expenditure on account of China; but, taking the deficiency at only 9,400,000l. for the next year, he would find wanting the 1,400,0007. for malt and hop credits, while 1,000,000l. would be required for Exchequer bonds. It was because Mr. Gladstone's plan was not like those he had cited that the motion called upon the House to interpose and express an opinion upon his propositions. With respect to the treaty, he and his party had no prejudices against a commercial treaty with France; on the contrary, if the position of affairs permitted, nothing could be more desirable. But his objection to this treaty was, that it was drawn with a want of forethought, and of knowledge of the circumstances with which the negotiator had to deal, and that by the treaty the deficiency under which we were suffering would be largely increased, to the extent of 500,0002. beyond the amount at which Mr. Gladstone had calculated his loss. He exposed what he characterized as the great failures of the famous Budget of 1853, which he connected with that of 1860, and asked why, after these conspicuous failures, the House should put confidence in a wild and improvident project of the same financier. Adverting to the state of affairs in Italy, he put it to the House whether this was not a moment when we ought to husband our resources, instead of sacrificing portions of our ordinary revenue.

Lord Palmerston said he was not going to discuss the extraneous topics introduced by Mr. Disraeli. He recalled the House to the subject before it a resolution which, in a short compass, was one of the most important ever submitted to it. The motion involved

two questions-our commercial relations with a foreign country, and the development of our national resources at home; it asked the House to reject summarily and by anticipation the treaty and the Budget. If we were to face a large expenditure, we ought to do all we could to increase our resources; and the two measures were directed to that object, while they would spread over the other countries of Europe the sound principles of commercial intercourse.

The House then divided, when there appeared:

For Mr. Du Cane's Motion 223 Against it 339

Majority for Government. 116 So large a majority in favour of the financial policy of the Government was conclusive as to the ultimate success of the Budget and the French Treaty in the House of Commons, but the propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, involving a great multitude of details, and affecting in various ways a large circle of interests, had yet to undergo a severe and lengthened ordeal in both Houses. The opposition party, though outnumbered, were by no means daunted, but strove in the numerous discussions which arose on the several articles of the treaty and the multifarious items affected by the Budget, to thwart the policy of the Government. Before entering, however, into the details of the financial scheme, Lord Palmerston had undertaken to give Parliament an opportunity of declaring its opinion explicitly upon the merits of the commercial treaty, and this he proposed to do by asking the assent of the two Houses to an address to the

Crown expressing their approbation of that engagement. Accordingly, on the 8th March, a motion was made in the House of Commons by Mr. Byng, M.P. for Middlesex, who invited the House to concur in the following resolution: That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, to assure Her Majesty that, having considered the treaty of commerce concluded between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French, this House begs leave to approach Her Majesty with their sincere and grateful acknowledgments for this new proof of Her Majesty's desire to promote the welfare and happiness of her subjects; to assure Her Majesty that we shall proceed to take such steps as may be necessary for giving effect to a system which we trust will promote a beneficial intercourse between Great Britain and France, tend to the extension of trade and manufactures, and give additional security for the continuance of the blessings of peace."

If he were called upon, he said, to define what ought to be our foreign policy, he should say a dignified forbearance, calm conciliation, friendly intercourse with. all nations, and an absence of unnecessary interference in their affairs. This policy, he observed, was no reason why we should not endeavour to promote our trade with the rest of the world. When he looked at the commercial treaty with France, he did not wish to over-rate its benefits to ourselves, or to undervalue its disadvantages. If he was asked why he supported the treaty, he should say that it was because he saw in it the almost entire abolition of protective duties and the simplification of our tariff. It had been objected

to the treaty, that it was a bad bargain for the people of England; but he denied entirely that the negotiations had been entered into in the spirit of a mere barter and bargain. This was not a treaty of reciprocity, but one of mutual benefit. If we complained that France had not marched at the same rate with us in the path of free-trade, we should recollect that we had arrived at our present advanced position by slow and successive steps. After noticing the imputed faults of omission and commission in the treaty, the questions he would address to the House, he said, were, whether they believed the commercial treaty to be right in principle; whether it would conduce to the advantage of the two contracting Powers; whether by its operation our trade and commerce would be extended; whether it would cement the ties of friendship and the bonds of alliance with France ; and, lastly, whether they believed that it would bear the scrutiny of time and the judgment of posterity. If they answered these questions in the affirmative, he claimed their co-operation in the address.

