thatrg au1 frorttitings in fartioultut.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Meese or Loans. Monday, February 20. The French Treaty ; Lord Derby's Complaints. Tuesday, February 21. The Budget ; Mr. Du Cane's Motion, debate adjourned. Thursday. February 23. Grand Juries ; .Lord Chelmsford's Bill committed—En- dowed Schools; Lord Cranworth's Bill committed.

_Friday, February 24. Spain and `Morocco ; Question by Lord Carnarvon—Divine Worship in Theatres ; Lord Dungannon's Motion.

HOUSE Or Commons. Monday, February W. The French Treaty ; Mr. Disraeli's i'lotion, negatived by 293 to 230.

Tuesday, February 21. Law and -Equity ; the Lord Chancellor's Bill read a fret time—Plea of "Not Guilty ; "Lord Brougham's Bill read a first time—Tasmania ; Petitions—China; Lord Elgin's Statement.

Wednesday, February 22. Public Improvements: Mr. &limey's Bill postponed— Window Cleaning Bill thrown out—Election Petitions' Act Amendment BM read a second time.

Thursday, February 23. The Budget; adjourned debate on Mr. Du Cane's Mo- tion resumed, again adjourned.

Friday, February 24. The Budget ; Debate on Mr. Du Cane's Motion.

THE BUDGET /OM THE TREATY.

The party conflict -on the -financial measures of the Government began on Monday ; but in a manner different from what the public had been led to expect. For late on Friday evening, without noise, Mr. Disraeli placed a notice of an amendment on the paper, and thus superseded that of Mr. Du Cane.

When the Cruorceraon of the MX11E4117E11 moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee on the Customs' Acts, Mr. Dew- COWIE inquired whether the House would be called upon to accept the treaty 'as it stood, or to reject it altogether. No answer was given ; and Mr. Du CANE proceeded to state that he should postpone his motion until the House had debated that which Mr. Disraeli had placed on the paper. This brought the House to the threshold of the debate.

Mr. Drew.= began his speech by an 'elaborate statement of the rea- sons that had governed his party in the course they pursued. They re- garded the proposition of the Minister as dangerous, and determined to oppose it ; but how ? They might join some interests, attack and em- barrass the Ministry. Would that be 'a course worthy of a great party. No. It was their duty to fee on -some broad straightforward objection and take the opinion of the House upon it. Hence, Mr. Do Cane's amendment. But they 'found themselves compelled to precipitate -an issue because the Oovenament proposed to treat public business in a

peculiar manner. In answer to the

toting answer • and then with great unwillingness, and without consult- ing anybody but Sir Hugh Cairns, Slr. Disraeli placed this notice on the paper— That this House does not think fit to go into committee on the CDs- toms' Acts, with a view to the reduction or repeal of the duties referred to

in the treaty of commerce between her Majesty and the Emperor of the French, until it shall have considered, and assented to, the engagements in that treaty." Mr. Disraeli complained that the mode of proceeding adopted lay the Government, limited and abridged discussion. The treaty with France

never has been, never Gan be -before the House. If the resolutions are

adopted in committee, the treaty cannot be considered, because 'the reduc- tion of duties will take effect as soon as the resolutions are passed. All those opposed to the remissions must confine their opposition to matters in the Customs' Act, and how then is the House to deal with the considerable questions arising under the treaty ? Ought a treaty containing an article like the 11th, whereby the sovereign agrees not to exercise for ten years a right confided to her by Parliament, to escape the consideration of the Rouse ? But although the engagement is illegal, yet the treaty would be complete so faros a foreign power is concerned ; and she will be bound to carry out article 11 although the House had remitted the duties on customs. Mr. Disraeli desired then to know how the treaty would be brought within the con- stitutional control of the House. It is unprecedented to address the Crown on a treaty on which the Crown has not addressed the House. He cited cases, the Treaty of Utrecht and the treaty with Sardinia, when the Crown

did send the treaties with a message to the House. Mr. Disraeli's great 'precedent, however, was the course pursued by Mr. Pitt in 1786. Mr. Pitt brought up " by command " the treaty then concluded with France ; and he gave ten days for the study of the document, which had already been dis- cussed for four months by the country, Mr. Fox protested against ten days only being allowed. , We have had only ten days allowed although the treaty was not ratified when Parliament met." Mr. Pitt moved that the House should go into committee on the French treaty, and he submitted twenty resolutions of a general character, which did not entrap the House into an approval of details. The resolutions were agreed to, and then Mr. Pitt moved an address to the Crown, pledging the Rouse to enable his Ma- jesty to carry out the treaty. The resolutions and the address were sent to the House of Lords, a body which has been 'forgotten in these transactions. 11r. Pitt took no further steps until the address had been adopted ; and then he brought in his Customs' Conplidation Act. " In Februstry„Mr. Pitt introduced the commercial treaty. In March he introduced his great measure of financial reform, and at 'the right time in April he producad his budget. ((Meers:) I ask the House.why are we to be treated differently than the Commons in 1786 ? " Mr. Disraeli concluded by some disparage- ment of the course taken by the Government in making Mr. Cobden their secret agent, and an appeal to them to adopt his amendment which he said would be a course consistent with honour -and dignity. He moved his amendment.

