Sitting of 5 March 1860

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.—For Roscommon, v. Thomas William Goff, esquire, void election.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Indictable Offences (Metropolitan District; Paper Duty Repeal; Customs; 2° Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Investments.

ROSCOMMON ELECTION.
House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
"That Thomas William Goff, esquire, is not duly elected a Knight of the Shire to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Roscommon.
"That the last Election for the County of Roscommon, so far as regards the Return of Thomas William Goff, esquire, is a void Election.
"And the said Determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House."

DEFENCES OF PORTSMOUTH.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ASHLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Fortifications now in progress at Hilsea for the defence of Portsmouth are commanded, at a distance of 2,000 yards, by Portsdown Hill, and whether the Government intend to take any measures for putting Portsdown Hill in a proper state of defence?
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he should be glad to know if these works were conducted by Officers of skill and experience?

CAVALRY FIELD OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Why Field Officers of the Cavalry are excluded from the advantages of the late Warrant, being prohibited from taking troop horses as chargers; whether he is aware that the receipts of a Lieutenant Colonel of Cavalry from his pay and allowances are 1s. 10 d. a day less than the pay and allowances of a Lieutenant Colonel of Infantry; and whether, such being the case, he will raise the pay and allowances of a Lieutenant Colonel of Cavalry equal to those of a Lieutenant Colonel of Infantry?
  SIR HENRY STRACEYsaid, he also would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether General Officers appointed to Regiments of Cavalry will in future be obliged to repay the difference,
  2220
  although the prices of Commissions in the Infantry and Cavalry have been equalized?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, with regard to the question put by the noble Lord (Lord Ashley), the House must be aware that in consequence of the great additional range now attained by rifle ordnance, the lines at Hilsea were commanded by the works on Portsdown Hill, at the same time that these works still added greatly to the strength of the fortress, However, the whole subject was under the consideration of the Government, and formed part of the inquiry under the review of the Commission on Fortifications; and he could inform the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) the the was assured the officers in charge of the works at Hilsea were highly competent for the duties imposed upon them. With regard to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Fermanagh (Capt. Archdall) he had in the first place to state that he believed he and the hon. and gallant Member were at issue as to the facts, for he believed that Lieutenant Colonels of Cavalry received 2d. a day more than Lieutenant Colonels of Infantry, the fact being that in the one case forage v. as supplied by the Commissariat, and in the other money to pay for forage was given; hence the difference. With reference to what fell from the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Stracey), he had only to say that, as for the future, Officers of Cavalry would not receive any difference, so also would they not have to pay any difference.

THE ARMY IN THE COLONIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary for War whether the Committee has yet reported, which he stated last Session to be sitting, on the subject of the Expenditure from the British Treasury on the Military Defences of the Colonies, and on the principle on which such expenses ought to be apportioned between the Imperial and Colonial Treasuries, and on the best mode of carrying out such apportionment; and, if they have made their Report, whether he will present it to the House?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT, in reply, said that the Committee on this subject had been appointed before he came into office. They had made their Report, but he had consulted his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies as to its production, and his noble Friend was of opinion that for the

  2221
  present there was an objection to its being laid upon the Table; it being, in fact, a confidential Report to that Department.

CLANDESTINE MARRIAGES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, having regard to the wilful and notorious violation of the Law by Edward James and Jane James at the Shrewsbury Register Office, in December last, and their non-prosecution for the same, he is prepared to recommend any mode for giving greater efficiency to the Law for the prevention of clandestine and fraudulent Marriages in Register Offices.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that since he had replied to the hon. Gentleman upon a former occasion he had received a letter from the Clergyman of the parish stating that the attempt at prosecution in the locality had failed, and in consequence of that he (Sir G. Lewis) had taken steps to direct that a prosecution should be instituted against the parties.

THE ARMSTRONG AND WHITWORTH CANNON.—QUESTION.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he rose pursuant to notice to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he intends to continue the manufacture of Armstrong's Guns after the remarkable results of recent experiments with Whitworth's Guns, both as to their range and the accuracy of their fire; whether it is an ascertained fact that Armstrong's Guns cannot be used unless there is at hand a large supply of water, so that the Gun may be washed out after each shot; and whether the Whitworth Gun may not be used for any length of time without the aid of water; and whether the Committee appointed to decide on the respective merits of the Armstrong and Whitworth Cannon adopted the Armstrong Gun without going to Manchester to look at Mr. Whitworth's Gun, after having previously fixed a day on which they were to have visited Mr. Whitworth's works for the purpose of examining his Gun?
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that nothing could apparently be more satisfactory, considering the small number of experiments which had been made, than the result in the case of Mr. Whitworth's gun, so far as fouling was concerned. He might also state, in reference to Sir William Arm-
2222
strong's gun, that when it had been first used it had been found necessary to employ a wet sponge, not indeed at every discharge, but at certain intervals. A new lubricating wad had, however, been introduced by him, by the operation of which that objection had been obviated, and the guns could now be used without the application of water. With respect to the question whether the Committee which had been appointed to decide on the respective merits of the Armstrong and the Whitworth cannon had adopted the former without going to Manchester to look at Mr. Whitworth's gun, he could only say that he was not in a position to give to it a positive answer. He believed, however, that it was quite true that the Committee had not visited Manchester, but had taken the Report of another Committee who had inspected the Whitworth gun. It must be borne in mind, however, that at the time to which the hon. Gentleman's question related, Mr. Whitworth's present gun, which had produced those admirable results which had since been accomplished, did not exist; and he might, perhaps, he permitted to take the present opportunity to state the course in the matter which he had determined to pursue. He had invited Mr. Whitworth to send his gun or guns to Shoeburyness, and there, not by means of short trials, but of those lengthened experiments which were necessary, to test the relative merits of the two guns in question for all purposes, including not only accuracy of aim and distance, but, above all, efficiency as used against an enemy. By such competition he had no doubt useful results would be attained and great improvements effected. As the case at present stood the Whitworth gun had, so far as he was aware, exceeded the Armstrong in range, and very nearly, if not quite, equalled it in accuracy, The subject was one, he might add, to which the Government felt it to be their duty to pay the utmost attention. They deemed it, therefore, to be the best course to try both guns, and he was certainly by no means prepared to say that there existed any such difference between them as to induce the Government to prevent the completion of the Armstrong guns which were now being made.

THE ARMSTRONG GUNS SENT TO CHINA.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State

  2223
  for War, Whether there be any foundation for the rumour that, with the Armstrong Guns sent to China, under command of Colonel Crofton, Royal Artillery, it has been found expedient to send civilian workmen belonging to Sir William Armstrong's manufactory, for the purpose of attending to details which in ordinary cases fall within the duties of the gunners?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he did not believe that it was necessary that any large number of skilled workmen should be sent out with the object to which the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman related, inasmuch as the ordinary gunners could work the guns referred to as well as anybody else. At the same time it was manifest that whatever was new required more than the usual amount of care and experience in order to be efficiently dealt with, and the Government had therefore deemed it right that there should be somebody at hand who might be able to remedy at once any defects in the guns which might arise. He was informed that only two such persons accompanied the expedition.

UNIFORM SYSTEM OF VALUATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there will be any objection on the part of the Government to introduce into the House, on an early day, the Bill which he stated on the 1st instant, to be already prepared, providing for a uniform system of Valuation throughout England.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had already introduced several Bills, which had been postponed from day to day owing to the pressure of more important business. There was now in print a Bill on the subject to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, which there would be no difficulty in at once introducing; but he was not aware that it was such as to enable the hon. Gentleman to form a judgment on the point involved in his Question, inasmuch as it would not provide immediately such a valuation as to lay at once the foundation of a Parliamentary Franchise.

CHARITABLE BEQUESTS ACT (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if it is intended during the present
  2224
  Session to introduce a Bill for the Amendment of the Charitable Bequests Act (Ireland)?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was in communication with the Board, and that a Bill upon the subject had been prepared.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RIDLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how soon he proposes to introduce the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he hoped to be able 3oon to introduce a Bill on the subject.

VALUATION IN SCOTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. HOPE,
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the Valuation Roll as it stood would be taken for the basis of the new constituencies.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.

  QUESTION.
  In answer to Sir ANDREW AGNEW,
  MR. BOWYERsaid, he was in communication with the Government with respect to this Bill, and that when certain amendments which it was deemed desirable to introduce into it had been agreed upon between himself and the Attorney General, which he hoped would be soon, it would be introduced.

BREECH-LOADING CARBINES.

  QUESTION.
  In answer to Mr. DAMER,
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, breech-loading carbines would be issued to the Yeomanry Regiments, called out for a week's training, if they could be provided.

THE FRENCH TREATY.—EXPORT OF RAGS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the provisions of the French Treaty applied to French Colonies in respect of duties upon British goods imported by those Colonies; and if goods shipped to Bourbon, Martinique, &c. from England, or from an English Colony will be admitted on the same terms as if shipped to France?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the provisions of the French Treaty did not apply to the French Colonies, with the exception of Algeria; so that goods shipped from England would not be admitted to Martinique and the other French Colonies on the same terms as if they were shipped to France. He might at the same time observe that he hoped no long period would elapse before the provisions of the Treaty would be extended to the French Colonies. He might add, also, that the influence of the Government would be used in favour of that extension. He also wished to take the present opportunity to state that the repeal of the Duty upon the admission of rags into this country for the purpose of manufacturing paper had been under the consideration of the French Government, and that the Council of Ministers were prepared to recommend to the Legislative Body the removal of that prohibition.

