filthatts nut 46tratriugn in 46arlinnunt.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

HOOKE OF Loans, Monday, March 12. Administering of Poison Bill, committed —Medical Acts Amendment Bill read a second time.

Tuesday, March 13. Sunday Trading ; Lord Chelnisford's Bill read a first time —Administering of Poison Bill read a third time and passed—Medical Acts Amend- ment Bill committed.

Thursday, March 15. The Commercial Treaty with France ; Address to the Crown agreed to.

Friday, March 15. Affairs of Naples ; Lord Ellenborough's Question—Savoy ; Lord Carnarron's Question—See of Rochester; Lord Dungannon's Question.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, March 12. Rags ; Mr. Puller's Question—Savoy and Nice; Conversation on—Paper Duty Repeal Bill read a second time—Refresh- ment-House and Wine Licenses Bill in Committee.

Tuesday, March 13. The Affairs of Italy and Savoy ; Lord John Russell's State- ment—" Count out."

Wednesday, March 14. Religious Worship ; Mr. Locke King's Bill thrown out —Adulteration of Food, &c. Bill in Committee—Mutiny Bill read a second time. Thursday, March 15. Bankruptcy and Insolvency ; Sir R. Bethell's Bill read a first time—Common Lodgings (Ireland) Bill read a first time—Customs Acts ; Com- mittee, Resolution on Hops agreed to—Adulteration of Food, &e. Bill committed. Friday, March 15. Savoy ; Lord John Russell's Answer to Mr. Kinglake- China ; Question and Answer.

SAVOY AND NICE.

The annexation of Savoy and Nice to France has furnished further topics of discussion.

Lord Jona MANNERS inquired on Monday, whether the Government had received any further information as to the intention of the Emperor to consult the Great Powers.

Lord JOHN Russia." said Lord Cowley had been instructed to ask in what form the Great Powers would be consulted; and he had learned that M. Thonvenel would forward a despatch in answer on Wednesday. Mr. DISRAELI pointed out that Mr. Kinglake's motion as well as the Reform Bill (second reading) was fixed for Monday. What would be the order of proceeding ?

Lord Joan RUSSELL said he should proceed with the Reform Bill.

Mr. KINGLASE said that, having forborne, at the request of the Govern- ment, to discuss the Savoy question during the debate on the treaty, he had some claim for a day. Time is vital. He would not be responsible for delay. He moved the adjournment of the House. Lord Jona RUSSELL said there had been a discussion, and the inclina- tion of the House could not be doubted. What is the meaning of a motion merely to express opinions that may create irritation. There is a party in the House who think we ought to go to war for Savoy. Let them bring forward a motion. If Mr. Kinglake is of that opinion, there will be no difficulty in fixing a day.

Mr. DISRAELI said Lord John assumed that the only conduct to be questioned is that of the Emperor of the French. But there is another question—the conduct of the Government. The House ought to be enabled to understand the course of the Government. It is natural Mr. Kinglake should bring foretari the subject. Mr. Disraeli was not pre- pared to give an opinion, but the conduct of the Government is involved in great mystery.

Lord PA.LRIERSTON said it was not desirable to repeat discussions from week to week involving personalities directed against an ally. If the object was to renew the discussion simply to express disapproval of his acts, that is not expedient ; but if any Member is prepared to censure the Government, let him move a vote of censure. Sir Jolla PAKENTOTON said that the House was entitled to call for ex- planations, and he expressed great anxiety for fair dealing with Mr. Kinglake. Mr. HORSMAN implied doubts of the firmness of the Government, and urged Mr. Kinglake not to be deterred by fear of being left in a minority, as this is a question on which he may feel that the opinions of the nation would not be represented in that House.

Mr. Gladstone deprecated irritating discussions, and said Lord John Russell would make a statement on Tuesday. Whereupon, Mr. SEY- morn FrrzoattaLto hinted that the Opposition did not desire to censure but to strengthen the Government. They only desire to be fully in- formed.

On Tuesday, Lord Joni./ Russmn brought up further correspondence relating to the affairs of Italy, and then proceeded to make the promised statement.

He began by showing that Lord Malmesbury had not obtained any satis- factory answer on the subject of Savoy. Such was the position of the ques- tion when he entered office. It was said that the Government had pursued a policy of promoting the annexation of Central Italy to Sardinia, and had thereby laid the ground for the annexation of Savoy to France. That is not so. The policy of the Government was to secure to the Italian people a power of managing their own affairs, accompanied by a recognition of the do facto governments. Count Walewski expressed a hope that the British Government would induce the Tuscan provisional government to recall the son of Grand Duke Leopold ; but Lord John's communications with the Tuscan agent, the Marquis Lajatico--" a person as high-minded, and of as much integrity, as I ever knew "—showed him that the Tuscans had reason- able objections to the return of the Grand Duke, who had fought at Magenta and Solferino against Italy. Then there was a proposal to form a kingdom of Central Italy. Great Britain might have been content with that, but Great Britain would not bind itself to any plan with which the people of Italy would not be content. They were not content, "and therefore,we were of opinion that nothing but the strengthening of Sardinia by the addition of the Ro-

magna, Tuscany, Panne, and Modena, would be sufficient to maintain the independence of Italy. But the whole of our conduct was based, not, as has been represented, on such an annexation, but on a wish to allow the people of Central Italy to form their Governments for themselves, and after three centuries of oppression and servitude to assert their independence whether of Austria, of France, or any other power whatsoever. . . . . Accordingly, it was our wish, desirous that the independence of Italy should be secured, that they should be allowed, if they thought proper, by a new vote or otherwise, to assert again their annexation to Sardinia, and, if the Xing of Sardinia should accept them, that that country thus enlarged become one of the recognized Powers of Europe." It is objected against the Government that, being acquainted with the inten- tion of the Emperor to annex Savoy under certain contingencies, they made no objection until January 1860 ; whereas, in point of fact, they took the strongest objection in July 1859. Count Walewski had often insisted that the annexation of Tuscany to Sardinia was impossible, and hinted that al- though a French army could not, an Austrian army might restore the Grand Duke. In his eyes, the annexation of Savoy rested on an improbable contingency, and Lord John deemed it unnecessary to persist in writing on suppositions. In January, the question assumed another shape, and Lord John reiterated his objections in language as strong but not stronger than that he had used in July. The Government are blamed for not communicating to Foreign Govern- ments. They could not do that, because the proposal of annexation was not before them. The influence of4Ireat Britain has been employed in Italy for an European object ; it has been employed peacefully, and so far from shrinking from responsibility, Lord John will take pride to himself if it should have been his fate to contribute in the smallest degree to the inde- pendence of Italy.