Mr. GLADSTONE said Mr. Disraeli had called attention to a point of procedure. He did not see the advantage of discussing the character cif Hr. Cobden, nor of stating the reasons which led him to change his pur- pose. Mr. Gladstone in a strain of sarcastic humour, put aside Mr. Disraeli's apologies Gladstone, the Government, and said that the dignity of Government is a matter on which different gentlemen in different situa- tions may have different opinions. The course adopted by the Government has been dictated by a regard") the privileges of the House of Commons, and likewise by what Mr. Disraeli did not mention—a regard to the interests of great branches of trade. Going to facts, Mr. Gladstone showed that Mr. Pitt's resolutions were not general, as described by Mr. Disraeli—one of them, for instance fixing the duty on vinegar ! Yet these were resolutions which it was said were incapable of being the foundation of a financial measure. Having exposed several errors of fact in Mr. Disraeli's historical statement, Mr. Gladstone showed that her Majesty has not been advised to do an illegal act with regard to the ex- port of coal. The treatyhas no bearing whatever on any rightseither power may possess with regard to the contraband of war. The power to export or to prohibit the exportation of coals, as contraband of war, is as clear and entire as it was before the treaty was signed. Passing from these points, Mr. Gladstone showed that the 14th article of the treaty must be taken with the 20th, and not the 20th taken alone; since the 14th specifically defines the nature of the sanction Parliament is to give—the only sanction it can give—its legislative 'sanction. All the engagements of Great Britain are contained in the articles coming before the 14th, and the 14th describes in precise terms how the treaty shall become binding on Great Britain. After the 14th article come the engagements of France, and the 20th says the treaty shall not be valid—that is, for France—unless Parliament_authorizes the execution of those engagements. What engagements .did Mr. Disraeli refer to in his resolution ? Could the House assent to the duties to be levied in French ports ? If interpreted grammatically, the resolution asserts that the House is to pass a specific assent to all the details of every article of the _treaty. Did Mr. Disraeli mean that ? He said nothing in explanation of his meaning in his speech. Far from having abandoned precedent, the Government have substantially followed the precedents of Mr. Pitt. 'Could anything more absurd be proposed than that, by a mistaken adherence to -the letter of former precedents, an interval of four months should elapse before the treaty received the legislative sanction of the House ? Mr. Dis- raeli said the treaty should have been made known to the House in a mes- sage from the Crown. Such is not our impression. He could not recollect one of the innumerable treaties of commerce that had' been made known by a message from the Crown. And how does the moae of receiving the treaty bear on the liberty of discussing it ? What can the House do in reply to a royal message that it cannot do upon papers presented by command ? "Really the-question is puerile." Vi'heers.) The Government have taken a view of the necessity of despatch different from that taken by Mr. Pitt, but were Mr. Pitt living now amid the development of our commercial-sys- tem, he would not have troubled hislrain about intervals between stages of a treaty, but with the exigencies of the great interests it involved. Mr. Fox did not ask for delay, because lie was not ready to go on with the discus- sion, but because he stud France was our natural enemy, and that Mr. Pitt's treaty struck at the root of the power of the executive in conducting relations with foreign powers. Mr. Pitt's treaty was in favour of French produce, and therefore he proposed a committee on the treaty. That course was not open to the Government, because they could not propose exclusive legislation in favour of France. But Mr. Pitt knew his duty as a constitu- tional minister too well to place the articles of the treaty betore the House and ask for its assent. He did not-hold Mr. Disraeli's 'doctrine that although the Queen may make a paper treaty, Parliament must ratify its provisions. There have been ministers who forgot to ask for legislative sanction to the provisions of a treaty. And who were they ? The right honourable gentlemen opposite.

"I have no hesitation in stating that it is the intention of the Govern- ment, if the House adopt those specific enactments requiring legislative sanction, fairly to submit to the Ho:lee the treaty as a whole. And, let me add, we don't intend to do it as supposing it to be necessary in order to ful- fil the terms of the treaty that acquire the legislative sanction of Parlia-

ment, beoause we hold distinctly that the only mode in which Parliament strictly can give its assent to a treaty is by giving efiect to the stipulations

it contains. A _Parliament cannot assent to a treaty. Parliament is a fluc- tuating body. The King never dies, but Parliament does, and you could not in any formal way bind Parliament to any terms of a treaty ; Parlia- ment might be dissolved tomorrow, and a directly opposite vote might be given by that Which succeeded it. It is not, therefore, to enable Parliament to assent-to the terms of the-treaty in any formal judicial sense that we shall ask its opinion, but to.add all the moral weight we can obtain to the instru- ment, in order to make it fulfil all the main purposes for which it is in- tended." The real sin of which the Government have been guilty is, that they have combined the Budget and treaty in one. "In point of fact, our defence for mixing the treaty and the Budget may be comprised in two sen- tences. We considered, in the first place, exclusive legislation entirely out of the question. That is one of the principles I want to see tested by the vote of tonight. That was our first principle; the second was one that had reference simply and exclusively to public convenience. We were about to propose to Parliament that it should give its sanction to a treaty with France that involved remissions of duty to an extent little short of 2,000,000/., and a surrender for the year of revenue to an extent somewhat exceeding 1,000,000/. _Now, Sir, I want to know what would have been the

position of the Government if they had come down to Parliament, not in -this special year 1860, but in any year, stating, we ask you torment taxes to

nearly 2,000,000/., and to surrender revenue above 1,000,0001., but we won't tell you yet what are to be -the financial arrangements of the year. That is the Justification of our combining the treaty and Budget, and I am certain that this House will not fail for a moment to see the sufficiency of that jus- tification."