ANNEXATION OF SAVOY AND NICE WITH FRANCE.—QUESTION.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question, of which he had not been able to give him notice, inasmuch as the Papers to which it related had not—although they had been sent to all the morning journals of Saturday—been placed in the hands of Members until that day. In page 12 of those papers he found that Lord Cowley, under date of the 25th January, thus addressed the noble Lord:—"My Lord,—Since I addressed your Lord-ship yesterday on the subject of the annexation of Savoy to France." Now, there was none of the Papers which had been laid before the House dated January 24th, so that it was clear the noble Lord had received a Despatch which he had omitted from the correspondence. What he desired under these circumstances to ascertain was, how the omission occurred, and when the noble Lord will lay the Despatch to which he had alluded on the table.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would have been prepared, had he received any notice of the Question to give an answer. At present he could only say he would examine the Papers and see for what reason that Despatch, to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, had been omitted. There had been a great hurry to get the Papers printed, and he was in hopes that they would have been all delivered on Saturday, but it appeared that been had not the fact.

BERKELEY HOUSE—QUESTION.
MR. EWDIN JAMESsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he can state to the House the sum paid by the Metropolitan Board of Works for the site of Berkeley-house, upon which that Board is erecting a building for their own use; and what sum is to be expended by the said Board in the construction of such building?
MR. COWPERsaid, that the Board had purchased the expiring lease for the sum of £500, and had sold the old materials for £799. They held under a lease of ninety-nine years at a rent of £500 a year for the first ten, and £350 for the remainder of the term, and the amount they had contracted to expend in the erection of the building, including extras, was £16,000.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he desired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman exercised any control over the Board?
MR. COWPERstated that it was only through the courtesy of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works that he was enabled to give the reply he had done to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone. He had no authority to interfere with their proceedings.

SCOTCH HERITABLE BONDS.

  QUESTION.
  In answer to Mr. CRAUFURD,
  THE LORD ADVOCATEexpressed a hope that he would be enabled in two or three weeks to lay on the Table a Bill on the subject of Heritable Bonds in Scotland?

OUR RELATIONS WITH CHINA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he proposes to allow the House to express its opinion upon the policy of the Government in reference to our relations with China, and whether the noble Lord will have any objection to lay upon the Table a statement of the present expenses, and of the salaries of those Gentlemen who form the Diplomatic Mission, and he should be glad to see an estimate of the probable expenses both of this Mission and the nature of the charges that would be required for maintaining our relations with that Nation.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, when the hon. and gallant Member brought forward the Motion of which he had given notice, he would make a statement of the estimated expenses of the Mission. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would assign a day for the purpose. With regard to the other question, he should have no objection to lay upon the Table a return of the whole of the expenses and salaries.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, the noble Lord would perhaps allow him to state that he would put his Notice on the paper for the next night of Supply.

CUSTOMS ACTS.—REPORT.
Fourth Resolution agreed to.
Fifth Resolution, That the Duties of Customs chargeable upon Corks ready made shall cease and determine after the 31st March, 1862,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated, that it had been agreed in Committee that the duty on "Corks squared for rounding" should cease and determine forthwith; and he therefore moved that words to that effect should be added to the Resolution.
Fifth Resolution amended, by inserting before the word "That" the words "That the Duties of Customs chargeable upon Corks squared for rounding shall cease and determine:—
Resolution as amended, agreed to.
Sixth Resolution, "Gloves."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should move the substitution of August, 1860, for February, 1861, as the day when the abolition of the duties should take effect.
Sixth Resolution amended, by leaving out the words "February 1861," and inserting the words "August 1860," instead thereof.
Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
Seventh Resolution, "Paperhangings, and Pasteboard."
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to inquire, whether the Resolution on this subject was not merely provisional and dependent on what the House should ultimately determine in regard to the paper duties. He also wished to know whether the contemplated abolition of the French export duty on rags would come under a special Article of the Treaty?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the subject of the abolition of
2228
the export duty on rags was to be considered by France; but there was no intention of embodying it in the Treaty. The items of paper manufacture in the article now before the House were quite distinct from the general question. The duties were inserted in this place, exactly corresponding with what was stipulated in the French Treaty; but they did not essentially involve the general question. Besides the Resolutions were revocable by the House. They had no final or binding force until they were embodied in Bills and received the assent of the Crown.
Other Resolutions agreed to.
On the Question that leave be given to bring in the Bill,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the House having now voted the duties on spirits for the ensuing year as enumerated in the schedule, he would have to ask it to go into Committee of Ways and Means that night in order to vote certain drawbacks on both rectified and unrectified spirits.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MASSEY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. LAING.

THE COMMERCIAL TREATY.—ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY.—SAVOY AND NICE.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I rise, Sir, to make the Motion of which I gave notice. That the other Orders of the day be postponed till after the Motion for an Address to Her Majesty on the Treaty with France shall have been disposed of; and I take this opportunity of making an appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), who has given notice of an addition to the intended Address, which may create a very considerable difference of opinion. That addition relates to the differential duties on shipping—a matter that may very fairly be brought under the consideration of this House. But it would, I think, be undesirable to insert it in an Address approving the Treaty, which does not touch the question of those duties. And if my hon. Friend would be kind enough to separate the two subjects, and take the discussion on his proposal on another day, I undertake on the part of the Government to assist him in obtaining an opportunity of bringing it on as a substantive Motion some day before Easter; which I suppose will be sufficient for his purpose.
Motion made, and Question proposed,—
"That the other Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion for an Address to Her Majesty on the subject of the Commercial Treaty with France.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that he was unable to answer the noble Lord's appeal until he had himself, in turn, made an appeal to the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Byng). That hon. Gentleman had given a notice of Motion for an Address respecting the Treaty with France; but the terms of that Address were not before the House. It was the general rule on so important a matter that the House should be in possession of the words of the Address at least one clear day before they were called upon to discuss it. The terms of the Address itself not being before the House, of course the terms of his own proposed addition to it were not before the House either. They could therefore have no opportunity of judging whether the words he proposed to add were consistent with the Address and should be discussed in conjunction with it, or whether they should form the subject of a separate and substantive Motion. He thought the words which he wished to add ought to be discussed at the same time as the Address to Her Majesty; because the noble Lord forgot that the 3rd Article of the Treaty distinctly referred to the dues on British shipping, as it specified that the differential duties levied by France against the shipping of England entering her ports were in nowise to be altered. If, therefore, he knew whether or not they were to defer the discussion of the Address until its terms were regularly before the House he would be better able to respond to the noble Lord's appeal.
MR. KINGLAKEsaid, he rose to state very briefly the grounds on which he intended to oppose the Motion of the noble Viscount. At an unusually late hour for notices of Motion on Friday night, and after a very extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) the noble Viscount at the head of the Government gave notice of the present Motion, and requested, as it seemed, the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Byng) to give notice of the Address, the discussion of which they were now called upon to accelerate by that Motion. The very preamble of the Treaty which they were asked to sanction began by declaring that it was the object of the high contracting parties "to draw closer the ties of friendship which united their two people." Now, they would be trifling
2230
with that great subject and taking part in the emptiest of all imaginable forms if they consented to enter on the question presented to their attention without having a far more accurate knowledge than they now had of the relations really subsisting between this country and France. As lately as Tuesday last the noble Lord who was the constitutional exponent of the views and opinions of Her Majesty's Government on foreign affairs stated in that House, with a frankness which was characteristic of him, that if the proposed annexation of Savoy and Nice should unfortunately be persisted in, the Emperor of the French would expose himself to the distrust and hostility of Europe. On the day when the noble Lord made that statement he had himself been pressed to postpone his Motion, but he had persevered in going on with it because he knew that in this matter time was a vital element. The correctness of his conclusion was verified by the fact that within forty-eight hours of the moment at which the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary made that statement the Emperor of the French pronounced a speech from the throne, which seemed, as far as he could understand its somewhat ambiguous phraseology, to place the great empire of France in a position of something like antagonism to this country. One portion of the Emperor's speech was, he thought, perfectly unexceptionable in its tone and language; and if he could only bring himself to believe that that part of the speech represented the real views of His Majesty he would not be there endeavouring to postpone the Motion of which his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex had given notice for that evening. The Emperor said:—
"This reassertion of a claim to a territory of small extent has nothing in it of a nature to alarm Europe and give a denial to the policy of disinterestedness which I have proclaimed more than once, for France does not wish to proceed to this aggrandizement, however small it may be, either by military occupation or by provoked insurrection, or by underhand manœuvres, but by frankly explaining the question to the Great Powers."
If he could only bring himself to believe that that was all he would be very well content to let the Motion proceed. But he found that in other passages His Majesty spoke of the proposal for annexing Savoy and Nice, as though it were a matter resulting from some right possessed by the Emperor of the French. The Emperor also appealed to one of the most dangerous principles to which any potentate could

