. Again, he could not sec that if the duty were kept on manufactured corks from Catalonia, it would not afford that benefit to the cork manufacturers which the hon. Member for Finsbury was anxious to afford.

said, that with permission he would withdraw the Amendment as it now stood, striking out "cork" in the third Resolution, and propose instead the addition of these words after 1862—"the produce of countries from which the export of cork wood is free."

said, he believed that this would so alter the issue that it would require some consideration how it should be met. They were about to give a great encouragement to the manufacture of corks by increasing the consumption of wine. He should like to know how the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury would be reconcilable with our obligations under the favoured nation's clause. He did not know whether we had such a clause in our treaties with Spain. The fact was simply this: the manufacturers of cork in this country wanted to have a protecting duty of 33 per cent, and nothing less than that would satisfy them.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) had just adduced the strongest argument in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe). If the cork trade was about to be extended by the increase of the consumption of wine, that was a reason why they should try to procure a full supply of the raw material. With the greatest pleasure he would support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman for that reason. He had presented a petition from persons engaged in this trade, and their statement was that they were now obliged to confine themselves entirely to the manufacture of the rougher description of cork, Spain having shut them out from the finer descriptions, and now the Government were proposing to admit the finer material in a manufactured state, which would altogether exclude the British cork-cutters from competition. It was of no use to say that the Foreign Minister would remonstrate and negotiate with Spain. The Government had had the same means of obtaining con- cessions from Spain as from Franco, but they had never asked for them; and it was idle now to talk of such negotiations after the steps the Government had taken, and which had given Spain everything she could desire. The time for remonstrance with Spain was passed, and therefore he with the more pleasure supported the Amendment. Indeed, the most effectual remonstrance with Spain would be the adoption of this Amendment, by which she would be excluded from participation in the benefits of this remission, unless she consented to the free export of the raw material.

said, he would support the claim made by the British cork trade.

said, that in his opinion the reasons of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade were frivolous. He (Sir J. Fergusson) had received strong remonstrances from constituents of his own, complaining of the proposal of the Government. He hoped the hon. Member for Finsbury would not shrink from going to a division in which he should receive his most cordial support. The Government would justly incur odium if they resisted the fair demands of a deserving and industrious class.

said, he wanted to know was the export trade from abroad free? ["No, no!"] It was free from Andalusia, and other parts of Spain. He did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury could insist on his proposition, seeing the changes that were taking place. He was opposed to introducing a monopoly in their tariff for the sake of one trade. By so doing they would necessitate certificates of origin, and thus introduce into the Customhouse arrangements the very complication they were so anxious to avoid.

said, he did not understand that it was the desire of either the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), or the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), to prevent the Government from fulfilling the Treaty with France as it affected corks; and he was not able to say that the Amendment as it stood would satisfy the conditions of that Treaty. He was not aware of any restriction upon the export of corks from France, and understood it was practically free, but there might possibly be some nominal duty, which would render the Amendment, if carried, an obstacle to the fulfilment of he Treaty. The Resolution before the Committee went further because, acting on the general principle which they believed to be sound, they had not stopped at their engagement as it stood in the Treaty, but they had proposed that universally the import duty should be free irrespective of their engagement with France. Our manufacturers complained that in certain cases there was a prohibition on the export of cork wood to this country. The question whether we ought to take notice of the law of other countries in fixing the regulations of our own tariff was a question of the deepest and most vital importance, and he hoped the Committee would come to no hasty conclusion upon it, and that they would not come to a conclusion with reference to the article of cork without having considered where the principle was to lead them, because, as he understood it, the proposition was that they must inquire into the legislation of every foreign country, and unless they were satisfied with the terms of the legislation, they were not to give that nation the benefit of introducing the article. That was the doctrine at issue. It was a question, however, of such range, entering so largely, not only into the propositions of the Government, but into the whole of the proceedings of the British Parliament for the last eighteen years, that it was essentially necessary the House should have a full opportunity of considering its effects, both as a principle of commercial legislation, and also with regard to the present state of our international engagements. He did not think it was a question that could be fairly raised on the present occasion for the simple reason that nothing could be more inconvenient than that the question of the fulfilment of the French Treaty should be mixed up with the question of the importation of corks from Spain, in one quarter of which the exportation of the raw material was prohibited. Were the House, on a question of this kind, to prevent the Government from fulfilling their engagements with France? He had not objected, as he might have done, to the hon. Member for Finsbury, substituting a second Amendment for his first. Under these circumstances he hoped the hon. Gentleman would permit him to alter his original Motion so as to present to the Committee neither more nor less than was sufficient to fulfil our engagements with France. The Resolution would then be to this effect—That on and after the 31st March, 1862, cork ready made, and squared for rounding, the produce or manufacture of, or imported from, France or Algeria, should be admitted. It would be competent to the hon. Gentleman to move an Amendment on that. With regard to the time of making the second, and more general proposition, that cork should be admitted free of duty after the 31st of March, 1862, it would probably be more convenient to postpone it till another evening. At the same time, if his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, wished it, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not scruple to make the general proposition immediately; but, in the first place, he would propose that Resolution, which would enable them to carry out their engagements to Frauce.