Sir HUGH CAIILNS maintained that by the mode of procedure adopted, the Government runs -the risk of repealing duties and yet losing the treaty ; for if the duties arc repealed in committee, they are repealed absolutely, since the House never withdraws from a resolution. Yet if

afterwards the treaty is rejected, the revenue will be lost. Mr. Pitt's course is the only one that is convenient. "We demand, then, on the part

of the House of Commons, some proceeding—no. matter what, provided it

is practical and convenient—by which we shall have this treaty fairly presented before us, and that we may not be entangled, though I acquit the Government of any intentional desire to entangle us, into an approval

of its stipulations in the shape *of a resolution on the Customs' Act. (Cheers.) I fully admit the importance to trade, of expedition and cer-

tainty in this matter; but I demand what is even more important than

the interests of trade—the recognition of the most valuable privileges of the House of Commons. (Cheers.) "Sir Hugh contended that al-

though the Crown has been entrusted with the power of prohibiting the export of coal, yet that the Crown cannot surrender that power without the assent of Parliament. He desired that Parliament should give a free opinion on the treaty, and not be told when they had dealt with the Cus-

toms' duties, that they could not touch a treaty which gave effect-to them. Sir RICHARD Braemar, describing Mr. Gladstone's speech as "crushing," commented on the errors of -Sir Hugh Cairns and Mr.

Disraeli. In regard to the remission of duties after the passing of a resolution, he showed that it was accompanied by a safeguard—the payer of the reduced duly undertaking topay the full amount if Parliament did not ratify the resolution. He pointed out other errors. With regard to the export of coal, the power given to the Crown is not a direction, but a matter of prerogative. The Queen may therefore properly enter into the contract on the treaty, for in so doing she acts within the limit and verge of the authority given to her, and wants no further sanction of Parliament. Sir Richard contended that a more correct form of pro-

cedure could not have been devised than that adopted by -the Govern- ment, and showed that it wo-ta give ample opportunity for discussing the treaty. He characterized the motion as a piece of idle ingenuity. Sir FITZROY "KELLY maintained that the treaty to be valid, must from the terms of article 20, be assented to as a whole. The only way to signify such assent is by an act of Parliament. Mr. NEWDEGATE de- clared Mr. Cobden to be a most improper person to negotiate such a treaty, and described the treaty itself as one-sided. Mr. AYRTON sup- ported Mr. Disraeli's views amidst the cheers of the Opposition. Mr. MALINE followed on the same side, and said they were endeavouring to pass a one-sided bargain by a side wind. Mr. BRIGHT made a brief and spirited speech, taking the Opposition to task for not adopting a manly and straightforward course, urging them

to debate the great questions involved manfully. He is so much in fa- vour of the treaty, that he will vote for it as it is, and so much in favour of the free-trade measures of the budget that he will vote for that as it is.

(Opposition cheers.) "Move a specific resolution ; let us have the debate on a well-defined question, and talk it out "; and not leave the whole industry of the country in perplexity and suspense.

Mr. Swymoun Frrzonnexn contended that no speaker had grappled with the point of the amendment, and insisted on the precedent of 1780.

He hinted that Lord John Russell might not have been able to fathom the political intentions of those who proposed particular measures on the treaty, on account of his inexperience in foreign affairs.

Lord ...TORN RUSSELL said that the course recommended by the Conser- vative party was a course at variance -with the prerogative of the Crown.

They would have every clause of the treaty re-negotiated, re-confirmed, or rejected by the House. They demand a power larger than that given to the Senate of the United States. The clause relating to shipping

leaves matters as they stood in 1869, yet MT. Disraeli would have that

brought under the notice of the House. It would be competent in any Member to propose that the House should declare the treaty not worth having unless the shipping duties were altered ; but to discuss that part of the treaty depending on the prerogative of the Crown is a monstrous proceeding. Lord John then went over the proceedings of Mr. Pitt, and showed that the Government have followed precedent. Referring to Mr. Fitzgerald's charge of want of sagacity, he said :—

"1 think that the sagacity of honourable gentlemen opposite at this moment is somewhat too acute. They never hear of any proposal of the French Government that they do not say it contemplates war with England. My belief is that the Emperor of the French has seen the great advantages that we have derived in England from free-trade; that he has seen how much richer we have become ; that he knows—with-his-knowledge of France he must know—the enormous profits that are made, whether by the coal- owners or manufacturers, at the expense of the people of France, who get their goods and coal at twice the price they ought to pay : that while he wishes to make Franca strong in war against any enemy-, hewishes also to make her strong in peace, rich and prosperous, and that this commercial treaty has been intended to make the French people rich and prosperous ; with this view, and with no sinister design of making war against this country, has this treaty been proposed. That is a very shuple belief." " Hear," and a laugh.) Lord John thought that the motion of Mr. Du Cane would be a fair way of bringing the principles of the Ministry and Op- position into open combat. To adopt Mr. Disraeli's proposal would be to depart from precedent, and assume a right of negotiating treaties unknown to the constitution. Mr. HOUSMAN -fired off an elaborate speech against the whole of the budget ; said that the expectation of the House that their consent should be willed to the treaty, turned out to be a delusion. He spoke of the remis- sion of the paper-duty as a job ; complained that the freedom of discussion was interfered with because every vote involves political responsibili- ties; and stood out for the precedent of 1786 as defined by Mr. Disraeli. He described the treaty as an instrument giving a vast accession of strength and character to a dominant, dangerous' restless, military power that fills Europe with disquietude. He contrasted the caution of Sir Robert Peel with the rashness and innovation of Mr. Gladstone.