2231
appeal—namely, the principle of natural boundaries. Now, one plain sentence might remove all the obscurity which hung upon that question; let it be said that the determination to consult the great Powers of Europe meant that which any plain man would understand when he spoke of consulting another. Let it only be understood that France would not proceed to this annexation without the assent of the other great Powers, and then they would all enter on the discussion of the Commercial Treaty in a spirit that would conduce to the peace and tranquillity of Europe. It, however, so happened that rumour rather supported those questionable portions of the Imperial speech which spoke of the proposed annexation as a matter of necessity, and left them less room than they would like for believing that the fair and courteous expressions contained in other passages were the true indication of the Emperor's meaning. As a ground for postponing the debate on which they were now invited to enter, he must beg the House to remember that from July to the present time two negotiations, or to speak more accurately, one negotiation and one discussion, had been going on simultaneously. He alluded, first, to the negotiation with respect to the Commercial Treaty, which had ripened into the instrument with which they were now acquainted. But, unfortunately, the discussion relating to the proposed annexation of Savoy seemed—as far as he could judge from the hasty perusal of the correspondence which the late delivery of the papers had permitted him to bestow upon them—to have dragged on and reached an unfavourable phase precisely after that period when the assent of our Government to the Commercial Treaty was obtained. It was of the utmost importance that the House should have had the opportunity not only of glancing at these papers, but of reading them, and carefully collecting their meaning, before they were called upon to express an opinion upon the Commercial Treaty. When he spoke of the opinion which they might express with regard to that Treaty he did not refer so much to the vote to which the House might be invited to come as to that plainer and clearer expression of opinion which might perhaps be elicited in the course of the debate. It being of the utmost importance that in the approaching discussion of this Treaty they should have a clear view of the relations actually subsisting between this country and France, he hoped that
2232
the House would not depart from its ordinary course of proceeding, or, by the vote for which the noble Lord had asked, accelerate the consideration of this Address. Had the question come on in its ordinary course, he should have felt very much disposed to submit to the consideration of the House some Amendment which might have given them an opportunity of deciding whether they ought not to have better means than they now possessed of forming an opinion upon this subject before they voted an address to the Crown. As it was, it of course followed that he felt no difficulty in opposing the Motion of the noble Lord, as one which tended to accelerate the consideration of a question which, in his opinion, was not ripe for discussion.
MR. BYNGsaid, that having been appealed to by his hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland and Bridgwater, it was only respectful to them and to the House that he should answer that appeal at once and in the shortest possible manner. If the House generally was anxious to see the terms of the Motion in which he should have the honour of proposing that an Address should be presented to Her Majesty approving the Commercial Treaty with France, he felt that he had no course open to him but that of postponing the Motion for that Address until Thursday, in the meantime placing upon the paper the exact terms in which he should propose it. As he was sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake) would not wish him to go into a long discussion of foreign affairs, he would only say by way of explanation that he understood a for night ago from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was intended that an Address of this kind should be proposed at the earliest possible moment after the House had in Committee approved the various reductions of the Customs' duties. It was on that account only that he had given notice of his intention to make this proposal to the House, and if it was the general wish that the Motion should be postponed to Thursday next, he would accede to that desire.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: In accordance with what has fallen from my hon. Friend (Mr. Byng), and in deference to what is evidently the wish of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion which I have made. I will only say, in explanation, that in the course of the discussions which took place upon the previous stages of this matter, my right hon. Friend stated,

2233
in deference to what we believed to be the general wish of the House, that at the earliest moment after the Resolutions had been gone through and reported, an Ad-dress would be proposed to the House in confirmation and approval of the Treaty in general; therefore, if the course which has been pursued appears to hon. Members to have been more sudden and rapid than usual, it was adopted in deference to what we supposed to be the wishes of the House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), and another active Member of this House were in possession of the words of the Address yesterday, or certainly this morning. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for the postponement of the Orders.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to ask whether the hon. Member would lay the terms of his Motion on the table before Thursday next.
MR. BYNGsaid, he was prepared then to read the terms in which it was couched if his hon. and learned Friend wished it.
MR. DISRAELI: I have always understood that the earliest moment convenient for taking into consideration any matter of importance is the earliest moment consistent with the House having the opportunity of consideration. I am very glad that Her Majesty's Government have changed their course, because I do not think that the Members of this House would have had an opportunity for consideration if they had been called upon to vote an Address to the Crown with which they had not, speaking generally, had any opportunity of becoming acquainted. Nor was the course originally adopted by Her Majesty's Ministers consistent with the usual custom of this House, because on the last occasion of similar importance which I can recall—namely, when the treaty of peace with Russia was concluded—notice of an Address to the Crown was given on Monday for that day week, and upon the Saturday following the language of the Address was laid upon the table, so that not only had we a week's notice of the intention of the Government, but we had also forty-eight hours' notice of the language of the intended Address. That is a precedent which I am sure none of us will question, and of which I am sure that you Sir, will approve, because I believe that the hon. Gentleman who moved that Address was Mr. Evelyn Denison. As the noble Lord has referred to my being in
2234
possession of the language of the proposed Address, I cannot but say that it appears to me that Her Majesty's Ministers, with a desire to conclude this business which is hardly well considered, have followed the precedent of Mr. Pitt's time, without reflecting that the circumstances of the two cases are, owing to the course which they have followed, very different. In the Address which hon. Gentlemen will see upon the paper to-morrow, having expressed our duty and satisfaction, we are requested to go on to say, "We shall proceed to take such steps as may be necessary for giving effect." The fact is we have already taken those steps. ["No, no! The Bills."] That is a formal affair; the decision of the House has been arrived at. In the case of 1787, when the Address from which this is copied was moved, not a single vote in the Committee of Customs had been taken, the mode of levying the duties had not been altered, and therefore there is a great difference between the two cases. However, that is a question on which I will not dwell now. I am extremely glad that the noble Lord has taken the course which he has done of postponing the Motion, and I am sure he must see its propriety, because it was, I believe, past midnight on Friday when the notice was given. At that time a great number of Gentlemen, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) had left the House, and many of them left town on the following morning. However, the House will now have an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the language of the Address and weighing the whole subject. With regard to the time for its consideration, I should think Friday would be a more convenient day than Thursday, as it would interfere with no other arrangements, and I would therefore suggest to the noble Lord that it would be more acceptable to the House if he would fix the later day instead of the earlier.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas understood to say that this would lead to inconvenience in case of the adjournment of the debate.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he wanted to call the attention of the House to the fact, that during the present Session they had willingly given to the Government facilities for conducting business such as had been asked by or accorded to no Government before. Since the night when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in-

2235
troduced his Budget the Government had been allowed to appropriate every notice day for the discussion of their financial Resolutions—a circumstance unknown till the present Session. No such indulgence was given to Sir Robert Peel in 1842 or 1845, nor was it asked by or granted to the right hon. Gentleman himself in 1853, although on all those occasions the fiscal changes and the unsettlement of the trading interests of the country were greater than they had been on the present occasion. More than this, the Government, to facilitate the passing of the Customs' duties, had been allowed to appropriate Thursday for the introduction of the Reform Bill. All this had been cheerfully conceded; but he thought the House ought to put a limit upon these concessions, which had in no previous Session been demanded by any Government. There had, of course, been occasions on which there had been adjourned debates upon the Budget which had, to suit the general convenience, taken precedence of notices of Motion; but to the present Government had been readily and cheerfully conceded that which had never been asked before. He was apprehensive that this course might be drawn into a precedent for the future, and he therefore submitted that the Government ought not to press the House too far, and that, instead of asking for next Thursday evening, they ought, in accordance with previous usage, to fix the consideration of this Address for Friday.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I cannot allow this conversation to close without expressing my satisfaction that the Government and the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Byng) have thought it right to take the course which they have done, and my earnest hope that the extraordinary notice given on Friday night will not be drawn into a precedent. I must say that since I have had the honour of a seat in this House I can remember no instance in which the conduct of the Government had so much the appearance of an intention to take the House by surprise, and, if possible, to prevent or strangle the discussion upon a question of great interest and importance, as the notice which was given by the hon. Member for Middlesex between twelve and one o'clock on Saturday morning. In my opinion, the course which was then taken by the Government and by the hon. Member on their behalf was, not only most unusual, but also most discourteous to the House; and I am very glad that the
2236
Government have seen fit to change their course. I entirely concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) in what he has said as to the practice of occupying Thursday nights with Government business. It is not unusual, perhaps, at a certain period after Easter, and on Motion made for that purpose, to give up the Thursday evenings to Government business, but the course now proposed is one of a very different kind. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not persevere in their intention to bring on this Motion on Thursday evening. The noble Viscount has intimated across the table that the reason for taking that course is the possibility of the debate being adjourned. In answer to that, I will say that the Government must take the chance which all Governments have on all occasions taken when bringing forward Bills on Government nights; and, therefore, hope that the House will not sanction this proposal.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think, Sir, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) seeing there is no difference of opinion as to the course which ought to be pursued, might have abstained from making the deliberate charge which he has thought proper to prefer against the Government of endeavouring to stifle discussion upon the Commercial Treaty with France. I do not think the Government have shown any desire to stifle discussion. We are perfectly satisfied with the results of the discussion which has taken place, and perhaps it is some dissatisfaction with those results that has induced the right hon. Baronet to make his unnecessary charge. But, however that may be, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) is labouring under a misapprehension with respect both to principle and to fact. In the first place, with regard to the acceleration of public business, I must always, whether in or out of office, protest, as I have always protested, against the assumption that it is a favour to the Government to allow them to proceed with their measures on days that do not properly belong to them. It is not at all for the convenience of the Government that they should be permitted to take a larger share than usual of the time of the House. My right hon. Friend must know that a rapid rate of proceeding brings an additional and a very inconvenient amount of labour upon the Government. It is not a regard for our