Mr. WHITESIDE, on the part of the Opposition, first vindicated the right of discussion, and disclaimed any design of saying anything provocative of war. Then he entered on the question. His statement was, that the Swiss Government were the first to descry the coming annexation ; that they remonstrated, but that our Government paid no attention to the re- monstrance ; that called upon to do their utmost to maintain Swiss neutral- ity, they did nothing from July to January; that in January Lord John Russell wrote a formidable despatch, but again did nothing, took no action to obtain a general remonstrance against the designs of France. He as- serted that the French Government had fairly and honourably stated its views from the beginning, and that Lord John Russell did " nothing "— [a word repeated by Mr. Whiteside a dozen times.] The Government knew what the French Government would do in certain contingencies ; they pursued a policy that led to those contingencies, and they must bear the blame. Lord John Russell advocated a recourse touniversal suffrage, and made the fate of Emperors, Popes, and Kings, depend upon the votes deposited in an urn. The French Emperor seems inclined to revive the traditions of the French Empire ; he does not peddle ; lie has great de- signs, but he objects to universal suffrage. When Lord Cowley wrote about the annexation of kingdoms, the Government wrote back to Mr. Cobden about the introduction of coal and cotton twist into France. The Emperor said he would give free trade and take Savoy. That is an in- telligible policy, and the Government had helped him to carry it out. Mr. MONCKTON MTLNES defended the character of Count Cavour whom Mr. Whiteside had charged with stating what was not true.

But M. de Cavour could not be regarded as guilty of anything of the kind. Suppose that, in a conversation at Plombieres or elsewhere, it was granted that, if Sardinia obtained the quadrilateral and Venetia, Savoy and Nice should be annexed to France. That was, no doubt, the agreement, if any agreement there was, betweenhis Majesty and M. de Cavour. But the con- dition had not been fulfilled. Venetia remained to Austria, and the quadri- lateral was still a menace for Sardinia and for Italy. M. de Cavour, there- fore, was perfectly right in maintaining now that if Savoy and Nice were given up, it could only be by an act of force majeure on the part of France, and not in consequence of any agreement between the Emperor and him- self. This supposition rendered entirely explicable the difficulties and in- consistencies which the right honourable and learned gentleman had per- teived, and had been unable to solve in recent diplomacy. If the kingdom of Sardinia extended from sea to sea, the rectification of the French frontier on the side of Savoy would then come legitimately before Europe ; but IL de Cavour had never recognized the claims of France so far as they were founded on the present position of Sardinia. He defended the Government for not hounding on other Powers to ter- rify France by a general protest against annexation, and said he would like to see the question referred to a Congress.

Mr. BAILLTE COCHRANE spoke against annexation. Mr. HORSMAN accused the Government of allowing what is an European question to become a question of a few mountain-tops and the transfer of a small population, especially when annexation will give France a new military frontier, with a pass into Italy practicable for artillery. Mr. Horsman recommended Continental alliances against France, who now regarded her- self as liberated from treaties and entering on anew career. Lord HARRY VANE thought the House should pronounce a deliberate opinion, but it should be on some definite motion. Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH defended the policy of Sardinia, which he denied was a policy of instigation. Mr. KINNATED vindicated Count Cavour from the aspersions of Mr. White- side.

Lord PAIMERSTON denied that he had ever laid down the doctrine that Parliament, in discussing the question, must either censure the Govern- ment or the Emperor of the French. What he had said was, that if Mr. Disraeli thought the conduct of the Government open to censure, he should bring on a motion to that effect.

Going over ground similar to that which Lord John Russell had tra- versed, he vindicated the course of the Government, showing that they have never concealed their views from the French Government, but that it would not have been justifiable to take the sort of warlike measures recom- mended by Mr. Horsman. Mr. Whiteside said he did not know the opin- ions of Lord Palmerston on the Savoy question. Why, they are the opin- ions of Lord John Russell. "I consider that It would' be a great mistake on the part of the French Government if they were to persist in this plan. When first the present Emperor acceded to power in France, apprehension

Was no doubt exoited in many of the continental Governments that he might adopt the policy of his uncle, which was one that we know involved

