two propositions-first, that the Lords had encroached upon the rights and privileges of the Commous; second, that it was incumbent upon the House to vindicate them. The first had been satisfactorily shown by the first of the Resolutions agreed to by the House, and as to the mode of vindication his Resolution did not bind the House to any course; the mode of action should be suggested by the Government; the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said it was the duty of the House to take action in the matter; the three Resolutions were not sufficient, and he (Lord Fermoy) was of opinion that the best way was to send the Bill back to the Lords.

Lord Palmerston submitted to the House that, after the grave and serious discussion of this important question on a former occasion, it was not desirable to stir it again. The first part of the proposed Resolution was little more than the echo of a Resolution which the House had already affirmed, and the other part pointed to a result which Lord Fermoy had not indicated, throwing upon the Government the responsibility of giving it effect. He declined the task, and moved the previous question.

Sir John Trelawney condemned in indignant terms the conduct of the House of Lords.

Mr. Clay, although he felt the humiliation which the House had suffered in consequence of the premeditated act of the Lords, deeply regretted the motion, which, in his opinion, was in every way useless, and would damage the position of that House. He differed from Lord Fermoy in his estimate of the opinion of the people on this ques

tion, believing that the majority did not heartily support that House, but approved of the financial sagacity of the House of Lords.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he entirely concurred in the wisdom of the course proposed by Lord Palmerston. The second part of the motion amounted to so many words, and no more; while it gave to the country an appearance of their being in earnest, without any pledge or guarantee of their sincerity. To pass a further Resolution, after having resolved everything the subject required, would not advance the public interests.

It was not de

sirable, in his opinion, to multiply protests and wordy declarations. The alternative was silence on the one hand, or action on the other.

Mr. Osborne said, if he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was willing, after calling the proceeding of the House Lords a gigantic innovation," when pressed for money, to put it in his pocket and defer the constitutional question. He did not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had formerly urged the House to "action," nor with Lord Fermoy, whose Resolution he thought singularly illtimed. It was a fourth Resolution, in addition to the three miserable Resolutions, and it only told them to put what gloss upon it they liked.

Mr. Disraeli observed that the attitude of the Liberal party towards the Government placed the House in a rather embarrassing position; but, whatever was the cause of that position, the question was a very serious one, and much depended upon the manner in which it was encountered. He could not

agree with the proposed Resolution, which, in the first part, was inconsistent with the second of the three Resolutions which the House had passed unanimously a few days ago; with regard to the other part, the House, he thought, had sufficiently vindicated its rights and privileges, and he should stultify himself if he concurred in it. But what was the course recommended by the Government? The honour and diguity of the House of Com mous and of the Ministry required that they should stand by the three Resolutions, and not weaken the position of the House. The course taken by the Government was a most unwise one; if Lord Palmerston would withdraw the previous question, and meet the motion by a direct negative, he would support him.

After a few words from Sir George Grey, and a short reply from Lord Fermoy, the House divided, when the Resolution proposed by that noble lord was negatived by 177 to 138. It was now evident that the repeal of excise duty on paper was for the present Session at least an impracticable measure. To have persevered in the attempt against the decision of the House of Lords, supported, as it unquestionably was, to a large extent by public opinion out of doors, and by nearly half the House of Commons, would have been utterly hopeless, even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been backed in such a step by his own colleagues; but even this,under present circumstances, was evidently not to be relied upon. It, therefore, only remained for Mr. Gladstone to protest against the interference of the Upper House with his financial arrangements, and to succumb to the necessity of