Mr. Baines seconded the motion. He thought it was desirable to stimulate the trade with France. The treaty would cement the friendship and advance the interests of the two greatest nations in the world.

Mr. Lindsay moved an amendment, expressing a desire to see the benefits of the treaty extended to navigation. He explained the existing state of the French navigation laws, and showed that they were more injurious to France than to England, keeping down the growth of their shipping and restricting their trade. He declined,

however, to press his motion, thinking it better to bring it for ward in a substantive shape at some future time. Mr. Peacock and Mr. B. Cochrane objected to the policy of the treaty. Mr. Ewart congratulated Mr. Gladstone on his great achievements. Mr. Maguire warmly defended the treaty, which he insisted would prove very beneficial to Ireland. Mr. Ridley, Lord Adolphus Vane Tempest, and Mr. Slaney also spoke in favour of it.

Sir Hugh Cairns intimated the view taken by the party with which he was connected. He said:

"I should regret very much if this motion were not carried. The rejection of it would be the overthrow of the treaty, and, for my part, I do not desire that the treaty should be overthrown. But if my assent to the motion were to be held to imply that I believed this to be a treaty wise in its details, well-considered in its provisions, or such a treaty as the trade of the country required, and had a right to expect, the opinion which I entertain of the treaty would be very much misapprehended; and it is in order to prevent that misapprehension that I do not wish to give a silent vote on the present occasion." It had been denied, he observed, that the treaty was a bargain; but, if it was not a bargain, what was the meaning of the terms in the treaty under which the validity of its stipulations depended upon the sanction of the House of Commons? His objection was that it was not only a bargain, but a very bad bargain for us. He dwelt upon the defects of the treaty in relation to our shipping, and to the linen and linen yarn of Ireland, loaded with an almost prohibitory duty, expressing his doubt whether

the negotiators could have had their attention directed to the subject of the linen trade. He specified other objections to the manner in which the treaty had been framed, and commented upon the spirit-duty, originally fixed at 10s. per gallon, which was subsequently reduced to Ss. 2d., and he asked what concession had been made by the French Government for this 1s. 10d. He contrasted the vigilance of the French negotiators of the treaty with the supineness of ours, and, with reference to the 11th article, he observed that up to that moment the House had not had any explanation of the object of the Government in regard to that article, and he asked what right they had to surrender a power to prohibit the export of coal, possessed for political purposes, and which had no relation to commerce. Although he considered the treaty one-sided, imperfect, and halting, he supported the motion because much greater injury would be done, and greater risk incurred, by arresting it than by assenting to it, and he was not prepared to take the responsibility of defeating the treaty in that way.

Mr. Milner Gibson was glad to hear that Sir Hugh Cairns would throw no impediment in the way of the treaty, by which we should obtain what was good in itself, as well as beneficial to the people of both France and England. With regard to Irish linens, he had been assured by a deputation from the manufacturers of Belfast that they would be satisfied if they were put upon the same footing as those of Belgium, and they were to be so placed in June, 1861. In respect to coals, what could be done by international law before the treaty could be done afterwards; the non

prohibition of the export of coal was only in a commercial sense. The spirit duty was governed by considerations relating to the Excise survey and regulations applicable to British spirits, which the difference of duty was intended to cover; and, as to shipping, he insisted that the treaty placed British shipping in a better position, and conferred upon our shipowners an important advantage. He should be glad to see, he said, all navigation laws entirely abolished; but the restriction of the French law had but a small effect upon British shipping, and too much importance was, in his opinion, attached to such a matter. But the House, he observed, must look at the principles of the treaty; had the negotiators travelled from the broad principle into the minute details alluded to by Sir Hugh Cairns, they would have failed altogether. He hoped the House would give an unanimous vote in favour of the address.