2237
own convenience then, but a regard for the general interests of the country and the very definite and pressing interests of the whole commercial and trading classes that makes us anxious to arrive at an early conclusion on the Budget. But I think likewise my right hon. Friend is quite wrong in point of fact. I am not prepared to quote chapter and verso of the precedents at the present moment, but, unless my recollection greatly deceives me, we did, upon many nights in 1842, proceed with the tariff when the Government had not regular precedence. Undoubtedly that was not the only instance, for under all Governments, when the case has appeared to be of sufficient urgency to the public interests to justify it, a similar demand has been made and acceded to by the House. Of course that is a question entirely in the discretion of the House; and whenever the Government perceives the existence of a general adverse disposition on the part of the House it will at once withdraw such a demand. But I think my noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) has given on this occasion one very special reason why it is eminently for the convenience of all parties that we should go on, as proposed on Thursday. If there is to be an adjourned debate we shall be able to carry it on after an interval of only a few hours, instead of one of three days, and those gentlemen who may wish not to be detained in London will be liberated at a much earlier period. But it so happens that if any one will take the trouble to turn to the notices which stand for Thursday he will see that it is a day eminently convenient for the Motion of the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Byng) to be made. It must also be remembered that it is not the case of the Government endeavouring to bring forward an order upon a notice night. The hon. Member for Middlesex gives notice of a Motion, and proposes to place it on the paper for Thursday. It may stand very well upon its own merits as a notice which will only compete with other notices, and which will not displace any without the full consent of the movers. It seems to be forgotten that the Government have not, after all, received the favours of which we have heard so much. All we have been enabled to do by the aid and kindness of many hon. Members has been to occupy the later portions of two or three evenings which otherwise might not have been occupied at all. On Thursday night, it is true, my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign
2238
Affairs was permitted to bring forward a very important subject at an early hour; but on Tuesday night the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake) in the exercise of his discretion, called the attention of the House to a question of which he had given notice, and although we were allowed to occupy the latter portion of the evening no inconvenience was experienced by any one. It so happens, however, as I have already said, that the notices for Thursday next are not very numerous, and I believe they will be found to be either such as are not likely to lead to prolonged discussions, from the nature of the subjects, or such as cannot lead to prolonged discussion because they are agreed to. The Motion relating to dockyards has been agreed to, and the Motion on our relations with the Neapolitan Government is, I understand, one that cannot be conveniently discussed in detail in the present state of affairs and the present state of the House as to information. I must say, therefore, it would be little better than a waste of time if we were not to take the convenient opportunity of proceeding with the important Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex on Thursday, with the view of closing the discussion on Friday in case the House should wish for an adjourned debate. But that rests in the discretion of the House, only we are not disposed to take the opinion of two or three hon. Members for the general wish of the House, as is sometimes done. My belief is, that the general inclination of the House, as far as we are able to gather it, is in conformity with the notice given by the hon. Member for Middlesex—namely, that he should proceed with his Motion on Thursday.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to remind the House that the Government had done no more than accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), that the Motion for an Address on the subject of the French Treaty should be postponed for a day or two. It seemed to him, however, that the question which had been raised by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake) was one of still greater importance, or rather one the importance of which could scarcely be exaggerated. It was not simply a question whether on Thursday or Friday the House should signify its assent to or disapproval of a Commercial Treaty, or whether that discussion should be deferred till another occasion. Neither was it a question whether the House should

2239
express its opinion on the contemplated annexation of Savoy and Nice to France. The question was, whether the House should embrace the present opportunity, when matters seriously affecting the relations of this country and the whole of Europe with France were before the public, of signifying its assent to a treaty, by which, in the words of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, our relations with France were to be rendered closer and more intimate. The hon. Member for Bridgwater had well pointed out that the question raised by him in his speech was of far greater importance than the mere annexation of a small portion of territory. It not only affected the independence and security of Switzerland, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth had stated, in such eloquent and forcible language, but any one who looked at the map must see that it had a very important bearing upon the relations of France with Germany. It had also an important bearing upon the relations of France with Italy, where in consequence of the proposed annexation France might exercise an influence far more commanding and a power far more formidable than had at any time been exercised by Austria. But the question was one of still greater importance to Europe, which might possibly see in the project of annexation, said to be entertained by the Emperor of the French, a key to the claims and the future policy of France. The hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) had the other evening called attention to the language used by his Majesty, and the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would see by the authorized version of that speech in The Moniteur that the hon. Baronet was correct in his interpretation. But there were other passages in the speech of the Emperor eminently calculated to raise the suspicion and misgivings of Europe. His Majesty spoke, for example, of what he called the "natural limits" of France. The House would see, therefore, that the question was of the greatest European importance, and one in which this country was deeply interested. What was the position of Europe at the present moment? There was not a single country in Europe that did not regard the policy of the extraordinary man, who now wielded the destinies of France, with anxiety and alarm. There was not a country in Europe the statesmen of which did not look to France with something like fear. Yet there was
2240
not a country in Europe that was prepared to take the initiative in such a matter. All the nations of Europe looked to England, where there was a free Parliament, a free press, a free expression of public opinion. They relied upon us to take the initiative, and he believed that if we did so they would follow our example. What, however, was the position in which the Government wished to place this country? Instead of using language, not such as the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office had used, but language recording our earnest, emphatic, and unflinching protest against the annexation of Savoy and Nice, the Government proposed that, passing by the discussion to which the noble Lord the Foreign Minister had himself invited the House, Parliament should take into consideration the clauses of a Commercial Treaty with France at the very moment when the policy of France was creating distrust and alarm throughout Europe. On Friday night the noble Lord opposite declared that the question of the annexation of Savoy and Nice was one for the consideration, not of the Crown or of the Government, but of the people of England and the House of Commons, and yet he was now asking the House to parade itself before Europe in the act of drawing closer the bonds of alliance with France, as if there was an identity of policy and of interest between the two countries. The present was not the time for such language as the Foreign Minister had held. He granted that the noble Lord, as appeared from the recently published correspondence had remonstrated against the course pursued by France, and against the project said to be entertained by the Emperor, and so far as it went he did not complain of the attitude of the noble Lord. But we wanted more than the mere language of remonstrance. It was not sufficient for the noble Lord to write to Turin that the surrender of the cradle of his illustrious family would be "a blot on the escutcheon" of the King of Sardinia. That was mere rhetoric, rather than the earnest and vigorous protest which we desired. We were bound by the faith of solemn treaties. We had treaties with Austria, with Prussia, and with Russia, and what the country wanted was a solemn protest against a project which, he feared, was not only entertained, but in part accomplished, and which he believed to be dangerous alike to the interests and the tranquillity of Europe. Under these circumstances, he would sug-

2241
gest to the noble Lord that the consideration of the clauses of the Commercial Treaty should not take place until the House had the opportunity of clearly and decidedly expressing an opinion as to this annexation of Savoy and Nice. He did not doubt that that opportunity would be found, either by the action of some Independent Member, or by some proposition on the part of the Government, to take the papers into consideration; and then, on Monday next, if the noble Lord proceeded to the consideration of the clauses of the Commercial Treaty, a course would be adopted by which the public service would be greatly benefited.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that he should like to know, though perhaps he might assume, that the language of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was the language of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire and of the Earl of Derby, who, in "another place," was the leader of the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged. The hon. Gentleman has been for many years a Member of the House, but he had not taken a very active part in the discussions until with in the last twelve months, when, from the official position in which he was placed, it was necessary for him to do so; and it must be admitted that the hon. Gentleman, when in office, conducted the business of his department, as far as that House was concerned, in a satisfactory manner. He, therefore, the more regretted to be obliged to say that he observed that a very remarkable change had taken place since the hon. Gentleman quitted office; and he did not know that he had heard for a long time a speech in that House which had given him more astonishment and pain than that which the hon. Gentleman had just delivered. He did not ask the hon. Gentleman to please him in the speeches which the hon. Gentleman made; and he certainly in his speeches did not try to please hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he did ask that when hon. Gentlemen addressed the House, they should well consider the gravity of the question, and endeavour, as far as other countries were concerned, not to import into the discussion any unnecessary irritation. From what had been observable during the last fortnight or three weeks, it was quite obvious that the Commercial Treaty with France was very unpleasant to hon. Gentlemen opposite. There were many reasons why it should be so, some which they were not likely to admit, and which it was not ne-
2242
cessary for him to state; but he would ask them whether it was a manly course to endeavour, when the Commercial Treaty was on the point of being concluded by the ratification of the House, and when throughout the country there was but one voice with respect to it, and when that House had already shown itself most un-mistakeably in its favour—was it manly, he would ask, to associate the treatment of that particular question, and of the Government in respect to it, with another question which might or might not be important, but which necessarily involved considerations likely to create irritation here and perhaps elsewhere? The hon. Member for Bridgwater and many other hon. Members had strong feelings on this question of Savoy. What course did they propose to take? Did they propose to take out of the hands of the Crown or of the Government the management or control of the matter? If they believed that there was anything in the papers not creditable to the noble Lord who had the management of the Foreign Affairs of the country or to the honour of the Crown of England, was not the floor of the House open to them, and could they not propose a Motion with respect to those papers on any night in this or next week to the effect that the conduct of the Government was not creditable, and that the interests of the country had not been duly regarded? Then the matter would be fairly discussed and battled out, and if the hon. Gentlemen opposite could carry a vote of censure, then the great object of their ambition would be attained; the Government would be turned out, and hon. Gentlemen opposite would sit on the Ministerial benches, and when they did they would, he presumed, from the force of circumstances, carry out precisely the same policy. There was not a few persons in this country who regretted the course taken by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) on this question, for no doubt that right hon. Gentleman prompted the virtuous indignation of the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. S. FitzGerald). That course was one not void of some considerable peril. He (Mr. Bright) had seen the course followed by the party opposite in 1853 and 1854. There was not an insinuation of any kind which was not resorted to at that time with the view of damaging the Earl of Aberdeen's Government, and more especially the Earl of Aberdeen himself, though such a course might occasion war