Might he tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the use of a familiar -illustration, what was the real. difference between Sir Robert Peel's policy and his? Sir Robert Peel was a gentleman who laid out a certain portion of his income in draining his land, expecting by a larger produce to raise money with which to pay his debts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was afraid, was like the spendthrift who squandered the money that might have fertilized the soil, and then, harassed by debt, went upon the highway and robbed the first comer. (Loud cheers front Ow Opposition.) Why did they not produce the treaty and challenge the judgment of the House. Finally-he protested against this uncertain and ambiguous, against this costly, en-o- neous, and unstatesmanlike policy.; and if anything could make it leas cre- dnable to the House, it was that in its support they were now asked to sub- vert the whole order of their Parliamentary proceeding,s, and to consent to the remissions of a treaty, the provisions'of which had not been explained to them by the.Ministers of the Crown. It was a question affecting the Par- liamentary practice and the constitutional law of that House, and he there- fore hoped that the amendment would be adopted. (Cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON brought the debate to an end by a short and dash- ing speech, recapitulating the chief arguments used on his side, and deal-

ing out smart retorts upon his opponents, selecting Mr. Horsman especially-for attack.

If his arguments go for anything be ought to propose a declaration of non-intercourse with France. "Why, his argument went to that. He said, 'I object to your treaty because it tends to increase the wealth and prosperity of France.' He could not deny that it would, by the necessary operation of international intercourse, tend to increase the wealth and pros- perity of England, but he says that anything which tends to melte France richer, more prosperous, more commercial, more industrious (" Oh, oh !" and doers), is a danger to England. I say that if that is a danger to.Eng- land, he ought at once to propose a law that we should have no intercourse -with France. Let us have no more relations with France; let our industry go to other countries ; let us abstain from anything which, by developing industry and a commercial spirit, may tend to make the people of France think more of the occupations of peace than of those of war, which may tend to unite and cement the two nations together; let us put France under a ban, and if we are to have commerce, let us have it with any other, or every other nation of the world." (Renewed cries of" Oh, oh !" cheers.) Mr. Holleman rose, but was received with a continuance of cheerily from the Ministerial benches which for some time rendered it impossible for him to make himself heard. At last the right honourable gentleman said- " The noble Lord, I am sure will thank me for telling him that I did not say one single syllable." (dries of" Oh, ! "-and cheers.) Lord PALMER8T0N—" I reaffirm that which I have stated. (Renewed cheering.) I do not pretend to have a better memory than other people, but lean recollectethat which has passed in debate." Mr. Bowyer endeavoured to speak but failed to obtain a hearing, and the House went to a division. The numbers were—

For the amendment, 230; for the motion, 293; majority for Ministers 69.

Mr. Dv CANE said that on Tuesday he would move a resolution in terms as nearly as possible similar to those on the paper; and Lord PAL- MERSTON promised to give him every facility..

The House went into committee pro forma, and immediately resumed.

On Tuesday, on the motion for the adjournment, the party conflict was renewed. Sir Jr,um; Gnaw km pointed out, that according to precedent i was not competent for Mr. Du Cane to move his resolution in the Com- mittee on the Customs' Acts, but that he might, if the House permitted, propose his resolution as a motion on the order of the day. The SPEAKER took the same view. Lord PA.LMEBSTON said Quit he was ready to consent to the discussion if Mr. Du Cane made his resolution a substantial mo- tion, and to this Mr. Du Cane readily assented. Mr. Do CANE shortly afterwards rose and moved the following re.so- lution—

" That this House, recognizing the necessity of providing for the in- creased expenditure of the coming financial year, is of opinion that it is not expedient to add to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary re- venue, and is not prepared to disappoint the just expectations of the coun- try by reimposing the Income-tax at an unnecessarily high rate." The debate which ensued did not present any striking features of in- terest, or call np the more distinguished speakers of the House. Mr. Du

CANE denied that his motion was a party motion in the ordinary sense,

but if the charge implied that he opposed an unjust and unsound scheme and thereby vindicated a true and sound Conservative policy, he frankly and gladly accepted that description of his motion. He objected that it is not the time to reduce the duties on wine and paper. He predicted that in the next financial year there would be a deficit of 13,000,0001. and that a reformed Parliament, cut off from indirect taxation, would

either make the Income-tax permanent and intolerable, or resort to a cheese-paring economy. He denounced the Budget as based on a one- sided treaty which fettered the whole system of our taxation. Mr. GOWER replied to Mr. Da Cane, justifying the Budget and the treaty. Lord ROBERT Mormon put it to the House whether it would accept a treaty that cannot be politically defended, aethe'price of an increased in- come-tax. Mr. BAXTER said the Budget was the boldest and best sub- mitted to Parliament since the days of Sir Robert Peel. Mr. LIDDELL -thought the treaty right both commercially and politically, and was pre- pared to make the sacrifices reciaired by the Budget in order that our alliance with France may be cemented. /gr. DODSON thought the treaty commercially wrong but politically right ; and that, to remove slurp-