the whole of Europe in the calamities of war. The Emperor took an early opportunity of declaring that the empire meant peace—a declaration which was received with the greatest pleasure and satisfaction, and which inspired confidence in the new policy which it was supposed he intended to pursue. I do not hold that in what took place last year in Italy there was any depar- ture from that principle. France undertook a noble enterprize—that of freeing Italy from foreign domination—ay, and from French domination included, for it was part of the scheme of Italian liberty. that France as well as Austria should retire from any future interference in the internal affairs of that country. It would have been—and should it so turn out, it will be —a most honcnrable, a most glorious result to the Government of France, if, after restoring to Italy the freedom and independence of which she has been so long deprived, France was content with the glory of that achieve- ment, and abstained from mixing up with a generous enterprise any small or petty objects of selfish and local agrandizement. (Hear, hear.) Many reasons have been assigned for the cession of Savoy and Nice, but I cannot admit that any of them have any force or value. It is said that, so long as Piedmont remains a small power, she continues to be the harmless neighbour of France, but that if she becomes so large as to contain a population of eight, ten, or eleven millions, she will become a power formidable as a neighbour, and therefore one which in the nature of thins requires that the.French frontier should be made additionally secure. I must say that when a country containing about thirty-six millions of people, most warlike in its character, full of resources, and compact in territory, holds such lan- guage as that, and asserts that it is in danger from a State having a popula- tion of only eight or ten millions, it is an argument which cannot, I think, be gravely and seriously maintained, and which is not founded on truth or in reason. It is also said that France ought to have her natural boundaries, and that the population of Savoy speaks the French language. Why, sir, in the first place, history tells us that natural boundaries are no defence whatever. What instance is there on record in which an army of sufficient amount determined to invade a country has been stopped either by rivers or by mountains ? Therefore, whether the watershed of the Alps is in the pos- session of France or of Sardinia, France, as long as she continues to be the stronger power, will be able to enter Italy ; and should the Sardinians at- tempt to invade France, the French armies would give such an account of the invading force as would not encourage a repetition of the attempt. But it is said that Sardinia might be a member of a confederation, and might open the passage to the troops of other countries. The answer to that is, that such a confederation must consist of Powers north of the Alps, and that those Powers, if they meant to invade France, would:not de- scend to the Tyrol, pass along Northern Italy, and go back again over the Alps, but would take the more direct and natural course of attacking France on her eastern frontier. Another answer is that I do not think it enters into the imagination of any Government in the world to attack France without some great and adequate provocation, and, therefore, if the empire is peace and means peace, which I believe was a sincere declaration on the part of the Emperor, it is not in the nature of things conceivable that there should be any confederation to join Sardinia in an invasion of France. the objection which we feel to the cession is not, as I have said, an objec- tion founded upon any direct British interest, because danger to England from the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France there would be none. It is founded upon the danger to Europe which would rise from the precedent —from the principle which such an annexation would establish. For, Sir, if you come to natural boundaries, and if the country which claims them is to be the judge of where they are, it is very easy to see that Europe would find it very difficult to decide where danger would begin and where resist- ance upon a grand scale ought to be undertaken. If language were to be the measure of aggrandizement, it is plain that it would be difficult for many countries to show that they had a good title to possessions which they now hold. Therefore, these two principles of natural boundaries and of community of language are principles the establishment of which would be very dangerous to Europe, however small, comparatively speaking might be the instance in which they were carried into effect." As to Swiss neu- trality, no steps have been taken to preserve it, because when you begin to talk about modifications iu a plan you desire to prevent, you weaken the ground on which you stand. If the conditions laid down by the Emperor are adhered to " abstinence from force, the consent of the sovereign, and people of Savoy, and the assent of the great Powers of 'Europe,—I. think we are not yet come to that point at which we are justified in holding that rea- son apd reflection may not induce the French Government to abandon the project which they have hitherto entertained." He thought that the great Powers would take the same view as ourselves, and that the Emperor would see his interest in abandoning the project. He denied that the Government had proposed universal sItillige to the people .rof Tuscany. They said it was not part of our 'constitution, but the Tuscans were the beat judges of what was fittest for them. " I cannot but congratulate the Government, the House, and the country upon the prospect which the accounts received this evening seem to hold out that, by a quiet manifestation of public determination, Tuscany is likely to aggregate herself to Sardinia, and that there will be created in Northern and Central Italy a state which, by the freedom of its institutions, by the independence which it will have acquired, may hold out a fair prospect that Italy may a third time rise to that eminence in the civilized world which she occupied in the days of the Roman emperors, and again during those periods when the revival of arts and literature placed her States—though she was not then, as in the former period, a great military Power—in a position of honour and glory which as long as history endures will be looked back to by Italians with just satisfaction and pride. (Cheers.) If such an arrangement be accomplished, we shall see a development of talents, public spirit, and civilization, which England may he proud of having contributed by its moral weight and influence to bring about. I must say, that if we contrast the judgment, moderation, temper, and statesmanlike qualities which the Italians have shown, during the last twelve months with that less laudable spirit which was displayed in 1848, we may entertain the strongest hopes for the future. With regard to one Italian stateman, who has been somewhat unfavourably mentioned during this debate (Count Ca- your), whatever may be thought of him by those whose policy be has thwarted and whose views he has defeated, I can only say that Italy, both present and future, will regard him as one of the most distinguished patriots who have adorned the history of any country. She will owe to him as great obligations as any nation ever owed to any of its members ; and with the conviction of what be has done for Italy he need not be dispirited by any aspersions by whiah he may be assailed in any country." Disasma renewed his statement, that the conduct of the Govern- ment was involved in mystery and required explanation, and said that Lord John Russell had felt that this was a rational desire, and had felt it his duty to afford the information. He had never proposed to get up a protest against French policy, much less to form a league against France. Those proposals never received any sanction from him. He complained that no information had been given with regard to the case " we " put before the House ; a case placed before them that night with brilliant and logical precision by Mr. Whiteside. Lord John Russell had not contradicted the statement that between July and January he had received frequent intimations that the French Government had reverted to the policy abandoned in July. Lord John Russell thought those representations were mere threats, and treated them with indiffer- ence, although he ought to have been aware that if Sardinia ob- tained Central Italy, France would demand Savoy. Nay, he left the Great Powers completely in the dark. He took no step to prevent a policy he deemed perilous and pernicious. When the Congress for which he waited was abandoned, he took no steps tp reassure Switzerland. No- thing was done until the 28th of January, when LordJohn wrote a despatch. He took no step to influence the French Government, but, on the contrary, pursued a policy that inevitably led to annexation. They did not tel foreign Courts, when they made their four propositions, that the adoption of those propositions must lead to annexation. " I said the other night, and I repeat it, that as far as the conduct of the French Government to the Eng-