2243
and did, no doubt, much to make the unfortunate war that ensued inevitable. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with him; he was only telling them what a great number of people believed, and the opinion was growing stronger every day, that there were persons occupying high positions before the public who would rather see a great alienation from France—even though it might lead to the terrific consequences of another war—than a growing friendship between England and France, which was likely to result from the Commercial Treaty. He agreed with the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire very much in this, that Government could not be very well carried on in this Parliament without something that assumed the character of party, but still he had no great affection for what wore called great party fights. At any rate, there were many subjects in the course of a Session on which party fights might be taken, but, in the name of all that was sensible, all that was humane and just to mankind—he would not say to England—let them banish from their party discussions questions of irritation like that raised to-night—questions which grew by this sort of discussion, and, sometimes in a very short time, acquired a magnitude beyond the control of those who first raised them. If they could conceive themselves for a moment to be sitting in France, instead of in England, and hearing this kind of discussion—if they could suppose England and France to change places on the question of Savoy, and England to desire annexation, while France was opposed to it, could not hon. Gentlemen then perceive that the sort of tone in which the matter was taken up, and the sort of menace which the hon. Gentleman offered, was precisely the kind of thing which made—if such a thing were possible—war absolutely inevitable? The hon. Gentleman proposed, in effect, that the House should not proceed with the Commercial Treaty until the question of Savoy should be settled. [Mr. S. FITZGERALD: No, no!] Did he misunderstand the hon. Gentleman? [Mr. S. FITZGERALD: Yes.] Then he retracted the statement; but he was quite sure that the tone of the hon. Gentleman's observations led to that conclusion. Besides, he would ask, what was the object of tying the two things up together, unless one was to be made dependent on the other? He ventured to say that no words that could be put into a Resolution would more decidedly
2244
cause a rupture between France and England than words declaring that the House would not consider the Commercial Treaty until the question of the annexation of Savoy was settled. Now, he was not going to discuss that question; but a great deal might be said for it on the part of France, and against it on the part of England. It appeared to him one of those questions which had better not be stirred, but which, being stirred, concerned the people of France, of Sardinia, and of Savoy much more than the people of England. As a matter of material interest it did not concern England at all, but only as a matter of sentiment, as all were desirous here that nobody should destroy the old landmarks of Europe. It was impossible, however, for any person in the position of the governor of a great country to have stated his case, his wishes and intentions, in more fair and open language than that read by the hon. Member for Bridgwater. The hon. and learned Member, indeed, admitted that if the words he read were the only words in the matter he would take the same view of them; but those were the only words which referred to the action of the Emperor. The other words referred solely to the Emperor's wishes and rights, but the words which the hon. and learned Member read to the House are the only words which referred to what the Emperor proposed to do. If, however, any hon. Gentleman felt aggrieved on the subject, let him bring forward a specific Resolution, and then the noble Lord the Member for London would be enabled to defend his course on this question; but he implored the House not to let it appear that it preferred a party embarrassment, a party victory if it might be—or the peril of breaking up the friendly relations between this country and France, to the accptance of that great Treaty, on which the people of England believed their future commercial interests to a very considerable extent depended. He had not risen to defend the Government, but when a question of this sort was made a ground of attack from night to night, he was anxious to place it in its real light, and he believed he placed these attacks, which tended to sacrifice the commercial interests of the country, imperil peace with France and therefore with Europe, in their real light when he stated that they were made for a party object, of which a great party ought to be ashamed.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he was prepared to answer the question of the hon. Member

2245
for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), and in doing so he believed he would be giving expression to a feeling which prevailed among a large portion of the House. The hon. Gentleman had asked what they were prepared to do in reference to that question of Savoy; and he (Mr. Liddell) had to reply that he for one was not prepared to take the course which the hon. Gentleman had marked out for himself—namely, to treat the annexation of Savoy to France with a pusillanimous indifference, if with nothing more. It was very convenient for the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) to evade the main point of this question, but the fact was that England stood pledged to maintain the independence of Switzerland, and that independence was seriously endangered by the proposed annexation. He rose, however, principally for the purpose of urging his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) not to accept the offer which had been made to him by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. His hon. Friend bad given notice of an Amendment in the third Article of the Treaty; but if his hon. Friend were to accede to the suggestion of the noble Lord he would find himself placed very much in the position of the man who shut the stable door when the steed was gone, for his Motion would be fixed for some day after the House had given its assent to the Treaty. He did not wish in any way to endanger the success of the Treaty; on the contrary, he believed that it would be eminently advantageous to this country; but he was anxious that the third Article, which would subject British shipping to an unjust charge, should be discussed by the House under the circumstances which would afford them the best chance of obtaining its alteration.
MR. WHITESIDE: The hon. Member (Mr. Bright) has entirely misunderstood what fell from my hon. Friend near me (Mr. S. FitzGerald). The hon. Member has imputed to Gentlemen on this side of the House, that, for a party object, they are desirous of catching at this question of Savoy in order to expel the Ministry from their places. Now, I think he will see upon reflection that that imputation is not one which he ought to have made. How has this difficulty arisen? Has it been created by any act of those around me? By no means. The person who jeopardizes the peace of Europe is he who does not respect the faith of treaties—who says that geographically he is entitled to one
2246
country, and that logically he is entitled to another. That is the argument in reference to Savoy and Nice. Does any imputation rest on the Foreign Secretary? No. I have only looked into these despatches; but as far as I have read them I think that they reflect honour upon the noble Lord, and that throughout the correspondence he has asserted the interests of peace, the interests of his country, and the interests of Europe. But our object is, in accordance with the noble Lord's own speech the other evening, to strengthen the hands of the Ministry by expressing clearly and distinctly the opinion of Parliament, not as the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) supposes, upon the internal affairs of France, but upon an intended encroachment by one Power on the territories of another country, guaranteed to that other country by the faith of treaties. The effect of such an expression of opinion by Parliament, as I believe, will be not to create war, but to prevent it; and the hon. Gentleman wholly mistook what my hon. Friend said, because, when he expressed a hope that Parliament would protest against annexation, the hon. Gentleman should recollect that a protest is not war, but a substitute for war. For example, when the French army marched into Switzerland, the Earl of Malmesbury protested, but we did not go to war. And I venture to say that, if a distinct and manly protest be made by England and the other great Powers of Europe against this first attempt to violate the treaties which guarantee the peace of Europe, that protest will be attended with better results than even the manful despatches of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary. The hon. Member (Mr. Bright) was therefore rash in his imputation upon my hon. Friend and' the Gentlemen near me, who are desirous to maintain peace, but at the same time are desirous to preserve the faith of treaties and the honour of their country.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I will not attempt to impugn the motives of the hon. Member (Mr. S. FitzGerald). His motives may be pure and honourable, but I do take upon myself to question the discretion of his speech. When an hon. Gentleman who has occupied the position of Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs makes such a speech respecting the Emperor of the French, I must say that I think it highly indiscreet and very much to be deprecated. What must be the effect produced on the highly inflammatory susceptibilities of the