said, he must decline to withdraw his Amendment.

You do not withdraw it?

No.

I cannot suppose my hon. Friend understands the case. He found occasion to alter his Amendment. It was in my power to prevent it, but I made no objection whatever. I now propose, not for any purpose of convenience to myself, but for the general convenience, to separate the question of the importation from France under the Treaty and the general question, including the importation from Spain, and request permission to alter the original Resolution.

The right hon. Gentleman says he might have prevented me from altering my Amendment. Why, then, did he not take a vote of the House upon it immediately?

I speak to order. The hon. Gentleman has said that I could not have prevented him from altering his Amendment without a vote of the House upon it. Will you, Mr. Massey, state what is the rule of the House upon the point of order?

I did not understand the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury to propose any Amendment. I understood it was his intention to meet the Resolution by a negative when it was put from the Chair. The hon. Gentleman subsequently desired to modify that intention by an Amendment which I put from the Chair. That Amendment is now before the House.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had raised an important constitutional question. Were the Committee at liberty to make alterations and amendments in the tariff; and, if, so, were those alterations fatal to the Treaty? He had asked the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago whether the House of Commons was to have the power of altering the Treaty, but could get no answer to his question. He repeated the question a day or two afterwards in another shape, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to answer it, because, he said, if he did he could not reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), although that was incorrect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now asked whether the Committee were about to prevent the Government from fulfilling the conditions of the Treaty? It therefore came to this, that all these discussions were perfectly useless. The people of England had now been told by the Chanceller of the Exchequer that the Resolutions and decisions of the British Parliament must be subservient to the French Treaty. Now, he maintained that the French Treaty should and ought to be subservient to the British Parliament, and with that view he had moved his Amendment. He said they were about to do an injury to industrious traders by taking off the protective duty, without giving them the raw material by which they carried on their trade. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told the Committee the prohibition of the exportation of cork wood was the work of Catalonia; but who was responsible for that prohibition? The Government of Spain, and it was that Government he wanted to bring to book. Persuasion, they had been told, would be tried by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but he had more confidence in a vote of that House than in the persuasion of the noble Lord. If the House agreed to his Amendment, France, which had no corks to send us, would induce Spain to let England have the raw material.

said, he wished to remind the House that the course proposed to be taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that which he last week in solemn terms told them could not be followed. When it was proposed to consider the Treaty before the reductions of duty, the right hon. Gentleman said that if the House went into Committee on the Treaty, and considered the reduction stipulations in the Treaty, they would be considering the reduction on French produce only, whereas by considering the Budget first, the Government would be proposing to reduce the duty upon the produce of every country whatever. Yet now, having got the House into Committee on Customs Acts, the right hon. Gentleman changed his field of battle, and asked the Committee to consider the duty on French produce alone, whereby to-morrow morning they might find French corks bearing a different duty from the corks of other countries.