lish Government—and therefore, of course, to the English nation—is con- cerned, it has been a frank, candid, sincere, and straightforward policy. (Cheers.) I see nothing that we have to complain of, as regards France. I do not see where our quarrel can be with France. France, according to my interpretation of these documents—and I doubt whether, after this debate, that interpretation can be successfully impugned,—France has given timely and repeated notice of her policy. She has told us that, if Sardinia be ag- grandized, she must annex Savoy and Nice ; and when there was a notion prevalent that, by the treaty of Zurich, or by some arrangement in the spirit of the Treaty of Zurich, the ultra-aggrandizement of Sardinia would not take place, France informed us that she had renounced her policy ; and among the latest documents on the table we find again the willingness of France expressed, if the duchies only, irrespective of Tuscany, were added to Sardinia, although that would be a considerable aggrandizement, not to insist on her policy of annexing Savoy and Nice. 1' want to know what quarrel, as far as the announcement of her intentions is concerned, we have with France ? None. May all Powers always behave with the same frank- ness ! (Cheers.) But France did more. France told us fairly that if Sar- dinia were aggrandized, and became a considerable Italian Power, she must inevitably take this course of reconstructing her military frontier. And with that knowledge, her Majesty's Government favoured a policy which must necessarily lead to annexation." Mr. Disraeli accused the Govern- ment of withholding information, arresting discussion, and unnecessarily alarming the country. " The Government of France have given us warn- ing of their policy ; we have worked to accomplish that policy ; where, then, is our cause of complaint and controversy ? But that does not alter the state of circumstances, and if those terrible con- sequences which the noble lord has foreseen do occur—if that prin- ciple of natural boundaries of empires now to be countenanced by, as I believe, the certain annexation of Savoy and Nice be realized ; if distrust and despair be spread throughout Europe ; if there be scenes of horror and sanguinary war ; if empires be overthrown and dynasties subverted,— then I say it is the Minister, it is the Government, who assisted that policy ,who will be responsible to their country and to history for those calamitous results." (Cheers.) Mr. HDTGLAKE described Lord Palmerston's speech as extremely grati- fying ; denied that he was in favour of going to war for Savoy ; said there was an appearance of want of reality about Lord John Russell's despatches ; and said, that as the Government did not protest between July and January, France would have the right to say " we told you what we should do, and you expressed no disapproval." Mr SEYMOUR Frrzanasim took up this last argument and worked it out ; and then endeavoured to explain away the language he used on a previous night in recommending that league against France [the idea of which Mr. Disraeli repudiated]. Mr. OsBORNE congratulated him upon his ingenious change of tactics, after having been thrown over by his leader. Having criticized the con- duct of the Government, Mr. Osborne returned to Mr. Fitzgerald and said he was glad that gentleman's leader had disowned his lan- guage.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said Mr. Fitzgerald had made a statement differ- ent from that he made the other night, for he then said there ought to be a solemn and collective protest of the Great Powers.

Mr. Frrzonms.mi : "I never said a word of the kind."

Lord Join RUSSELL: "I recollect the honourable gentleman using the words, a solemn protest by England to the Powers of Europe.' But the honourable gentleman has now changed his language." Lord John, answering the insinuations of Mr. Disraeli, said he had never heard that her Majesty's Government had brought any charge against the Govern- ment of the Emperor of the French of deceiving them. He might have written to Lord Cowley every week but it would have made no differ- ence, because the question was a practical one. He was blamed for not sending despatches to Vienna, Berlin, and St. Petersburg; but that is the very thing he has done. The Government had carried out no policy but that of leaving the Italians to themselves.

The papers were laid on the table.

THE TREATY wrrw FRANCE.

In the House of Peers, on Thursday, Lord TAUNTON moved that the House should "agree with the Commons in the Address to her Majesty on the subject of the treaty of commerce with France, and to fill up the blank in that Address with the words, 'Lords Spiritual and Temporal." The Address had been brought up with the almost unanimous consent of the Commons, and the concurrence of the industrious and manufacturing classes. The Treaty, whose origin he described, will develop our trade with France, and prevent serious misunderstandings from breaking out on petty differences ; it will benefit our manufacturers, our coal producers, and the shipping interest, and will show the world that we are ready to give farther proof that prosperity follows free-trade. The Earl of CORK seconded the motion.

Earl GREY said that, although he did not intend to obstruct the pro- gress of the treaty, he could not give his vote in favour of the motion. The Treaty cannot be considered by itself alone, as it is a part, and a most essential part, of the financial arrangements of the country, and he therefore reviewed it in connexion with the Budget of the present year. The repeal of indirect taxes to the amount of 3,900,0001. a year, in the face of a deficiency of 9,000,0001., is a hazardous and ambitious experi- ment, and such changes of taxation ought not to be lightly attempted. Successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have concurred in pressing upon Parliament the inexpediency of meddling with these taxes ; yet, in spite of this, because the public had calculated upon some advantage by the falling in of the Long Annuities, and because the sum saved by the Long Annuities had been more than counterbalanced by new expenses, it was thought neces- sary, in order not to disappoint the people, to gratify them by a larger re- mission of indirect taxes. Such a scheme is fanciful in the extreme, it is treating the people of this country like children. It is, how- ever, necessary to look forward, and to consider what will be the pro- bable effects of the remission of these taxes. There are fortifications to be built ; there is a war in China most inadequately provided for by the present estimates, which will exercise a decided effect on the Budget of 1861. Parliament, in 1861, will have to deal with a deficiency of pro- bably 10,000,0001. How is such a deficiency to be met ? Not by in- direct taxes, because the Budget abolishes them ; not by increased Customs'-duties, because the present Treaty with France will preclude such a course. Nor is the Treaty the best means of insuring the friend-

ship of the two nations, as it will create in the minds of the French people the idea that French industry is sacrificed to England to promote political objects. The contrast of the advantages is by no means in fa- vour of this country, for, while French shipping is placed on the same footing as our own, ours is subjected to all its present disadvantages ; and, while France obtains from us all she wants to promote her own ma- nufactures, she has actually forbidden the free export of the raw mate- rial of paper. It was with regret that he alluded to Savoy, but he thought that this Treaty ought not to have been signed without a formal disclaimer having been previously obtained from France of her intention to annex Savoy and Nice. Such a signal mark of our confidence and support as the signing of this Treaty ought not, under present circum- stances, to have been given. It has inflicted a stain upon the honour of the country, by promulgating an opinion abroad that England had agreed to the annexation in order to promote her own material interests. Had he not shown sufficient reasons why their Lordships should refuse to share with the Government the responsibility of sanctioning the Treaty ?