2247
French people when they hear of such observations made, amid the cheers of his party, by a Gentleman who has held so high a position? I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) inspired him with that speech, or that he approves of the statements expressed in it, for the right hon. Gentleman is far too sensible of the value of the French alliance; and the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken also sees so fully the indiscretion of the speech that he has endeavoured to explain it away to the satisfaction of this House and of our neighbours across the water. But if we are every night to be making this an opportunity for discussing the affairs of the French Government and of Sardinia, what is to come of it? Are we to lay hold of this Commercial Treaty, which is meant to be one of amity, and turn it, instead, into a source of war? By the course you are pursuing I firmly believe that you are laying the foundations of enmity between the two countries. As to the policy of annexation, I do not agree with the views of the hon. Member (Mr. Bright). I think he made that speech under some momentary irritation, and I am sure that after consideration has led him to repent of many of those sentiments. If, however, the question may be regarded from another point of view, let us, when the proper time arrives for doing so, give it a calm, candid, and open discussion; but do not let us have hon. Members rising and giving utterance, night after night, upon the mere withdrawal of a Motion, to such irritating sentiments. I heard with great pleasure the speech made the other night by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel). It was a speech distinguished by a strain of eloquence such as is seldom heard within these walls, and I trust that we shall often hear the hon. Baronet again, but I also hope that to eloquence he will join discretion, and will not on every possible occasion make Savoy the staple of debate in this House. I have confidence in the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary. From the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) it would seem that we all agree that the noble Lord is conducting these very difficult affairs with judgment and moderation. Let us, then, assist him in the best way we are able—namely, by so debating the subject in this House as not to embarrass him, hut to strengthen his hands in negotiating. Without impugning the motives of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I ask the House not to be led
2248
away by any anti-Gallican feeling, and not to mix up this Savoy question with the Commercial Treaty, which we have a fair prospect of debating on Thursday evening.
MR. ROEBUCK: Not being of any party whatever, I think I may reply to the question of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), why we mix up the two subjects of the Commercial Treaty and Savoy. For the Treaty of Commerce no man is more anxious than I am; but, at the same time, I have my own opinion about the annexation of Savoy. I will tell the hon. Gentleman, then, why we connect the two. With the internal affairs of France we have nothing to do. The French place whom they please at the head of their Government. They present him to the world, and with him we negotiate. It is, therefore, the duty of England to negotiate with the present Emperor of the French. We do not ask how he came to the Throne. We do not ask what is his character. We do not, when negotiating with him, express what we think of the man. All these questions must enter into our minds; but we negotiate with him candidly, freely, honestly, though we have our own opinion as to the result of that negotiation. Now being, as I said, of no party, and not being a Government official, I think it my duty on the present occasion, simply as a representative of the people of England, to state frankly what I accept as the result of the Commercial Treaty, supposing it had passed. With the great people of France I have the most earnest desire to maintain the most friendly relations. I believe it is for the happiness of mankind that these two great nations should be upon relations of amity. As the French nation has chosen its governor, with him I am quite prepared to deal; but I cannot help forming my own conclusions as to the result of this negotiation. The result of this negotiation will, I believe, very much depend upon the character of the man with whom we have to deal. Now, what does that man do? Upon this occasion I am not simply to consider what the hon. Member for Birmingham calls the danger of the question. I have to consider the honour of England. I say that if at this time we did not speak our minds, we should he truckling to the Emperor of the French. We should not be the England which I believe we are. I say that this man even now when he is entering into friendly relations with us, is breaking all the treaties we have made, and is casting

2249
dishonour upon England by making it appear that we are his friends, while he is doing a disgraceful and dishonourable act, ["Oh, oh!"] I do not mince my language. I do not fear that man, but I have a fear lest England be thought to truckle to him. What is he doing? He invites us to enter into friendly intercourse. To that invitation I willingly accede I think he has done boldly by so doing. I think he has acted doubly boldly, when, having quarrelled with his priests, he ventures to quarrel with his Prohibitionists at the same time. But he has done a bolder act. At the same time that he invites England to be his friend, he seeks to break the treaties which England has made. He talks of acquiring les versants des Alpes. If I understand what that means, he will go still further. The man who talks of geographical reasons for wishing to approach the Alps, may for the same reasons desire to approach the Rhine. And so, if we now stand by with "bated breath" while he approaches the Alps, we shall by-and-by see him acquire the Rhenish provinces of Prussia, and crush Belgium in his grasp. What shall we do then? We shall be driven to do that which we ought to do now, and proclaim boldly that we think it would be dishonourable to do that which he is about to do. I do not ask for war; I know there is pugnacity at the bottom of all the hon. Member for Birmingham does. When I say I do not wish to fight he laughs at me. But, Sir, there is something in the grave and solemn declaration of a great people like the people of England even that the Emperor of the French must regard. I have known the time when a declaration of this House stopped him short in his career. I think the noble Lord at the head of the Government will remember that time. I recollect the time when this House was solicited to alter the legislation of England to please him. This House refused to consent to that. We stopped him short in his career then, and what has been his course since then? During the Italian war, and after it, the Emperor of the French did all he could to make friends with the despots of Europe, and all he could to throw off the English alliance. Why do I say that? I take the expression of opinion in the press of France to be the expression of the Emperor's opinions. Having failed to win the friendship of the despots of Europe, he fell back upon his old Ally, and then he silenced by one blow the press of France. ["Oh!"]
2250
Hon. Gentlemen may cry "Oh," but is that not true? Did he not issue his fiat, and did not all the insolence and all the impertinence against England at once cease? Aye, I have faith in the English House of Commons, although some may be base enough to truckle to an Emperor; and I am sure this House of Commons will maintain the character, the dignity, and the honour of England. To go back to what I was saying:—the Emperor of the French turned round, and again cultivated the friendship of his old Ally. We were sworn friends again, but I cannot forget what that phase of that man's life disclosed. ["Question!"] You may not like what I say, but I am sure it is the question for us to consider. I say, what are we to do? Are we at once, and without consideration, to accede to this Treaty of Commerce? I am most anxious at once to close with this Treaty of Commerce if we can. But I would not close with it in such a way as to appear to sanction the proceedings of the Emperor of the French in the annexation of Savoy. Therefore, I say the consideration of this question ought to be deferred until the House has had an opportunity of declaring its opinion as to the annexation of Savoy. I am quite sure a large majority of the House would at once adopt the honourable language of the noble Lord the Member for London and declare itself hostile to that annexation. And here I must say, if the noble Lord will permit me, that I think the honour of England is quite safe in his hands—that his language has been in accordance with the views of the people, and that nothing could be better than the manner in which he ha3 declared his honest feeling's upon this matter. I call upon the House of Commons to say what the noble Lord has said, and to declare its opinion upon this matter before we say that we are willing to enter into a Treaty of Commerce between the two nations. I only ask the House to do that, and then when it has declared the annexation of Savoy to be against the honour and dignity of England to say to France, "If you will enter into negotiations, we wish to have peace and content between the two countries, and we will even sacrifice our feelings to gain that end."
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that although for one he was not at ail disposed to truckle to the Emperor of the French, he felt bound to protest against the use of such language as they had just listened to as applied to

2251
the ruler of a friendly nation. He knew that the language applied in that House to the Emperor was in France considered to be the expression of the sentiments of that House towards the French nation. Nothing could be more injurious to the interests of both nations, more injurious to the interests of civilization. Hon. Gentlemen opposite professed now great sympathy for Savoy, hut when Poland was divided, when Cracow was absorbed, when the Russians marched into Hungary, he did not remember there was any protest on the part of the great Conservative party. The annexation of Savoy was a question in which England bad an interest, but if the districts contiguous to Switzerland were to be given to that republic he thought that arrangement would much modify the views which would otherwise be entertained of the proposed transaction. He would add that the whole discussion that evening had been of a most irregular character, and he earnestly deprecated the repetition of sentiments which he believed were calculated to sow the seeds of distrust and hostility between the two most civilized countries of the world.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, if any hon. Gentleman in this House thought it necessary to propose for consideration the whole question of Savoy, to find fault with the mode in which that question has been treated by Her Majesty's Ministers, or to take the matter entirely out of the hands of the present Government, that would be an intelligible and, may be, a useful course of proceeding. It may be that we have spoken too tamely upon the subject, that men of higher abilities and more animated spirit may be able by the use of other language to deter the Government of France from proceeding in any way with the annexation of Savoy. Those who could succeed in persuading the House to adopt that view might take the place of those who have hitherto conducted the negotiations and proceed to put their views in practice. But there is one course which is neither consistent with constitutional proceedings in this House, nor consistent with the ordinary confidence reposed in Her Majesty's Government, and which, above all, is not consistent with the maintenance of amicable feelings between this country and France. That course is the renewal, day after day, of irritating discussions, putting forward particular points and incidents, asking for no decisive vote, proposing no definite resolution, but always
2252
pointing out the person whom the French by immense majorities have chosen to rule over them as a ruler whom we must distrust, against whom we ought to be perpetually prepared. That course must tend to alienate the two countries, and to bring about at length a total rupture of amicable relations. Now, I am sorry to say that that is a course which some hon. Gentlemen think it convenient to take, and I must on this occasion ask them really to come to some definite Resolution as to what they themselves propose by their speeches on this question. What has happened is this,—I must again state it as the matter has been so prominently brought forward.—It appears that when there was a discussion between France and Sardinia—when there was a measure of concert arranged between them with respect to the defence of Sardinia against Austria—some question was raised, or some conversation passed, on the subject of annexing Savoy to France. The war began; the war ended with the annexation of Lombardy to Sardinia, and with no further conquest on the part of France. It was understood, that, according to the preliminary treaty of Villafranca and the subsequent treaty of Zurich, the Grand Dukes of Tuscany and Modena were to return to their dominions; that the Pope was again to have possession of the Romagna; and that Lombardy alone was to be the prize of the King of Sardinia. The Emperor of France was the man who promoted that arrangement, and did all he could to bring it to a successful result; and it was fully understood that in that case there would be no question of the annexation of Savoy. Well, that arrangement did not please the Italian people; the Emperor of France said he would not use force to coerce their inclinations; and those inclinations were evidently in favour of their living under the rule of the King of Sardinia. The Emperor of Franco, when it was tolerably clear that such would be the probable result, said, it was desirable for the security of France that she should have the slopes of the Alps that lay towards France, and that she should have her frontier strengthened. On that question Her Majesty's Government differed with the Emperor of France; and I will say for myself that I never for a moment concealed our opinions upon it from the Emperor of France. I was not wanting in telling him, frankly and plainly, what our opinions were of that annexation, and what were the consequences which we