said, that the course of which the hon. and learned Gentleman complained commended its own reasonableness. The Government had made certain arrangements with France, and they had now to consider how to ratify those engagements. The Government thought they were paying the greatest respect to the House by assuming that if those engagements were to be ratified it would be in the shape which the House had for years adopted—namely, by recognizing no distinction between produce of the same kind in reference to the country from which it came. They were now met, however, by an objection which raised a peculiar assumption, not known to the legislation of the House of late years—that it was the duty of the House to take cognizance of the state of the law of other countries when it fixed the duties to be levied upon our own produce. As that doctrine had no reference to the Treaty with France, he had asked the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Duncombe) to allow him to separate those two questions. Let the House first consider the Motion which submitted the engagement with France, and after that let the hon. Gentleman raise another Motion upon which he might raise the proposition he wished to enforce with reference to Spain. The hon. Gentleman refused him the courtesy of withdrawing his Amendment, as he hoped, under a misapprehension. He proposed now to make the same proposal, but to divide it into two parts, so as to separate that which belonged to the Treaty from that which belonged to general legislation. If, however, the hon. Gentleman would not permit him to amend the Resolution for the convenience of the Committee, he had no alternative but to divide against the hon. Gentleman. If, after the statement he had made, and the willingness he had expressed to give the fairest play and the fullest opportunity of raising the question, the hon. Gentleman persisted in dividing the House, he trusted that he should be supported by the Committee on a division, whatever the opinion of the Committee might he upon the question which the hon. Gentleman wished to raise.

expressed his opinion that there had been a good deal of dust thrown upon the cork question during the discussion; but he (Mr. Crossley) said that it simply resolved itself into the question of protection or no protection—protection meaning a favour shown to one man by the robbery of some one else. They had to deal with cork makers and cork users. Which was the more numerous class? Why should the less numerous be protected at the cost of the more numerous class? The Protectionists thought they were strong in the House that night, and therefore were making an effort to protect the makers of corks by causing the users of them to pay a larger price than they were worth in the market of the world.

said, he did not think that the question was one of protection or no protection. If it were, he confessed he should prefer following the hon. Member for Finsbury as a Free-trader rather than the hon. Member who spoke last or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, He thought the hon. Member for Finsbury was quite as old, as consistent, and as good a Free-trader as any other Member of that House. The point at issue was, whether, when we admitted the manufactured article from abroad, we should also extend that privilege to those who prohibited the exportation of the raw material. No doubt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals were perfectly intelligible. Their only fault was that they were wholly contradictory. The right hon. Gentleman now wished to take the Resolution with especial reference to the French Treaty. Only half an hour before, when a similar question was raised by the hon. Member for Warwickshire, the right hon. Gentleman said the Treaty was not before the Committee.

said, he thought that the hon. Member for Finsbury would best serve the cause of the cork-'cutters by acceding to the offer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should vote against the admission of corks from Spain while she prohibited the exportation of the raw material, but he could not vote against the admission of corks from France, which made no such prohibition.

said, his opinion coincided with that of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clay) and he should follow the same course.

said, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposed to allow a French subject, in a French ship, to bring manufactured corks from Spain into England? If that was the proposal it would defeat the object of the hon. Member for Finsbury, but if it was proposed to prevent the bringing in of corks from Spain, directly or indirectly, upon the same terms as with France, he apprehended that the objection of the hon. Member would be met.

inquired whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring forward the general question with respect to Spain immediately after the other points had been disposed, because, if so, he would earnestly appeal to the hon. Member for Finsbury to withdraw his Motion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it would not be more convenient to adopt at once some terms which would apply to the Resolutions generally the rule he now proposed to apply to the article of cork. If he did distinctly limit the privilege of free importation to the produce of France and French possessions the same difficulty would arise with regard to every article.