clone and enable the French Emperor to reduce duties is worth the sa- crifice of political consistency and revenue. Mr. CROSSLEY objected to our vast military expenditure which close commercial relations with France will enable us to reduce. His constituents have received the Budget and the treaty with the greatest satisfaction. Mr. HENNESSY complained that justice had not been done to Ireland. Sir STAFFORD Nontacom admitted the merits of the financial scheme of Mr. Glad- stone. Nevertheless he objected to it on very many points. He raised &general objection to commercial and reciprocity treaties. He thought the price we had to pay for the broach in the French system was too great. He argued against the abolition of the paper duty and the reduc- tion of the wine duties, and predicted a deficit, supporting his prediction by an attempt to show that the elasticity of the revenue would not be sufficient to make things square. The policy proposed would lead to two dangers, the risk of a reckless assault on the taxation of the country or the tendency to run into debt. Mr. AYRTON opposed the resolution and gave a general support to the propositions of the Government. On the motion of Mr. HUBBARD, the debate was adjourned.

Mr. HUBBA.RD resumed the adjourned debate on Thursday night with a speech against the proposal of Ministers. That proposal would not contribute to the public advantage. Regarding it as a question of equi- valents, he described the French engagements as a promissory note which would not be called in the City a discountable security. Advocating an export-tax upon coal, and objecting to the article in the treaty relating to coal, he passed on to the concessions of the French in regard to spirits. The concessions made on the other-side are no equivalent for what we give up on this side. The imposition of the duty of 25 per cent on our manufactures is a perfect mockery. Mr. Cobden's Imperial pupil has made great progress, but the result is that we have to pay an additional twopence in the pound Income-tax as the price of that lesson in political economy to the Emperor of the French. With these reductions which Mr. Gladstone had made, proprio motu, he did not find fault. It was the price we had to pay for them on which he based his objections. He insisted that the small duties imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be a hindrance to trade. While the duty was taken off paper in one direction, a tax was imposed on paper em- ployed in commercial transactions that would prove to be of a most vexa- tious character. Why waste the time of the traders by these petty inmost& ? Would the tax on dock-warrants, apply also to delivery orders ? He ob- jected to the whole of the small charges imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The tax on operations carried on in bonded warehouses would be most onerous in regard to some commodities, and any uniform tax on packages would be destructive to the importation of small packages. Mr. Hubbard objected to the increase of the rncome-tax, and claimed the fulfil- ment of Mr. Gladstone's promise of 1853. He also demanded the readjust- ment of the tax which presses so heavily on industry and ingenuity. If ministers had been as anxious to improve as they had been to impose the tax it could not have remained in its present imperfect and unjust condition. He denied that the reduction of duties under the French treaty would in- -crease the consumption of those articles which constitute the wealth of Eng- land, and he looked forward with no hopeful prospect to the state of the re- venue in 1862. The measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are mis- chievous, dangerous, and impolitic.

Mr. BAINES replied to this speech. Mr. Hubbard is a great financial authority ; but there is an authority still higher, which supports the mea- sures of the Government—the public pulse. When the Budget was pub- lished the funds rose, and they rose again after the decisive division on Monday. It was said the treaty was unpopular in France, yet, in France there had been an advance of the funds. The large manufacturing towns and the public press unequivocally support the treaty, and a large ma- jority of the House has pronounced it safe, wise, and comprehensive. Mr. Baines said, that if the repeal of the corn-laws equalized the price of bread here and abroad, the policy now proposed will equalize the price of labour. If the price of labour rises in France the disadvantage to English competitors will be diminished. Mr. Baines maintained that England has not conceded one-tenth as much as France. We had but a short step to make to the consummation of free-trade : France had to re- verse the policy of 200 years. Mr. Baines supported the great plan before the House on these broad grounds.

1st. That it would complete the ,Treat system of free-trade and remove shackles from productive industry ; 2d. That in the remission of taxes re- gard had been shown for the interests of consumers, or, in other words, for the interests of the great balk of the population ; and 3d. That it established new bonds of friendship and commercial intercourse between this country and her nearest neighbours. (Cheers.) Mr. BLACKBURN opposed, and Mr. MARSH supported the Budget. Mr. HORSFALL had great difficulty in deciding how to vote. The fault of the treaty is the absence of all reference to shipping. He was glad, however, to know that negotiations are going on with the French Go- vernment with a view to give relief to shipping. Objecting to the penny taxation, he nevertheless said he could not vote for Mr. Du Cane's reso- lution, which would neutralize the proposal of the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer to sweep from the tariff so large a list of duties, since the re- moval-of those duties will give an impetus to trade and conduce to the prosperity of the country. Mr. Byre° spoke in support of the Ministerial scheme, and Mr. BEACH argued against it.

The remainder of the evening's debate was occupied by four speakers of political prominence.