Lord WODEHOUSE defended the financial policy of the Government, and emphatically declared that there had been no collusion between the Governments of England and France on the question of Savoy. The Earl of MALMESBURY, though not agreeing with Lord Grey on the subject of commercial treaties, concurred with his general views. He insisted that the Treaty is a political mistake, thai it is a Treaty between Lord Palmerston and the French Emperor, and that it will not cement the alliance. He denounced the conduct of the Government in signing the Treaty, while the annexation of Savoy was pending, and he expressed the deepest regret that the Emperor Napoleon had departed " for the first time " from his promise to regard as sacred the treaties of 1814 and 1815. Earl DE GREY and RIPON insisted that there had been no bargain between the two Governments, and that the Treaty was not political ex- cept in so far as it extended the commercial relations between the two countries. Earl STANHOPE objected to the Treaty. Lord OrmisroxE had grave doubts of its expediency. Each country would do better to act for itself in progressively reforming its tariff. He especially objected to the export of coal, which at least is an open question. Instead of making friends, the Treaty will make enemies for us, as it will create ill-will, and the suspicion in both nations that each has overreached the other. He severely criticized the conduct of Mr. Cobden, who, as a negotiator, had in some respects been careless of the interests of his country. The Duke of ARGYLL showed that the increase of the Income-tax was due to the increase of our armaments ; that the Budget did not alter the proportions between direct and indirect taxation ; and that the desire of France for coal showed that she inclined to peaceful pursuits.

The Earl of DERBY said that the House was not asked to pass a vote on the financial policy of the Government, or even on the expediency of extending our commercial relations with France, but only to agree to an address asking their assent to the Treaty. To a great many of the ar- ticles of the Treaty the assent of Parliament was given by their agreeing to the resolutions on the Customs Acts, and by the bills for carrying out those resolutions, but the question was whether the adoption and rejec- tion of the address put an end to the Treaty. If so, the House might well pause before they came to a hostile vote with regard to it. It was, however, certain that some of the articles—for instance, the 11th—did not receive that assent of Parliament which was necessary to the ratifi- cation of the Treaty by the resolution which had been agreed to ; and it was from that point of view that this motion was to be considered and decided on. He contended that the negotiation of the Treaty at such a time bound this country to the policy of France—a policy which was about to annex Savoy to France, while the treaties regulating the territo- rial arrangements of Europe were summarily set aside.

He appealed to Lord Grey not to prevent a division. If Lord Grey would divide the House, he would support him.

The Loan CHANCELLOR, in answer to an appeal from Lord Derby, stated that the assent of Parliament was not in general necessary to the ratification of a Treaty; but according to the 20th article of this Treaty such assent was necessary. No Act is required to sanction article 11.

The debate was continued until two o'clock on Friday morning. Lord CHELMSFORD insisted that an act is required to sanction article 11; but Lord CRANWORTH took an opposite view. The Earl of HARDWICKE spoke against the Treaty, and the Duke of NEWCASTLE defended the Govern- ment. Lord GREY said he did not feel justified in depriving the Opposi- tion of an opportuity to record their opinions.

So the House divided ; when there were, for the motion, 68 ; against it, 38.

Motion agreed to.

THE PAPER DUTY.

On the motion for the second reading of the Paper Duty Repeal Bill, Sir WILLIAM MILES moved as an amendment the following resolution-

" That, as it appears the repeal of the duty on paper will necessitate the addition of one penny in the pound to the property and Income-tax, it is the opinion of this House that such repeal is, under existing circumstances, at the present moment inexpedient.

He had given notice that he should move that the bill be read a second time that day six months ; but, at the last moment, he substi- tuted the resolution quoted above. Sir William is not in favour of the paper duty, but he regards the present as not the time to sweep away that duty, and to replace the revenue by increasing the Income-tax. He interceded for the hundreds of thousands who pay Income-tax on less than 150/. a year, contending that the abolition of the paper duty and the duty on gloves, silks, and wines, will not benefit them. The paper tax is an increasing tax. He seemed incredulous on the subject of the difficulties of collection as described by the Commissioners of Inland Re- venue. Mr. STANHOPE seconded the motion by a speech directed against the Income-tax. Mr. NORRIS said that, if Sir William Miles carried his reso- lution, he would have to bring in a bill to define what paper is ; and, to draw such a bill, he would need the most ingenious assistance. The Court of Exchequer says, that paper is "fibrous matter knitted together in sheets" ; but the clothes he had on might be defined in that way, and, by a sketch of the powers of the Excise, might be made liable to duty. Mr. Mus.s supported, and Mr. BRACE and Mr. MAGUIRE opposed the resolution. Lord ROBERT Caen. was anxious to repeal the paper tax, but contended that this is not the time to do so. It will cause an increased demand for paper, and, as the cost of raw material will be raised by high duties on exports from the continent, the price of paper will remain the

same. Therefore, the 1,000,0001. that now falls into the Exchequer, will henceforth fall into the exchequers of foreign countries. No substi- tute for rags has been discovered, and therefore there will be no relief from taxation. Lord Robert ridiculed the idea that the duty is a tax on knowledge. He called the letter of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue " a report made to order." He inveighed against the relation established by Mr. Gladstone between direct and indirect taxation as unjust. He sub- stituted direct for indirect taxes ; a plan of finance which is a plundering finance, and amounts to confiscation.