said, he had three questions to answer. With regard to that put by the hon. Member who had last spoken, he had not the least hesitation to state that if at any time a practical inconvenience arose which would involve a difference of principle between the trade with France and the trade with other countries there would be no objection on the part of the Government to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate); but in the absence of any positive ground for such a course he should not depart from the usual proceeding. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets asked whether the Government would limit the legislation under the Treaty to cork the produce of Franco. He replied in the negative. Our legislation disclaimed these minute inquiries into the origin of goods which even when we had highly protective duties were exceedingly difficult and fertile of fraud, and which, now that we had an open system, it would be impossible to reintroduce. Touching at a port of France was not importation from France, the importation must be bona fide. To the third question, he would say that he had already given a positive pledge to go on with the general question immediately; but if hon. Members looked to the clock, he thought this would not be a convenient course tonight. But if it were the general wish of the Committee, he would concede his own opinion and do so. He certainly did not think it would be a convenient course to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Finsbury. At the same time he admitted that it was highly desirable that hon. Gentlemen should have an opportunity of considering a proposal so novel; and therefore he distinctly promised to offer no obstacle to its discussion after that portion of the Resolution that bore upon the Treaty was disposed of.

What will be your proposal?

I propose to add at the end of the Resolution these words, "The produce or manufacture of or imported from France or Algeria." And then, subsequently, "Cork and cork woods without restriction."

said, he wished to point out that the words "produce or manufacture" might meet the view of the hon. Member for Finsbury, but that the use of the phrase "or imported from" would still admit Spanish corks. All Spain would have to do would be to transfer her corks to some French port, and that would be corks imported from France in the words of the Resolution. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Finsbury to give up his Amendment altogether, rather than to accede to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I think the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman to our proposal applies with greater force to that of the hon. Member for Finsbury. For, take the words of my hon. Friend and I defy any fiscal regulation to prevent the evasion of the restrictions which he means to propose. I should like to know, supposing his Motion carried, how we are to prevent corks manufactured in Spain from passing through France into England. My hon. Friend's Motion is, that we should not allow corks to come into this country duty free from any country which forbids the exportation of the raw material. Well, supposing it to be true, as the hon. Member affirms, that Spain does intend to prohibit the exportation of the raw material of corks, what would be more easy than that Spanish corks should come in through France, and then the object of my hon. Friend would be completely defeated. I think that nothing can be more intelligible or fairer than to say that, there being no prohibition in France against the raw material, we should not prohibit the importation of the manufactured article from France to England. But then, having agreed to that provision in the Treaty, the House might go on to consider whether or not it is consistent with our legislation, or whether it is practical, to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and say, with regard to Spain or any other country, that unless they allow the free exportation of the raw material, you will not allow the manufactured article to come in duty free. Every one must see the inconvenience that will be produced if, when a cargo of corks arrives in England, we shall be obliged to wait in order to ascertain, either from Andalusia or Catalonia, whether any duties had been levied on the cargo. It is obvious such a regulation would lead to altercations between the Custom-house authorities and the importers; and, besides baffling the ingenuity of the Customs' officers, it would produce the most serious confusion in mercantile transactions.

said, he would recommend the adoption of words in the fifth Article, similar to those employed in the first Article of the Treaty with reference to English goods—namely, "Articles of British production and manufacture imported from the United Kingdom." By this means they would get rid of the difficulty.

agreed that it would be much better if there were no distinctions with regard to produce. However, that was not the fault of England; and he hoped that the existing prohibitions would not be long maintained. Indeed, he had no doubt that if the House showed itself in earnest, and the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs were able to lay before the Spanish Government a Resolution of the House of Commons exempting cork the manufacture of Spain from the benefits of the present Resolution unless they took off the duty on the exportation of cork wood, that the Spanish Government would be induced to do so. On the one side they had the inconvenience which had been pointed out, and on the other the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which would have the effect of ruining some very industrious men, unless they were provided with the raw material. There could be no doubt that the greater part of the cork imported from France now came from Spain. Unless the words "corks the produce of Spain" were added, the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it stood, would do nothing for the cork-cutters of this country, and, therefore, he thought it would be better to divide and settle the question at once.