the case. The Customs duty on paper, however, still remained to be adjusted in accordance with the stipulations of the French Treaty. Resolutions for this purpose were laid on the table of the House of Commons early in August, by which it was proposed to reduce the import duties on printed books, papers, paper-hangings, pasteboard, prints, drawings, &c. Against these propositions the paper-makers were not backward in organizing the most effectual resistance in their power. Eu. couraged by the defeat of Mr. Gladstone in his former experi ment on their trade, and backed up by an influential portion of the Press, whose interests were identified with their own, they urged with great ingenuity and force the arguments against exposing their trade to an unequal competition with the foreign manufacturer. These arguments were, indeed, based on no other grounds than those which had been repeatedly asserted by other trades, and overruled by Parliament, in the old controversy of Protection and Freetrade; but whatever there was of apparent speciality in the case of the paper-mauufacturers was put forward with much skill, and not without effect in some quarters. At all events it was anticipated that in the existing posture of affairs the opponents of Mr. Gladstone's Resolutions would obtain the combined aid of the whole Conservative party in the House of Commons; and the result of the expected division upon them, being thought somewhat doubtful, was regarded with considerable anxiety. Mr. Puller, one of the members for Herts, and usually a supporter of the Government, took up the case of the paper-ma

nufacturers, and gave notice of an amendment on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Motion. The debate took place on the 6th of August, and was commenced by Mr. Gladstone in a speech of uncommon power, in which he demolished the allegations of the manufacturers, that their business was excluded by exceptional circumstances from the category of free-trade, and showed that this was merely the old question which the House had again and again decided upon between producer and consumer. The right hon. Gentleman, after an explanation of a few preliminary points, observed that the question which the Committee had to consider was small and minute as respected revenue, and as respected trade no great revolution in the price of the article would be effected. What ever might be the exaggerations of a particular class, who had drawn dismal pictures of ruin, they merely showed that, if true, that class had been obtaining unfair advantages at the expense of consumers. But facts, in his opinion, led to a different conclusion, and the question was connected with principles of high obligation-an obligation of honour, resulting from a treaty with a foreign Power -an obligation of policy, which would be a test of the opinion of the House of Commons on the principle of free trade, and an obligation of justice towards particular interests. Mr. Gladstone then entered into an elaborate exposition of the 7th, 8th, and 9th articles of the Commercial Treaty with France, and of their reciprocal bearings, and contended that it was impossible to conclude that the treaty left us at liberty to maintain a protective duty upon

paper. So far as intention was concerned, the articles of the treaty showed, beyond the possibility of dispute, that our meaning was to part with every vestige of a protective policy. The House of Commons had given its consent to this treaty, and a specific pledge that it would take the necessary steps to give effect to it. But it was said that when the House of Commons sanctioned the treaty, it had been misled by an assurance that France was about to remove the prohibition of the exportation of rags. He believed that the French Government had used its best efforts to carry the removal of this prohibition through the Legislature; but the Protectionist interest proved too strong for the Government. The question of the export of rags to the French paper-maker was, however, utterly insignificant ; France was a dear country for rags, and was obliged to import rags for its own use. The communication between the French and British Governments had been carried on, down to the present moment, in a spirit of uniform liberality and accommodation, and he was persuaded that this spirit would continue. If the case was as he had stated it, nothing, in his opinion, could be more cruel to the British paper-makers than to adopt the amendment of which Mr. Puller had given notice, to defer the change, and keep them in suspense; so that, on the ground of humanity to this interest, it would be well that the matter should be brought to a speedy issue. But the question, he observed, would be a touchstone of the sincerity of the opinions professed by free-traders, old and new. The case alleged by the

papermakers was, he contended, founded upon a mistake. The trade, it was said, was dependent upon foreign countries for the raw material. He met this assertion with a flat and broad contradiction. On the contrary, the material for the manufacture of paper was cheaper and more accessible here than in any country in Europe. The quantity of the material was, moreover, increasing abundantly, so that the whole cry was a delusion and an error. What became of our exported paper? Our fine paper, made from fine rags, we exported to other countries, principally to the United States of America; nay, strange as it might seem, England sent to America, at this moment, more paper goods than France. But the principle of British legislation was to take no notice of foreign legislation, acting upon just and equal rules of law; and, in conformity with these rules, the issuers of low-priced publications should not be compelled to buy paper in a protected market at an enhanced price. Mr. Gladstone, in conclusion, moved the first Resolution, which charged certain duties on books and paper goods imported under the treaty in lieu of the present duties.