Mr. MILNER Grasox said that Lord Robert had travelled beyond the question by descanting on general theories. The House has agreed to the treaty ; the treaty destroys protection for paper, and the question was, should the excise duty be retained ? The House had approved the policy of the Government, agreed to provide a large expenditure, and re- mit taxation for the benefit of trade and industry. The French Treaty swallowed up 1,190,0001. out of the proposed 2,200,000/. of remission. The question was not between the paper duty and the Income-tax, but the paper duty and some other branch of indirect taxation. In fixing on the paper duty, the Government made a judicious selection. Mr. Gibson entered at length into the question ; showing how Parliament had con- demned the tax ; that even Mr. Disraeli and Lord Derby had promised . to support its repeal when arrangements were made ; and here, said Mr. Gibson, are the arrangements made ; reinforced by further considera- tions the arguments and statements of the commissioners of Inland Re- venue, and he quoted a passage in support of their views from one of their reports made in Lord Derby's time, and therefore "not made to order." There is no mode of escape from these difficulties except by repeal. Our consumption of paper, as compared with that of other countries, is not in proportion to our population. He further showed that repeal is a farmer's question, and expressed his belief that the manufacture of paper is the only rural manufacture that can in these days be carried on with advantage. Many agricultural materials now burnt, like couch grass, can be converted into the material of paper. Finally, he advocated re - peal, on the ground that it obstructs the circulation of periodicals and newspapers.

Mr. HOESMAN insisted on connecting the paper duty and the income- tax ; arguing from Mr. Gladstone's budget speech that the additional penny Income-tax was expressly imposed to fill the void made by the repeal of the paper duty. Mr. Horsman, on the contrary, argued that trade would have been stimulated, and the labouring classes would have been benefited more by the reduction of the duties on tea and sugar than by the repeal of the paper duty. He censured the Commissioners of In- land Revenue for writing, and Mr. Gladstone for calling upon them to write, and afterwards publishing a report contrary to their known opin- ions. The paper duty is paid by the rich, the tea and sugar duties by the poor. Next year, tea and sugar will put in a stronger claim, and the Income-tax will leap up to a shilling. And thus, in time of peace, by this precedent, they were repealing an in- direct tax, and substituting a direct tax ; and, by a smooth, inevitable pro- cess, effecting a complete fiscal revolution. (Opposition cheers.) It was here that he joined issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The question of direct and indirect taxation was the great problem of the day. It was full of the most dangerous difficulties. No one felt that snore strongly, and expressed it more emphatically, than Sir R. Peel; and he said that a great financier, with the ability and the authority of the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, professing to review the whole financial system of the country, and to place it on a new and solid basis, ought to have gone into an inquiry on all the great principles involved—into the proportion in which the taxes of the country were paid by each class of the community, and into its ability to pay them. He should have done this openly and in broad daylight, and after full notice given. He should not arbitrarily have assumed that the pressure was on indirect taxation, and have shifted the burden from one class to another without one single word of inquiry or explanation. (Opposition cheers.) For, observe, they were placing the whole of the indirect taxation of the country at the mercy of those who had to pay it. A Chancellor of the Exchequer could no longer plead that he had no surplus. A surplus was not required. Here stood their beast of burden. Lay the burden upon him : he had a broad back. And thus, not openly and publicly, but stealthily and by a side wind, the whole taxation of the country was shifted from one class to another, and ultimately they would come to confiscation. (Opposi- tion cheers.) Do not let them mince the matter. (Cheers and coun- ter cheers.) Let them give honour to whom honour was due. This was not the Budget of the Government. It was the Budget of the honourable Member for Birmingham. (Opposition cheers.) His honour- able friend, during the autumn, made a most able and frank exposition of his financial policy, and he could imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer writing to him and saying, " I read with great interest your speech. You have made a convert of me. I beg you to come by an early train to Down- ing Street, and help me to frame my Budget." (Opposition cheers.) I can well imagine that when my honourable friend and my sagacious friend came together, the honourable Member for Birmingham would say to him, " Do not go too fast—you are too impetuous. (Laughter.) Converts always are. There are the tea and sugar duties, 11,000,0001.—don't touch them ; there is the tobacco duty, 5,000,0001.—don't touch it ; begin with the Paper- duty—it is only a penny. Ring the changes upon that penny, and that will get in the point of the wedge. (Opposition cheers.) All the rest must inevitably follow ; and when, in process of time, we are enabled to table our whole financial scheme, my revolutionary project of finance, embellished and disguised under your rhetoric—(Opposition cheers)—will introduce into the world what we should term in Manchester a prime article—the last and newest sample of the Oxford mixture." (Loud Opposition cheers.) "Well, Sir," continued Mr. Horsman, " we have had two samples. We have had first the treaty, which my honourable friend the Member for Birmingham told us was the dearest object of his affections, but which was also the child of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, as all progenies must have two parents—(Laughter)—we may assume that the honourable Member for Birmingham had the pride of paternity, while it was on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that them devolved the pains of labour. (Loud laughter) The first-born is Master Treaty ; and in the fulness of time there appears Miss Budget, with every prospect of a numerous family." (Renewed laughter.) Mr. Horsmau began to read a letter written by Mr. Gladstone, but finding he was reading it wrongly, he broke down in the middle, amid cries of " read, read !" and "Clerk, clerk !" and said he would not press the point, which called forth cries of "divide." These cries were often repeated as Mr. Horsman proceeded to make a sustained personal attack upon Mr. Glatt- stone, in answer to some slighting remark made in the warmth of debate on the preceding Friday. Mr. Korman broadly charged Mr. Gladstone with having abandoned the policy of Sir Robert Peel, with having clouded and sembarrassed the future with inevitable deficits. Sir Robert Peel treasured the Income-tax as a mighty engine for war and a guarantee for peace, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer prostitutes our great national source of strength into a relief fund for agitating class interests. The paper-makers' turn is today, the sugar dealers scramble for it tomorrow, and the licensed dealers Will try to coerce him at a future time, till, year after year, the principle having been once violated and broken down, when our hour of trial comes, whether it be from commercial pressure (1* from war, we shall wake up from a sense of our magnificent folly to the reality of that disor- ganization which history warns us is the precursor of national convulsion. Mr. GLADSTONE rose at twenty minutes past twelve, and began by re- plying to Mr. Horaman's terrific attack," and expressing his sorrow that he had used an expression huItful to Mr. Horsman's feelings :— " The right honourable gentleman is not, I think, quite right in sup- posing, as he appears to do, that he has always been remarkable for mo- deration of speech. It was not in my mind on Friday night-1 had en- tirely forgotten it until I heard it again this evening—but I do recollect that on it'former evening he stated, with a blandness of manner not quite in harmony with the words, that, while Sir Robert Peel conducted his finances in the spirit of a statesman, the present Chancellor of the Ex- chequer commenced as a spendthrift and finished as a footpad. (Cheers and laughter.) And, Sir, vivid as has been the contrast which the right honour- able gentleman has drawn tonight between the policy of Sir Robert Peel and that of the present Government, I do not think that any of the touches which he gave to the picture succeeded in producing a sharper antithesis than his very first effort after the Budget had been brought forward. Now 1 pass entirely from that subject to what is more important, because it stands in some relation' at any rate, to the question which we have to decide to- night ; and hereI cordially agree with the right honourable gentleman that he has not minced the matter—(Laughter)—for he has drawn such a picture as would be perfectly wonderful from any hand but his. The abolition of a duty of Excise—that is the proposal which is before the House, and in it he sees—what does he notsee ? (Renewed laughter.) He sees the triumphof the honourable Member for Birmingham, and he imagines the letter which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will write to that honourable Member. Observe how much more easily he deals with his imaginings than with his facts. Although he could not make out the letter which he had extracted from a newspaper, and which, I believe, was really a letter of mine, although he entirely failed to decipher that, the letter which was written only on the tablet of his own brain, he read verbum verbo to the House, and never stickled at a point or a passage. (Laughter.) A predominance of this faculty is necessary to my right honourable friend. Is this really the first proposal that has been made to repeal a duty of excise ? Why is he to imagine that a series of horrors are to follow this beginning, each one of which, as he enunciated it, drew increasing cheers from a small but enrap- tured band—(" Oh, Oh ! " and cheers)—and which he led up to its climax by deliberately asserting that the natural consummation of the budget of the present year would be in a system of general confiscation ! (" _Hear, hear !" from the Opposition benches.) There may be here and there a member of this House who shares that opinion, but, for my own part, I frankly own that, rather than waste the time of the House in dealing with statements of that kind, I should prefer to leave sentiments so extreme and so extravagant to stand confuted in the publio view by what I must venture to call their own absurdity." (Cheers.) Mr. Gladstone said he could not discover the real view of Mr. Horsman. If he did not mean that the million of money to which he referred should be bestowed on the repeal of an indi- rect tax—say the sugar and tea duties—then he was only playing off those duties against the paper duty, and deluding the House !