Sir FRANCD3 BARING opposed the whole scheme. He said it was not a treaty question, but a Budget question. He had no objection to a -treaty with France, but while they made a treaty with France, why ex- clude the possibility of a treaty with Spain ? As regards the bargain between the two nations, his impression is that France had the beat of it. He argued that the reductions proposed were not made on articles calling for immediate consideration, and he endeavoured to show that it would be vain to expect a large increase of revenue from the consump- tion of French wine, and that it would have been better to reduce the duties on tea and sugar. Reduced duties on tea and sugar had in former years answered the financial helm, and given increased revenue. Lord Ripon's and Lord Althorpe's reductions of the duties on wine did not do so. In selecting articles on _which to make reductions, they

I

should look to those that repay th test. Taking up the political

bearings of the Treaty, Sir Francis it did not recommend itself to him from that point of view. He d not join in attacks on France when they were rife. He never believed in the cry of invasion ; still ..he could not help asking, why are we armed ? Why are we to make great sacrifices for the French alliance ? Why have we so heavy an Income-tax ? Why are our estimates so great ? He desired to see our relations with France wear the most friendly aspect ; but at the present moment he is not anxious for an intimate alliance with France as far as her political conduct in Italy is concerned, (Cheers from the Opposon.) The policy of England is to make Italy free powerful, independent ; that is not the policy of France. France thinks she might to have an equiva- lent if a Central Italian state be established : that is not the policy of England. He should be sorry to see anything done by a commercial treaty which would hold us out in the face of Europe as parties to transactions likely to be carried out for the acquisition of territory in Italy. Sir Francis broadly objected to the Chancellor's scheme except as regards paper, and then inquired in what state the finances of the country would be left. The Income-tax is to be renewed for not more than one year. Is that safe ? Taking our expenditure to be the same in 1861-2 as it is in 1860-1, there would be a deficit of 12,500,0001. Is that desirable ? Would Sir Robert Peel have thrown the revenue into such jeopardy ? The Income-tax and the war-duties on tea and sugar would not cover the deficit : and, would it be wise or statesman- like for anybody who remembered what the first reformed Parliament was for some years, for the present Parliament to bequeath to its successors a deficit of 12,000,0001.?

Mr. BRIGHT said that the speech of Sir Francis Baring was like one of those they were accustomed to read twenty years ago. It was the speech of a man clinging to the past, filled with doubts of the future, and holding up hobgoblins to alarm the House. On the other hand, there was but one voice from one end of the kingdom to the other as to the pro- positions of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Du Cane's resolution was a fair one. It went against the treaty-, the Income-tax, the reduction of duties, against everything but what Mr. Bright described as our great and scandalous expenditure. Mr. Du Cane wished to throw out the budget, the treaty, and to overturn the Government. That was a fair mode of proceeding. Mr. Bright, however, believed that the Parliament would decide in accordance with the opinions of the country. Mr. Bright explained the origin of the treaty—once the object of his ardent wishes now the cherished object of his affections. In July last, he took the liberty of suggesting that the Government should come to some ar- rangement with France to unite the countries by an exchange of their pro- ductions. Not more than a week afterwards, distinguished persons in France communicated with Mr. Cobden and discussed the possibility of carrying out Mr. Bright's suggestions. Therefore he felt more than an ordinary in- terest in the course that has been taken and more satisfaction than he could express at the arrangement which has been made. Grappling with the ob- jections to the treaty, Mr. Bright showed that while Mr. Newderate thought it humiliating to us a distinguished statesman of the Orleamust party had thought it humiliated France. Mr. Bright went into the details of the treaty, and conned over the list of articles for the purpose of show- ing the large concessions which France was making to us ; and assured the House, on the beat authority, that however good the treaty may look now, the result will be very considerably better than the treaty. 'Elie tariff of France will be as liberal as the tariff of the United States. He showed that Mr. Disraeli in former times, when he was "a giant in another field," advocated in one of his novels a treaty with France. "The right honourable gentleman, with an instinct which we cannot too much admire, burst into something like an exclamation on this subject. He says If we only had that treaty of commerce with France which has been so often on the point of comple- tion, the fabrics of our unrivalled potteries could be advantageously ex- changed for their capital wines. ((Theers and laughter.) The dinners of both nations would be improved. The English would gain a delightful beverage, and the French, for the first time in their lives, would dine off hot plates. (Laughter.) And he concludes with an observation which I re- commend to his devoted followers An unanswerable instance,' he says, of the advantages of commercial reciprocity.' " (Cheers and laughter.) Another of those horrid phantoms raised to alarm simple people, was based on the question of coal. Now the question of coal, as far as the navy of France was concerned, is a mere bagatelle. The whole amount required in 1858 was not more than 160,000 tons. The cost would not be more than 80,000/. which is not much to a Government in the emergency of war.He defended the Emperor of the French for delaying the French reductions, and recalled to the recollection of the House that at one time there was a gentleman named Chowler who' excited by Sir Robert Peel's free-trade re- forms, talked of marching with more pleasure upon Manchester than upon Paris. Now there are many of his class in France and the French Chewier said the other day that this treaty would have to be rent by cannon-balls. "I have no doubt there is somebody in France who occupies the position of the right honourable gentleman the Member for Bucks, with less genius, I dare say, in the management of a bad cause—(a laugh)—but, perhaps, with more faith in it than I think the right honourable gentleman feels. (Cheers and laughter,) Nay, if we were as familiar with France as we are with England, we should doubtless find somebody who' like the honourable Member for North Warwickshire, gets up and recites the unintelligible sta- tistics of his party." (Cheers and laughter.) Having paid high compli- ments to Mr. Cobden for his part in the negotiations, Mr. Bright pointed out that the treaty was only a part of the propositions of Mr. Gladstone, and that the increase of the Income-tax was not too much to pay for the changes proposed. He showed that the course taken by Six Robert Peel on previous occasions was exactly the course now taken by Mr. Gladstone. He did not, like Sir Francis Baring, add ten per cent to the taxes, but he reduced duties increased the deficit, and filled up the chasm with an In- come-tax. Aethat time, the honourable gentlemen opposite supported Sir Robert Peel, and not a man on that side can now deny that the condition of the labouring classes has been improved ; that the farmers are busy with their farms instead of coming to Parliament to seek by high prices to pay their rents; and that "you landlords, the most fortunate men in the whole world, have escaped all threatening annihilation."