said, that this was a question of free trade or protection. If the Government gave way upon this matter there would be similar discussions upon every other Article; he should therefore support the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, he thought that the most convenient course would be for the Committee to divide upon his Amendment, after which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might, if he pleased, move the addition which he had suggested.

said, that the simple fact was that the proposal of his right hon. Friend was consistent with the French Treaty, and the Amendment was not. If carried, it would be necessary to have a supplemental treaty.

replied, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had informed them that if any alteration were made, a supplementary treaty would be required. Why should they not have it? Indeed, they would require one with regard to spirits, and they could easily include corks. The Emperor was too sensible, too wise, and too just a man not to accede to it.

said, that although he was not bound by an offer to which his hon. Friend had agreed, he thought the best course he could now take was to move the insertion of the words which he had expressed his willingness to adopt before the division took place. ["No. no!"] He believed some Gentlemen had voted in the majority who would not have done so if they had thought that the whole question was going to be decided by that vote. He would therefore now propose the insertion of the following words—"The produce or manufacture of, or imported from, France or Algeria."

said, it would be impracticable to proceed to any contested questions at that period of the evening, and perhaps the most convenient course would be that corks other than those imported from France should be dealt with after the Committee had concluded the Resolutions which related to the Treaty.

said, he was induced, by the expression "contested questions," to ask how far, in the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Committee was free to deal with any of the Articles of the Treaty. It would appear, from the language held by Members of the Government, that every item to which the Committee was asked to consent was mixed up with the Treaty, and that the Committee was not at liberty to discuss it. That being so, it was a mere idle waste of time to consider the items one by one; at all events, it was desirable that the Committee should have a distinct declaration from the Government whether it was or was not free to reject any of the Articles of the Treaty which it might think impolitic.

said, that he would move that part of the Resolution which related to cotton manufactures, not with the intention of raising a debate upon it, but for the purpose of enabling him to answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington). His right hon. Friend must see that his inquiry turned upon and involved the largest constitutional principles, and that it was not in the power of any Minister or Government to answer it in any form which could carry the slightest authority for the Members of that House. It was the duty of every hon. Member to answer it for himself. The Constitution had committed to the Crown the absolute power of concluding and ratifying treaties and of binding the faith of the country, but it had done so subject to the obligation of applying to Parliament for its sanction in cases where legislation was required, and likewise subject to the general responsibility of Ministers even in cases where legislation was not required. In the present case legislation was required. The contract into which the Crown had entered was an incomplete contract until it was submitted to and sanctioned by both Houses of Parliament. The consideration of high policy and convenience, which might render improper the exercise of even private judgment upon questions of secondary importance when the consequence was to defeat the application of a treaty or to create a necessity for new negotiations, was a matter that would occur to the mind of every reflecting man, but not one upon which he could for a moment presume to interfere between each hon. Member and his own sense of what was right and prudent.

said, he accepted the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as highly satisfactory. At the same time he trusted that when the Committee resumed the discussion of these Resolutions no more would be said of the bounden duty of Parliament to pass the Articles of the Treaty without any alteration whatever.

remarked, that he had not heard any one say that it was the bounden duty of Parliament to pass the Articles of the Treaty without alteration. Parliament had a perfect right to do what it pleased in the matter. It might begin with the wine duties and reject that and every other Article of the Treaty if it thought fit. The question was whether it would be prudent to take any step which might prevent the Treaty being carried into effect, or involve the necessity of fresh negotiations. That question, however, was entirely in the discretion of Parliament; its power to deal with the Treaty was undoubted.

maintained that the Treaty had been drawn up in such a manner as to impose upon Parliament the necessity of adopting it word for word as it had been placed upon the table. If such was not the case, why were they told, when they objected to any of the Articles, that they were interfering with what were called the obligations of the Treaty? The discussions of the Committee were not free.

asked, whether the words "cotton manufactures" included articles of clothing made up.

replied that they were. He trusted the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire would withdraw his Motion.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman, after answering questions all night, must be physically incapable of proceeding further at that hour.