Sir Stafford Northcote considered that the objections of Sir H. Cairns had been very feebly dealt with by Mr. Gibson, and had not been answered at all. Whatever opinion might be entertained of the general character of the treaty, the House ought not to be precluded from discussing its details, and he proceeded to review and enforce the objections founded upon some of those details, disputing the theory of Mr. Gibson as to the sense of the 11th article, and contending that this article fettered our liberty of action; and this, he said, was his objection to the treaty, confessedly a clumsy one, that it tied up the hands of Parliament for ten years. The motion proposed to thank Her Majesty for much more than the

treaty, for financial arrangements were mixed up with the treaty. It was, therefore, impossible for him to join cordially in the motion.

Mr. Horsman observed that, by the treaty with France, the power which Parliament should possess over the taxation of the country had been abandoned, and we had tied and bound ourselves, as long as the treaty lasted, to France. This was a great sacrifice, he said, which could be justified only by some great impending evil to be averted thereby, or some great good to be secured. The House, therefore, ought to ask what were the motives of the treaty. Glowing prospects, he observed, had been held forth as the results of the treaty, but his objection was that these prospects, like many others, were based upon false calculations. The equivalents we were to receive were of two kinds, material and moral. The material consisted in the extension of the principles of free trade; but, as he understood, them, the object and result of these principles were to unite countries in one common interest, so that France and England should be as closely connected as Lancashire and Yorkshire. how did this consist with the menacing attitude of France, which imposed upon us taxes and burdens in time of peace? The moral equivalent was the securing of friendship and peace with France. If these results were to follow the treaty, he admitted that they would be cheaply purchased by ten times the sacrifice; but he could not conceive how this conclusion could be reached by wounding the amour propre of the French. By this treaty we made enemies of the commercial classes, the only classes hitherto averse from war. The

But

error arose from confounding the French Emperor with the French nation, whose views, he contended, were antagonistical. Having considered the sacrifices made on our part, he predicted that, as a commercial speculation, the treaty would fail, and then discussed its political objects, confessing his apprehensions that commercial considerations predominated too much in our political relations. But what, he asked, did a political alliance with France mean? Our policies differed altogether; in relation to Italy and to Savoy, in respect for treaties and reverence for national rights, we were, he said, the very antipodes of each other. After summing up his objections to the treaty upon economical, fiscal, constitutional, and political grounds, he dwelt at considerable length upon that article in the treaty which gave to foreign nations what he termed a vested right in English coal, contributing to the exhaustion of one of the great elements of our commercial prosperity and our political strength, and enhancing its price, and thereby, in effect, laying a tax upon, this country for the benefit of foreigners. He concluded by moving, as an amendment, to add to the resolution the following words :"But humbly to represent to Her Majesty that, in the opinion of this House, Article 11 imposes on the Crown and Legislature of the country unnecessary and impolitic restrictions to which this House cannot assent; and to pray Her Majesty to effect the omission of that article from the treaty."

:

Mr. Vivian showed that the advantages of the Article in question were in favour of England, as it had been proved that there was sufficient coal in the mines of VOL. CII.

Wales alone to answer all the exports, and supply the wants of the country for 750 years.

Mr. Bentinck addressed the House in opposition to the proposed amendment.

Sir Robert Peel gave his cordial support to the motion, and urged that, although the treaty might entail some losses on this country for the present, it would obtain for us greater advantages hereafter.

Mr. Disraeli observed, that if the Government were of opinion that, upon the whole, it was wise to enter at once into arrangements with the French Government, instead of waiting for a year, it would have been better, by some alterations in our mutual tariffs, to have attained all the ends that could be at present acquired; and at a later period to have completed the work, and accomplished the ulterior results by a treaty. He should have objected to tie up the hands of this country so long for objects which might be realized by a simpler process. These were the views under which he should have regarded the treaty under ordinary circumstances; but no one could say that this treaty had been negotiated under ordinary circumstances; the circumstances were of a most exceptional character, and he objected to it upon three grounds -financial, diplomatic, and political. His first objection was to the creating a large deficiency of revenue for the purposes of this treaty. Upon the second ground, he objected to the treaty that it had been unskilfully and negligently entered into, and he adduced proofs of what he considered precipitation, and of carelessness in regard to British interests. Then the political objections to the treaty were a part of the sub[E]