2253
feared might follow in Europe from carrying it into practical effect. But other Powers have to take their part. The Emperor of the French took his part so far that he declared to Her Majesty's Government, both through his own Ambassador and through his Minister for Foreign Affairs, that he would not proceed to that annexation without consulting the great Powers of Europe. It might be feared that by a sudden military occupation he might seize the capital of Savoy and the passes of the Alps; but he has declared in the face of all Europe that he will not so proceed. Those other Powers to which he has referred have to be consulted. We have told him frankly our sentiments on the subject, and I do not know that we could have done so in language stronger or more direct. But the question remains still to be decided in what way the other Powers of Europe will be consulted. Will they be asked to give their opinion to the Emperor of the French? Will it be expected by the French Government that if those Powers maintain objections to this annexation, they will speak out on the subject? All I can say is, that hitherto they have not done so. Her Majesty's Government have spoken out on the subject, as has also the British Parliament; and the British public, and I may say all Europe, will soon know the manner in which we have spoken. But the other Powers have not yet spoken; I cannot doubt what the opinion of those Powers is on the subject in question, but I doubt in what way they will express themselves. Now, is it at such a moment, let me ask, and upon such a subject, that the House of Commons will consent, day after day, to listen to vague discussions founded on no definite Resolution? It is my persuasion—I may be totally mistaken on that point, because other circumstances may occur to disappoint any such prophecy—but my persuasion is that if the language of disapproval is held in Berlin, is held in Vienna, and is held in St. Petersburg, that this project of annexation will not be persevered in. I have said we do not know' as yet in what language those great Powers will express themselves. Nay, more; the very Power which is most interested in this question—the Government of Sardinia itself—has not yet spoken on this subject. The Members of this House and the public may have seen two despatches which have appeared in the Moniteur, and have since been reproduced in the newspapers here, which contain a
2254
project for the settlement of Italy, suggested by France, and one of which despatches ends by stating that in case that project were adopted it would still be necessary, for the security of the frontiers of France, to add Savoy to the dominions of the Emperor. That question concerns Sardinia more than any other Power in the world. The province to be annexed is naturally the part of his dominions of which the King of Sardinia must be the most proud; it is the country in which his house arose; and in the course of time it has numbered among its people many of the most gallant and skilful of officers and many of the bravest of men, who fought to maintain the rights and power of his family, and who by their deeds have adorned the page of history. The King of Sardinia must, therefore, be much interested in that province. Yet, while the Government of the King of Sardinia have answered at great length, and with much detail, so much of the French proposal as relates to Italy, with regard to Savoy, Count Cavour has said that he reserves that as the subject for a separate despatch, and that he will treat it very soon in that separate despatch, which he will communicate to the Government of France. Then, I say again, when the Power most of all interested in this question has not yet decided in what way it will act, that this is not the moment in which we should come to a precipitate conclusion. But this I will say, that whatever may be said with respect to Savoy, my opinion is that the Treaty of Commerce with France is destined, if it obtains the approbation of the Parliament of this country, to strengthen the ties of friendship between the two nations, to increase the wealth and stimulate the industry of both, and that by thus giving a greater number of our own people and a greater number of the people of France an interest in the blessings of peace we shall delay, perhaps prevent, that calamity of war which, I think, it is the business of every European statesman to use his utmost efforts to avert. With these convictions I shall be ready, without entering into this question of Savoy, to give my earnest support to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex (Mr. Byng) whenever he may bring that Motion forward; and when he does so, I trust the House will consider the question of the Treaty of Commerce as the main subject of our deliberations. Is there anything, I ask, connected with this question of Savoy

2255
to prevent our strengthening those relations which already exist with France by ties of commerce? I believe there is not, for my part. I cannot understand the part which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) takes in this matter. I cannot imagine anything more pernicious than to indulge in invective on such a subject against a neighbouring Sovereign without any definite object. If we have to bring forward at a future time the question of Savoy, after having disposed of coals and other matters of commerce germane to the Treaty, do not let hon. Gentlemen confine themselves to those general terms of solemn protest. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. S. FitzGerald) says we are to make a solemn protest. What is the meaning of that? I can understand the rest of the great Powers telling the Emperor of France, in a manner perfectly friendly, but, at the same time, in a manner perfectly firm, that this annexation would alarm Europe, and that the additional territory he would gain would be as nothing to the consequences it might entail upon him. I can understand that being said by the Powers of Europe in terms which would give it due force. But I can understand nothing by "a solemn protest" but this—"We offer our Resolution; accept it, and we will remain on friendly terms with you; refuse it, and we shall go to war!" I cannot imagine the great Powers of Europe going to the Emperor of the French with "a solemn protest" and then remaining contented with a flat refusal. It does not appear to me, therefore, that that is a course likely to lead to peace, or one calculated to prevent the Emperor of France carrying out the object he has in view. It does not appear that when the hon. Member (Mr. S. FitzGerald) was in office any great concern was felt on this subject. The Earl of Malmesbury was informed, as I am told, at the time that there was a story going about—said to rest on authority—of an agreement between France and Sardinia for the cession of Savoy. When I was told of it I said to my informant he should go to the Earl of Malmesbury. It did appear that the Earl of Malmesbury directed Earl Cowley to make inquiry on the subject, but in doing so he mixed it up with several other matters. Earl Cowley replied that he had asked Count Walewski about these several matters, and that Count Walewski did not make any observation with regard to the territorial question. If the Earl of Malmesbury had
2256
been very serious on this subject, he would surely have written again to Earl Cowley, and would not have been content with Earl Cowley saying that Count Walewski had made no observation on the territorial question. He would have asked of Earl Cowley, "Do they deny what is alleged with respect to Savoy? or, if they ever entertained it, have they given it up?" If I had been in office and Earl Cowley had written to me that he had received an unsatisfactory answer, I should certainly have asked him to put the question again. But this extreme zeal which we now see on the subject—a zeal which I must say, with all respect for the hon. Gentleman, goes beyond the mark, because it tends to endanger the continuance of the peaceful relations that exist between the two countries—is a newborn zeal, which the hon. Gentleman did not exhibit when he was in office. I wish to maintain the honour and dignity of the Queen and the honour and dignity of Parliament, but it does not seem to me that irritating discussions and imputations cast upon the French Government which are not to lead to any practical result or vote of the House can in any way contribute to that object. There was a discussion, the newspapers told us, some evenings ago in the other House of Parliament on this subject. I read with great pleasure the various speeches said to have been made on that occasion by the Members of different parties. It appears to me that they expressed in a grave and solemn way their opinions upon this question, and, if the House of Commons comes to give its opinion on the same question, I trust it will do so in the same spirit. The hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) delighted the House the other night with his eloquence, and the language he employed was such as became the gravity of the subject; but I am sure that the use of exciting and irritating language and casting imputations on foreign Governments will add nothing to the dignity of this House, and nothing to the security of the peace of Europe.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the noble Lord had, unintentionally he was sure, done injustice to his predecessors in office. The noble Lord had informed the House that the Earl of Malmesbury on hearing the rumour of a treaty between France and Sardinia had contented himself with instructing Earl Cowley to demand an explanation from the Government of France, and that upon Earl Cowley stating that