The Government have examined the case of the tea and sugar duties on one side and the paper-duty on the other, and decided in favour of the lat- ter, not only because it will stimulate trade, creating new manufactures— corrugated paper for instance—but because the duty is not tenable. Mr. Horsman said the Government knew nothing of the principles of Sir Robert Peel—he had got exclusive possession of them. But before he instructed the Government in the principles of Sir Robert Peel, he should have ac- quainted himself with the subject. " Who repealed the duties on the ex- ports of wool, of soap, and of glass ? I do not hesitate to say that, taking the paper-duty as a question, not in the state in which it was ten years ago, but as it is now, there is a far stronger case for its repeal than there ever was for the repeal of glass or soap, or any other duty that has been repealed for the last twenty years." When could a better opportunity of redeeming the pledge to revise our indirect taxation be found, than when we had 2,000,000/. annuities falling in, and how could the pledge be redeemed better than by repealing the paper-duty ? Having disposed of some of the arguments of Sir William Miles, Mr. Gladstone showed that the repeal of the duty will tend to break up monopolies ; that it will stimulate rural manufacture ; and that if we gave away the tea and sugar duties, instead of the paper-duty, we should give away tenable for untenable taxes. He vindicated the Commissioners of Inland Revenue from the "slur" thrown upon them by Lord Robert Cecil, saying that "this is no report made to order," that the Board formed its opinion first, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was mainly influ- enced in coming to an opinion by the Board.

Sir JOHN Pagrive'rox briefly supported the motion of Sir William Miles, amid cries of " divide," and then the House divided :-

For the resolution, 192 ; against it, 245 ; majority for Ministers, 53. The bill was read a second time.

BANKRUPTCY LAW.

On Thursday, the AI ORNEY-GENERAL moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend and consolidate the laws relating to Bankruptcy and Insolvency in England. The real difficulty attending a reform of this part of our law arose, he observed, not from the intricacy of the subject, but because the ground is encumbered by the relics of former attempts at legislation. The result is, that no country has so bad a law as ours. Yet nothing ought to be more simple. All that is required is a tribunal to ascertain the extent of the rights of those who are interested in the property surrendered by the creditor, and a machinery for realizing the property and for its distribution among the persons entitled to it. Never- theless, at present, the expense of a bankruptcy amounts to very nearly 33 per cent. of the assets of the debtor. He then proceeded to explain the alterations he proposed to introduce.