Mr. Puller moved, as an amendment, That, without desiring to prejudice the question of a reduction at a future period of the Customs duty on books and paper, this Committee does not think fit at present to assent to such reduction." He did not call upon the Committee, he said, to reject the Resolution on a question of reciprocity, the paper-makers as a body being free-traders, and desiring only fair terms; nor in a spirit of retaliation, but as a de

fensive measure, to save the paper-makers from ruin. Mr. Puller discussed at considerable length the doctrines put forward by Mr. Gladstone, and contrasted the manner in which Parliament had treated the sugar-planters with the short and summary mode in which it was proposed to deal with the paper-makers. He disputed the construction put by Mr. Gladstone upon the language of the treaty, observing that the question was not what the Government intended, but what the plenipotentiaries did, and it was impossible that the 7th article could bear the construction which Mr. Gladstone had endeavoured to give to it. Even if that construction should be adhered to, still the spirit of the treaty was to give to the paper-manufacturers a protection against unfair competition.

Mr. Childers observed that it had been alleged, as an argument against the Resolution, that the principal paper-making countries imposed a prohibition or a prohibitory duty upon the export of rags; whereas it was a matter of fact that several large paper-producing countries, including the United States, levied no duty upon the export of that material. He stated a variety of statistical facts connected with the paper trade at variance with the conclusions of Mr. Puller, and showing, in his opinion, that, independently of the question of honour, the House, on the question of facts, would be perfectly safe in supporting the Resolution.

Mr. Crossley expressed a hope that the House would not stultify itself by receding from the principle of free-trade and adopting a protective policy. From what he had seen in France he was

convinced that the French Government had every disposition to carry out the treaty in the fairest

manner.

Mr. Maguire observed that the question raised by the amendment was, whether the Customs' duty on paper ought to be abolished at the present moment. The paper-manufacturers in this country were in the same position, fettered and embarrassed by the Excise duty and regulations, as was described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. This was not, then, a time to expose them to unfair competition. The question was one not of honour or of free trade, but of justice.

Mr. Marsh opposed the amend ment, which proposed, he said, to make an exception to the universal principle of free-trade, and the case was the weakest ever presented.

Sir H. Cairns said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had assigned two grounds for the Resolution that the House was bound to it by the treaty and by the principles of free-trade. If they were commit ted by the treaty, what was the use, he asked, of any other reason? and if not, why could not the discussion slumber on till next Session? The object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, was transparent. If any hesitated as to the one ground, they might be caught by the other. What was the case of the paper-makers? They said their trade employed a large capital and 40,000 or 50,000 persons; that there was no material from which practically they could produce paper in any quantity but rags; that the supply of rags in this country was limited, and they were obliged to look to foreign Countries, where the export of rags

was either prohibited, or subject to a duty of 97, a-ton, which was equivalent to a tax of 13d. per lb. on the paper; that a large quantity of foreign paper was even now consumed in this country, and if the Customs' duty on foreign paper was altered they would be no longer able to compete with foreigners. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made no other reply to these allegations than an appeal to the principles of free-trade, and to facts resting upon anonymous authorities. What he (Sir H. Cairns) asked, then, was an inquiry into the facts, and if they should turn out to be as stated, the papermakers must submit. The interpretation put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the Treaty Sir Hugh subjected to a very rigorous criticism, commenting upon the conflicting constructions he had applied to paper and to hops, remarking, with reference to the latter commodity, that if the treaty had been violated, it had been vio lated by Her Majesty's Government. He insisted that the con struction of the treaty upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now relied would affect the whole of our Customs' revenue. Referring to the statements which had been made on the part of the Government, that that of France would remove the prohibition of the export of rags, he suggested that there could be no objection to the adoption of the amendment to keep open the matter in order to see what the French Government would do by next Session.

The Attorney-General, after an ironical compliment to the "forensic" ability which had been displayed by Sir H. Cairns, proceeded to state what, he said, he sincerely believed to be the true interpreta