The close of Mr. Bright's speech was an elaborate denunciation of that foul blot in Mr. Gladstone's statement—the scandalous expenditure. All the panic out of doors in reference to France is a "huge he." If people indulge in the luxury of panics they must pay for them. He pointed out that the treaty proposed to draw closer the ties of friendship which unite the people of England and France. "With these instructions, with this treaty ratified, with this perfect amity, and with this more powerful than all past bonds for uniting not the two Governments only, but the two peoples, why have we this gross increase in our estimates ? I say it is a wonderful incon- sistency ; it is altogether illogical. Some way or other there is a great and patent hypocrisy. Somebody is guilty of immorality, the darkness of which I find myself at a loss to describe." (Cheers.) Why did the Conserva- tives not fix upon that blot ? He thought there must have been two diverse principles at work in the Cabinet, and that if the division went on for an- other year, we might promise ourselves another change among the gentle- men on the Treasury 'Bench. He said it is written irrevocably that this

vast expenditure which is not incurred for the working must hence- forth be defrayed by property and not by direct taxation. And he advised the Government not to try the patience of the tax-payers too far. Mr. WHFFESIDE was put up to answer Mr. Bright. He began by a compliment to Sir Francis Baring, to whose arguments he said Mr. Bright had not replied, wondering perhaps how any man can be found 60 irrational as to differ from him. Mr. Bright said he supported the policy of a certain section of the Government. That is an error—they support him. (Laughter and prolonged cheering.) How complimentary to .Lord Palmerston! Mr. Bright says all men in England agree with him. That is the strongest argument yet heard against Parliamentary Reform. Mr. Whiteside commented sarcastically on Mr. Bright's ac- count of the origin of the treaty—it all arose out of a speech made by himself ! Then he expounded the treaty. "The honourable Member not only spoke on the part of the French Go- vernment, but on the part of the British Ministry as well. I saw the ho- nourable gentleman leave his seat and hold a brief consultation with that section of the Cabinet he is pleased to smile upon. (Laughter.) No mem- ber of the Cabinet has yet joined in this debate or indicated the policy of the Government ; but most unexpectedly the honourable Member for Bir- mingham has undertaken the defence of a section of the Cabinet and also of the French Administration." Showing that the treaty infringed the prin- ciples of free trade, Mr. Whiteside considered and condemned it in its poli- tical aspect, and taunted Mr. Bright with having passed no censure on the French Emperor for not having consulted the Legislature. But Mr. Bright has always patronized absolute power. (Cries of "1f, no !") Why, he has spoken eulogies on the Czar of Russia and the Emperor of the French, and censured those who impugned their policy. Mr. Bright disapproved of heavy estimates and supported the Ministers who proposed them. Why was he not in his place when the estimates were proposed ? Why did he not propound a plan ? Why does he not show where the extravagance lies ? How can he support a Ministry that has a peace policy and war estimates Quitting Mr. Bright, Mr. Whiteside took up the propositions of the Budget —objecting to the reduction of the duties on wine, that rich man's luxury, and arguing for reductions on tea; and condemning the Income-tax. lie quoted Mr. Gladstone against both, and said he refused to whisk about with him at his bidding. He also thinks the moment inopportune for the reduc- tion of the duty on paper.

Mr. CARDWELL observed that the motion demurred to no particular article in the treaty, nor to any proposition in the Budget, but raised the whole question of our financial policy in the fairest manner. He justified the course proposed by the Government by the success of the policy upon which it was founded, observing that even where duties were altogether remitted it was a mistake to suppose that no returns to the Exchequer were obtained by the remission. But returns to the Exche- quer were not all the benefits conferred by the remission of taxation; it had trebled our foreign trade, added to the wealth of every class of the community, dirniniahed the expense of pauperism, and extended social comforts.

On the motion of Mr. NEWDEGATE, the debate was again adjourned.

The House of Lords did not escape a party debate, but it was more limi- ted in length than that in the Commons. The Earl of DERBY raised the questions broached by Mr. Disraeli, and concluded his speech by a formal motion. He treated of the same topics—the 20th article, the export of coal, the differential duties on shipping, Mr. Pitt's precedent. His speech differed from that of Mr. Disraeli in an elaborate attempt to show from published correspondence that Lord John Russell, Mr. Cobden and Lord Palmerston had been mysteriously engaged in negotiating a treaty on principles which they had publicly repudiated in the summer. Lord Derby also seemed to be of opinion that the treaty had been hastily ne- gotiated and that it looked like an attempt to surprise Parliament. It was said that the treaty would promote a good understanding ; but it is a strange mode of effecting that object, to make a treaty which will lead the French people to believe their interests are sacrificed to ours; which will be so unpopular that the Emperor could not pass it through his legis- lature, and which will create ill-will.