He premised that he thought it desirable for the present not to abolish en- tirely imprisonment for debt. The first evil which calls for a remedy is the monstrous anomaly of having two different modes of dealing with the estates of bankrupts and insolvents ; and he proposed, following in the steps of high authorities, to abolish entirely the distinction between the law of insolvency and of bankruptcy, and to make one law applicable to both. He proposed that every insolvent should be entitled to present a petition to be adjudged a bankrupt ; that, if he should be unable to bear the expense, he might be brought up and petition in forma pauperis ; and that persons refusing to surrender their property should, after remaining in prison for fourteen days, be adjudged bankrupts, and be subject to the law. These three. provisions would practically have the effect of abolishing a lengthened imprisonment for debt, insolvency being merged in bankruptcy.Then he had thought it right, he said, in order to include non-traders, instead of

the technical acts which now constitute bankruptcy, to substitute a few plain and simple but unmistakeable tests of insolvency. The next great evil is the manner in which the administration of the law is pro- vided for. At present, the five judges in the Court of Bankruptcy unite the judicial and the administrative functions. But there is no necessity whatever for five administrators, and he proposed to sweep away the Commissioners in London altogether (their salaries being continued to them, on condition that they should be prepared to assist in cases of emergency), and to substitute onejudge, armed with the powers of a Court of Equity and a Court of Common Law, with correspond- ing emolument. He then explained the provisions for appeals from the Country Courts, the course of procedure, the taking of evidence, and the examination of accounts. He proposed that, in the London district, there should be an auxiliary or assistant court for eases in which the estates do not exceed 3001. With respect to the country districts, he could not, he said, satisfactorily intrust this jurisdiction in all cases, at present, to the Judges of the County Courts, and he proposed to empower her Majesty, by order in Council, to parcel out and make a new arrangement and distribu- tion of districts, so that there might be a gradual absorption of this juris- diction by the County Courts. The Attorney-General then entered mi- nutely into the subordinate provisions and machinery of the Bill. It would provide, he said, for cases in which creditors, resorting to the Court of Bankruptcy for any particular purpose, may desire to take the estate out of its hands, which a majority of three-fourths of the creditors may do at any time, and make a private arrangement. It will provide for compositions and arrangements, by enabling a debtor to assign his property to trustees by a deed that shall be registered in the Court of Bankruptcy, the ereditors being placed in the same position as if the debtor had been adjudged a bankrupt. After stating the provisions made for meeting the charges of the new system, he explained the modes of procedure that would be adopted for the administration of the assets of a bankrupt, the relative functions of the official assignees and the creditors' assignees, and the salaries of the former, which he proposed to fix at 8001. a year, with power to the Judge to augment the amount, according to the work done, until it attained the maximum of 15001. The criminal jurisdic- tion over bankrupts he proposed to leave to the Criminal Courts, the Com- missioner in Bankruptcy being empowered to suspend the discharge of the debtor.

The bill was read a first time.

RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.

The Wednesday sitting was mainly occupied by a debate on the second reading of Mr. Lucas SING'S Religious Worship Bill—a measure, he said, intended to extend to the clergy of the Established Church that freedom of religious worship enjoyed by every other denomination. It enabled divine service to be performed in private houses, theatres, and such like places, without the permission of the incumbent of the parish or the licence of the Bishop. A large number of Members supported the motion ; but it was objected to by the Government, and by Mr. Wm.- ems on the part of the Opposition. They sympathized with the pur- pose of the bill, to extend the opportunities of attending public worship among the poor who do not go to church, but they declared the bill would promote confusion in the parochial system, overthrow the autho- rity of the Bishop, and lead to discord. Mr. Bouvrisiz moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months ; and on a division the amendment was carried by 168 to 131.

EXPORT OF RAGS. In reply to Mr. PULLER, Lord Joni: RUSSELL said it was pretty certain that an export duty will be levied on rags leaving France ; but it will not be heavy. The Government will take steps to ob- tain the export of rags from Holland, Belgium, Germany, Spain, and Portugal.

HOP-DUTIES. The House went into Committee on the Customs Acts, on Thursday, commencing with Resolution 15, reducing the duty on hops from 1st January 1861 ; the duty, until January 1862, to be 20s. the hundred- weight, and afterwards 158. Mr. Donor moved an amendment, with the object of raising the question whether, after 1st January 1862, the duty should not absolutely cease. After a discussion, the Committee divided, when the amendment was rejected, the numbers being—For it, 104; against, 138; majority, 34.

SUNHAT Tnamsc. Lord CHELMSFORD has introduced a bill relating to Sunday trading. He said.there was nothing in the bill to prevent Sunday trading before the hour of Divine service in the morning. It was not a bill of coercion, but of protection. It was not a bill of restraint but of liberty. It was for the protection and advantage of those who were compelled by the hard necessity of the existing system to carry on trade on Sunday, and all he feared was that it would be objected that he had conceded too much in that direction."

ADULTER.ATIOK. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD'S Adulteration of Food and Drink Bill was debated in Committee on Wednesday. The objection raised was that the bill would not accomplish its purpose. Clause 11, providing that the bill should not be extended to Scotland or Ireland, was carried by 101 to 88 ; much to the disgust of the Scotch and Irish Members, who eagerly de- mand the extension of the bill. It was explained that the bill could not be BO extended, as the machinery for working it would not apply to those countries. Clause 2, hitherto postponed, providing that due notice should be given to a vendor that his goods would be analyzed, was carried by 123 to 13.

EmzerioN COMMITTEES.—On Saturday, the Committee closed its sittings on the Norwich election, with the declaration that " Lord Bury was not duly elected to serve in Parliament for the city of Norwich, and that the election was a void election."

The Peterborough Election Committee closed on Tuesday. "The Chair- man said—" The Committee have determined that G. H. Whalley, Esq., is duly elected a Burgess to serve in the present Parliament for the city of Peterborough. The Committee have also agreed to the following resolu- tion :-

" That it was proved that Richard Kelly had been paid one sovereign by Johnson Reed, and the further sum of ten sovereigns by John Miller ; that John Norman had been paid 41. by John Miller that Charles Frith had been paid 81. 10s. by Johnson Reed ; and that John Stimson had been paid five sovereigns by John Miller; and that all these sums had been paid for i corrupt purposes. But that it appeared to the Committee that Johnson Reed and John Miller were not the agents of the sitting Member, George Hammond Whalley, Esq." The Committee inquiring into the Clam County Election came to a decision on Wednesday, "that Colonel Luke White was not duly elected at the last election to serve as a Member for Clare county in the present Par- liament ; and that the last election was, as far as related to the said Colonel Luke White, a void election." The Committee added that a large number of cases of bribery and treating were proved, but that it was not proved that they had taken place with Colonel White's knowledge.