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 Resolutions. They might have a chance of taking these Resolutions to-morrow, but probably that would not suit the convenience of Members. He trusted there would be a disposition on other days, except in cases where business of a very urgent nature was involved, to proceed with these Resolutions. He hoped to be able to bring them on again 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 8s. 1d. on British spirits, as it was desirable for the convenience of the revenue that effect should be given to that vote immediately after it was delivered.

said, if he rightly understood the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the order of proceeding on Thursday it amounted to this, that as soon as any discussion that might arise on the Reform Bill was concluded, the right hon. Gentleman should proceed with his Resolutions, and, as far as hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House was concerned, there would be no objection to that course.

said, he wished to ask when it was intended to bring in the Irish Reform Bill?

stated that it was his intention to bring forward the Irish Reform Bill on Thursday evening, after his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary had introduced the measure relating to England.

said, he wished to know whether they were to have three Reform Bills on Thursday?

said, he wished to know how far the Committee was free to discuss the propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Part of the Resolutions now before the Committee 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 those propositions. It was also stated that the Emperor of the French was willing, he had no doubt in consequence of what had passed in the House, to modify that part of the Treaty which related to coals. He hoped, therefore, the Government would admit not only the constitutional right of this House to discuss the Treaty, but the willingness of the French Emperor to make any modification of the duties which the House of Commons might suggest.

said, it was obvious if the Emperor of the French was absolutely bound to make certain relaxations of duty and to remove certain prohibitions, and if the Queen was only bound to recommend to Parliament the abolition of the duties on a great number of articles, and Parliament rejected that recommendation with respect to any considerable number of those articles that that would not be a fulfilment of the engagements of the Treaty on our part. With regard to the Customs' duties, Parliament must consent to them before the requirements of the Treaty were fulfilled. It would be competent for the Emperor of the French to say, if the House of Commons should refuse its sanction to certain articles, that he was free from the engagement. He might, or might not, in that case choose to make another Treaty, or to modify the existing one; but he would be entirely free from the obligations imposed upon him by the present Treaty.

said, he must complain that in every previous instance in which he had put a question, bearing on this point, the answers of the Government had been evasive. He would not even except the answer given a short time before by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Sir John Pakington) had not asked any question about constitutional practice, but whether the Committee was free to reject certain items in a list of articles, with respect to which items many hon. Members were of opinion that we were about to throw away revenue, extravagantly and rashly, without any corresponding benefit to any class or interest in the country? The question was, whether the Committee was free or not to discuss the wisdom of certain provisions and to reject any of the articles which they might deem impolitic or unwise?

said, that was a question, not only for the decision of the Committee, but for the decision of the French Government. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think it would be foolish to throw away revenue on many of the items in the Treaty. He would not dispute that question with the right hon. Gentleman. All he (Lord John Russell) contended for was, that if any material items were rejected by Parliament, the engagements on the part of the Queen would not be fulfilled. If such an item as that relating to artificial flowers, for instance, were rejected, he should certainly be surprised if the Emperor of the French were to say that in consequence of that decision he could not go on with the Treaty. But, supposing persons were to say in France, as they did say, that it was entirely a one sided Treaty, and that it made France the slave of England—there was no doubt that was said—no one could tell to what risk the Treaty might be exposed. Cannon balls might be required to enforce it. It was, therefore, a matter of discretion with Parliament on the one hand and the French Government on the other, but as a matter of discretion the Government certainly did recommend Parliament to sanction the engagements which had been entered into.

said, he had understood that the effect of the Treaty would be to unite the two nations; but if cannon balls were required to enforce it, surely the effect would be to separate them. It was a pleasant prospect to contemplate the possibility of such a specific being rendered necessary. The fact appeared to be that, supposing the Treaty to contain 250 Articles, and the House adopted 249, rejecting but one, then the Emperor of the French was at liberty to consider himself relieved of all his obligations respecting it. This was certainly an agreeable kind of arrangement.