Earl GitaxviLLE complained that Lord Derby should have made a long speech on a casual question • and then proceeded to make a reply similar in substance to that made elsewhere.

Earl Gam thought that was not the time to discuss the treaty. But, he might ask, was it wise to bind ourselves to supply France with coals for ten years, while France levied a high duty on articles of raw pro- duce such as rags and silk ? The Duke of ARGYLL admitted that the test of reciprocity would show some defects in the treaty. He should have been glad if it had been a treaty of navigation as well SS a treaty of commerce, but it was not so. The French Government steadily refused to alter the navigation laws.

Motion withdrawn.

THE LICENCE QUESTION.

In reply to questions from Mr. WYLD, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE- QUER said he had no difficulty in giving an answer on one point, which might tend to narrow the field of discussion, and to clear up a matter on which a difference of opinion might prevail. Her Majesty's Govern- ment had no intention of making proposals as to licensing for the sale of beer. (Cheers.) This traffic was to a certain extent regulated by the existing law, and the question was so immediately mixed up with the conflict of interests between the class of persons who kept beer-houses and the licensed victuallers that it was better to let the matter stand over till the state of the law as regarded licences could be dealt with as a whole. The Government proposals, therefore, would not have any re- ference to the sale of beer, but would relate entirely to the sale of wine.

FUSION OF LAM AND EQUITY.

The LORD CHANCELLOR laid on the table a bill of which he had given notice, and which had been drawn in compliance with the recommenda- tions of her Majesty in her Speech from the Throne. The object of the bill was a further fusion of law and equity, in order that, in every suit, the rights of parties might be satisfactorily determined by the court in which it was heard. The bill did not seek to destroy all distinction be- tween law and equity. But at present the suitor at law was frequently compelled to go into a court of equity in order to obtain full relief, and there was compelled to engage a fresh staff of counsel. Why should not the law have the right to dispose of these defences as well as a court of equity, if equitable defences were a complete bar to actions at law ? Suppose the case of an action for trespass, and the trespass was still continued. A court Of law had no power to grant an injunction whilst the action was proceeding, but recourse must be had to equity. So also,

courts of equity alone could relieve against forfeiture. Why should not courts of law have equal powers of relief? Or suppose an action brought upon forged documents. The court of law had no right to order the forged document to be destroyed ; for that purpose it was necessary to file a bill in Chancery. These were some of the instances in which the present measure would be applicable.

LORD ELGIN'S LATE MISSION.

The Earl of ELGIN took the opportunity afforded by a motion for papers relating to his late mission to China to make a personal statement. He had been accused of harshly pressing demands on the Chinese which other Powers did not urge. Those who make that accusation forget that he acted on instructions. But he would not rest a justification of the demand for a resident at Pekin on instructions. He rested it on its merits. If we are to have pacific relations with China, we must have direct intercourse with the Government at Pekin. Another point urged against him was, he did not go to Pekin and ratify the treaty. Ile did not go because he was never charged with the ratification ; he had no option. Then Sir Michael Seymour, in another place, had defended his conduct in China, and said he had a verdict from the late Government in his favour. To give a verdict of that kind in favour of one party with out informing the other either of the result or the grounds of the decision, is an unusual proceeding. Lord Elgin, in April 1858, desired to act promptly in the neighbourhood of Pekin. It was understood that the Admiral should supply gun-boats of light draught to ascend the Peiho. At the appointed time the Admiral arrived without the gun-boats, and thus Lord Elgin's plan of striking a blow and following it up by a visit to Pekin, there to present his credentials and ratify the treaty was frus- trated. The consequence was that the force and the Ambassador had to return hastily to Canton, where new hostilities were breaking out, in obedience to instigations of the Emperor.

PLEA OF Nov GUILTY. Lord BROUGHAM has introduced a bill pro- viding that a party arraigned, should be asked, not whether he is guilty or not guilty, but whether he is desires to be tried upon the indictment or is willing to be convicted on his own confession.

MR. CounkTr. Earl GRA3rtriLLE stated that he had received a letter from Mr. Corbett at Florence, explaining, in reference to Lord Normanby's charges, that though the had known Signor Buoncompagni ever since he has been in Italy, yet that neither on New Year's Day nor any other day did he attend any of his official receptions.

THE TASMANIAN CONSTITUTION. The Earl of CARNAnvox presented petitions praying that the act amending the constitution of the Legislative Council in that colony might be disallowed, on the ground that it limits the franchise, and excludes the Judges of the Supreme Court. The Duke of NEWCASTLE did not regard these grounds as sufficient to warrant him in advising her Majesty to disallow the Act. The Earl of DERBY then presented a petition from the clergy, complaining that in an act amending the constitution they had been unfairly dealt with, and that the mode of reducing their stipends was contrary to the constitu- tion. The Duke of NEWCASTLE entered fully into the question, and showed that the clergy were willing to compromise their claims ; but said he could not recommend the Queen to assent to the act in question because it evinces an entire neglect of vested interests. Earl Grey concurred.