10 MARCH 1860, Page 10



The adjourned debate on the commercial treaty was resumed last night by Mr. HORSMAN, who moved an addition to the address, to the effect that, in the opinion of the House, Article 11 imposed on the Crown and Legislature of the country unnecessary and impolitic restric- tions, to which the House could not consent, and to pray her Majesty to effect the omission of that article in the treaty. Admitting that ad- vantages would arise to this country and France, but more particularly England, by the adoption of the treaty in its general principles, he ob- jected to certain provisions contained in Article 11;- as calculated, in a commercial point of view, to create great mischief and wrong.

Only within the last few days a new political alliance has arisen which required much consideration, and upon that consideration he thought it wise to get rid of all restrictions of commerce, and, therefore, he advo- cated the omission of Article 11 of the Treaty.

Mr. Vrcisit showed that the advantages of the article were in favour of England, as it had been proved there was sufficient coal in our mines in Wales alone to answer all the exports, and supply this country for the next 750 years.

Mr. Bsarriszcx then addressed the House in opposition to the proposed amendment.

Sir ROBERT PEEL gave his cordial support to the motion of the honour- able Member for Middlesex, and urged that although the Treaty entailed some losses on us for the present, it obtained for us greater advantages for the future.

Mr. Disitsnu said it would have been wise to wait a few years, before we adopted the course proposed by the Government, but he was now free to admit that the Government had no alternative, but to consent to the arrangement ; but at the same time he objected to the Treaty on three grounds, first, that it was financial ; secondly, that it was diplomatic ; and thirdly, that it was political. He proceeded to amplify his three reasons ; and repeated that the Treaty had been negotiated with precipi- tation, while financially and diplomatically it is wrong. The Treaty had been chiefly made on political grounds, instead of on the grounds of advancing the commercial position of the country. Mr. Gtansroirz vindicated the policy of the Government ; and Mr. HoasMAN, desiring to recede at the last moment, said that as his amend- ment might be taken to mean a rejection of the Treaty he would with- draw it. This course was not permitted ; the House divided, and the amendment was negatived by 282 to 56.

Earlier' in the evening, Lord Anotents VANE TEMPEST asked the Se- cretary for Foreign Affairs, whether he could furnish the House with any information of the steps the Government had taken to ascertain the views of the great Powers and Sardinia upon the proposed annexation of Savoy and Nice to France:

Lord dome Russets, said the correspondence which had passed be- tween England and France on the subject, had been communicated to the Cabinets of Berlin, Vienna and St. Petersburg, and he believed their views of the matter coincided with that of her Majesty's Government, but they had not acquainted them with their intentions with regard to the final decision of Sardinia. He had received a despatch from Count Cavour, which he would lay on the table of the House on Monday. The effect of it was that if the wishes of the people of Savoy were consulted, and they determined to remain as they are, Sardinians, they would sup- port that decision. but if on the other hand they wished to be annexed to France, Sardinia would accede to their wishes.

In the House of Lords the Marquis of NOF.M.ANEY moved for "a copy of any instructions addressed by Lord John Russell to her Majesty's chargé d'affaires at Tuscany, directing him to impress upon the provisional government the duty of abstaining from any arbitrary acts calculated to destroy all freedom of action in connexion with those fresh elections which her Majesty's Government had thought proper to recommend." He called attention to the arbitrary arrests and cruelties which he said had been practised in Tuscany by the provisional government, and ac- cused Lord John Russell of partisanship, in having taken the provisional government under his guardianship and protection. He urged that the continued exclusion of the Grand Duke of Tuscany from his dominions, was not so much the result of the legitimate exercise of freedom of opinion in Tuscany as of bribery and intimidation, and of the improper distribution of the franchise.

Lord WODEHOUSE denied that the Government had exhibited par- tiality towards the Provisional Government, or had supported them in opposition to the wishes of the Tuscan people. On the contrary, they had consistently abstained from interference, and had endeavoured to induce other Powers to take a similar course. Nearly the whole of the stories of the cruelties said to be practised by the Provisional Govern- ment in reference to political prisoners were either totally unfounded or grossly exaggerated. He was happy to say that the constant attacks which were made upon the Provisional Government instead of rendering it unpopular, secured for it in the difficult position in which it was placed the sympathy of every admirer of free Constitutional Govern- ment. He could not comply with the request of the noble Marquis for a copy of the instructions from Lord John Russell to her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, for the simple reason that no instructions had been sent out, as the Provisional Government had committed no act of oppression which rendered a remonstrance from her Majesty's Government necessary.

The Earl of MAL:KESEL-BY expressed a hope that there would be no act of interference on the part of her Majesty's Government in the affairs of Italy. It was generally believed in France that the present difficulties in reference to the annexation of Savoy and Nice would never have arisen if it had not been for the injudicious course pursued by her Ma- jesty's Government in resisting the principles of the peace of Villafranca.

The Duke of ARGYLL admitted that the policy of the Government in reference to Italian questions should to a certain extent, be one of neu- trality, but they were not to remain indifferent as to the mode in which the final settlement of the affairs of Italy was arrived at. The motion was then withdrawn.