2257
Count Walewski gave no answer whatever to his application, the Earl of Malmesbury allowed the matter to rest there. Now, the noble Lord, speaking from memory, had forgotten the state of the facts, and had—unintentionally, no doubt—misstated them. The late Government did not allow the matter to drop, in the way stated by the noble Lord, but obtained from the French Government a positive contradiction of the rumour that Earl Cowley bad been instructed to bring before them. He hoped therefore that the noble Lord would take the earliest opportunity of unsaying what, from momentary forgetfulness, he had stated to the House on this subject. With reference to the question immediately before the House, he could not reconcile the tone of the noble Lord's speech that night with the one which he had delivered on Friday evening. The noble Lord on Friday invited the co-operation of both Houses of Parliament in the protest he was making against the proposed annexation of Savoy; but on the present occasion he understood him to deprecate discussion in that House, and that, too, while he seemed to approve the discussions which took place in the other House of Parliament. The noble Lord objected to what he called a precipitate judgment on the part of that House; but those who, like the hon. Member for Sheffield and himself, held that the Commercial Treaty ought not to receive the final sanction of Parliament till some deliberate expression of its opinion was given on this most momentous of all the questions of the day, found that the noble Lord himself had laid the foundation for the view they took in the first despatch he wrote on the subject of the Commercial Treaty. In that despatch the noble Lord gave special prominence to the importance of the Commercial Treaty in a European and political sense, though now he wished them to look at it simply on commercial grounds. The noble Lord said:—
"Its general tendency would be to lay broad and deep foundations in common interest and in friendly intercourse for the confirmation of the amicable relations that so happily exist between the two countries; and, while thus making a provision for the future, which would progressively become more and more solid and efficacious, its significance at the present moment, when the condition of some parts of the Continent is critical, would be at once understood, and would powerfully reassure the public mind in the various countries of Europe."
After this announcement on the part of the noble Lord, how was it possible for him now to ask Parliament to dissever, in
2258
their consideration of this question, the Commercial Treaty and the "critical condition of some parts of the Continent of Europe?" Would he deny that the condition of some parts of Europe was at this moment "critical?" And was the noble Lord entitled to ask them to refrain from giving an opinion on the causes that led to this critical condition of certain portions of Europe before their assent was given to the Treaty which the noble Lord said would enable France and England to lay deep the foundations of a common interest and a friendly intercourse? The noble Lord objected to what he seemed to think were teasing repetitions of the debate on the subject of Savoy. Everybody would agree with the noble Lord that they ought to discuss the question in a fair and legitimate manner, but he and those around him thought that that discussion should take precedence of the one in reference to the Treaty, which, according to the noble Lord was to prove to Europe that England and France marched side by side in general policy.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he thought they would hardly accomplish the object they all had in view, namely, to deprecate the annexation of Savoy to France, if they coupled that subject with the commercial Treaty. And if it were declared that Parliament would not assent to the latter unless the Emperor first gave an assurance that he would not proceed with his project in regard to the former. The country was unanimous in the desire to prevent the accomplishment of that annexation, and he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) in thinking that much value was to be attached to an expression of the opinion of Parliament on the subject; but he could not countenance the idea that any advantage would attend the use of violent and vituperative language towards the head of the French Government. He agreed with the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary in thinking that if this annexation was to be prevented it must he done by the united action of Europe, and not by a single protest of our own. The House was quite prepared to express its disapproval of the annexation, but to couple the two questions together, as had been proposed, might have a most injurious effect, as leading to an opinion in France that the Parliament of England were animated by feelings hostile to the Emperor of the French.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that as an independent Member of the House he

2259
wished to point out that they ought to alter the course of proceeding they had marked out. When the treaty of 1786 was negotiated preliminary Resolutions were laid on the table, so that the House of Commons of that day had an opportunity of discussing the political bearing of the proposed Treaty independently of its commercial and financial phases. Had the Government pursued that course on the present occasion the difficulties the obstacles of which they now complained would not have arisen. Instead of pursuing that course the Government had preferred to plunge the House into a consideration of the Treaty in a Committee of Ways and Means, telling them they were bound to accept it by important political Considerations, yet defeating all discussion upon the Treaty, which involved these very political considerations. It was most unfair on the part of the Government, when such an eventuality as the proposed annexation of Savoy was occuring, to ask the House to express an opinion upon the Treaty without placing any Resolution before them for their consideration. The hon. Member for Birmingham said, "Perish Savoy!" And, as if to accomplish the object which the hon. Member seemed to desire, the House was about to enter into. commercial transactions with France affecting £1,000,000 of our revenue, and the Government were offering whatever advantage that sacrifice of revenue entailed as a subsidy to France? The House of Commons was perfectly right in demanding a fair opportunity of deliberately stating that if they granted commercial and financial advantages to France through a commercial Treaty, they did not do it with a view of subsidizing France that she might crush the freedom of Savoy. He had been delighted to hear the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). Some of his expressions with respect to the Emperor of the French were, perhaps, too severe; but he rejoiced to hear an independent Member vindicate the right of the British House of Commons to put its own interpretation upon its own language and its own acts. He would repeat that, whatever the inconvenience might be of which the Government might consider themselves entitled to complain, was entirely attributable to the fact that they had departed from the precedents of the House. Due time should have been and ought still to be given for the consideration of the proposed address to the Throne,
2260
Because they were in danger, by hasty action, of having their friendship for France misinterpreted into a feeling of indifference to the interests of Savoy.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he only differed from his hon. Friend who had just spoken upon one point. He went all lengths in the opinion that the House ought to have ample time for considering this question of Savoy before they accepted the Treaty with France. He would even go further, and say that the worst thing that could happen for the honour and happiness of England was that the Treaty should ever he ratified at all. But concurring, as he did cordially, in the strongest language that could be used against such a course being pursued, he as heartily deprecated the use of personal language and coarse invective. Such language never hurt those against whom it was addressed; it only recoiled upon those who uttered it; but whatever its effect might be it was discreditable both to the House of Commons and to the country which they represented. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who last addressed them, that the Government had only themselves to blame for the difficulty in which they were placed; they should have placed a definite Resolution before the House, and courted its opinion; but, instead of taking that course, they had simply followed the same course they had pursued from the commencement of the Session, and endeavoured by every means in their power to stifle discussion. He could not admit the representations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the general interests of the community required that there should be no delay in passing the Resolutions. It was, of course, natural that the class represented by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) should be in favour of it, because they were pecuniarily interested in the successful termination of the negotiation; and as the hon. Member for Birmingham evidently exercised a powerful control over the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government, he (Mr. Bentinck) was not surprised at the Government endeavouring to hurry the proceedings before the House, and to stifle all discussion. Indeed, so much had the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer endeavoured to stifle discussion, that it had given rise to the belief that there must be some object in thus precipitating matters, and that an apprehension was felt that, if certain negotiations were not explained satisfactorily, some ob-

2261
stacles might arise to the completion of the pending arrangements. Now, he confessed he should be too glad to see any obstacle interposed to the success of the proposed Treaty. He believed that almost every interest in England was opposed to this Treaty. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh; but let them compare the number of hon. Gentlemen representing commercial interests who have spoken favourably of this Treaty with the number who had spoken against it. The reason why the Government had carried their Resolutions was that those who opposed the Treaty, instead of wisely uniting for a common purpose, had been cut to pieces in detail. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) had charged those who sat upon the Opposition benches with not pursuing a manly course in regard to this Treaty. But he (Mr. Bentinck) would ask the hon. Member for Birmingham whether it was manly to sacrifice the honour and interests of England merely for the beneficial results to a particular class of a Commercial Treaty? Because such was the result of the hon. Member's observations: there was nothing that he would not sacrifice for that Treaty. If that was the hon. Member's opinion of what constituted a manly course he (Mr. Bentinck) could only say their views differed very materially. The hon. Gentleman had taken occasion to observe that they were sitting in the English House of Commons and not in the Parliament of France; but many speeches of the hon. Gentleman had given him the impression that they ought rather to be addressed to the Congress of the United States, to the proceedings of which it was the avowed object of the hon. Gentleman to assimilate their debates. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's imputation that Members on the Opposition side of the House were actuated by party feelings, he totally disclaimed it. They were only actuated by a conviction that the Treaty was alike prejudicial to the honour and interests of this country.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEinquired whether the Motion with respect to an Address to Her Majesty regarding the Commercial Treaty with France would be brought forward on Thursday or Friday?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: On Thursday.
MR. STIRLINGsaid, some very important papers had been published that morning in the newspapers, which formed no part of the Correspondence that had
2262
been laid on the table of the House. The noble Lord likewise had stated that a very important despatch might be expected from Count Cavour in reply to that addressed to him by the French Government. As it was natural to suppose that the Sardinian Government would wish the greatest publicity to be given to their opinions, he had no doubt, copies of both documents would be forwarded to this country. He wished, therefore, to inquire whether these papers would be laid on the table before the debate was taken on the Address to the Crown, respecting the Commercial Treaty with France. He put this question because, like many eminent Members of the House, he felt unable to separate the question of Savoy from the other matters involved in the Treaty. By this instrument they were about to enter into new and unnatural engagements with the Emperor of the French,—engagements which in July last the noble Lord on the Treasury bench had several times declared ought not to be entered into with any Power whatever. As an independent Member of Parliament, before he gave his assent to engagements with a foreign Power he had a right to ask how the Sovereign of that State observed older and more important engagements with other free States of Europe. He had a right to know how far the rights guaranteed by Treaty to Switzerland would be respected. On this subject the papers on the table of the House gave no satisfaction whatever, save that the representative of Switzerland in Paris was utterly unable to obtain information, and seemed to he haunting the British Embassy for the sake of the intelligence which might be gained in that quarter. It was, therefore, but reasonable that hon. Members, by the production of those papers, should be afforded an opportunity of making up their minds before they were called on to vote an Address to the Crown.
MR. COLLIERsaid, an appeal had been made by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton to his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland to withdraw his Motion, which proposed that further negotiations should be entered into for the purpose of inducing the French Government to enter into a supplementary treaty of navigation, and to relax their laws in favour of British shipping. He understood the noble Lord to make this appeal chiefly on the ground that to propose an addition of this kind to the Address, would be very inconvenient;

2263
but he understood him at the same time to say that if the Motion were brought forward in a substantive form, a day would be given for the purpose, and he also collected that the noble Lord would not be disposed to give any opposition to the principle of the Motion. On the question of navigation he considered the Commercial Treaty to be defective, and the country, he thought, had reason to complain of the stringency of the French regulations, while our restrictions had all been abolished. He ventured to ask whether he had correctly understood the statement of the noble Lord? If he were correct he would advise his hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay) to accede to the proposal of the Government.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs gave an assurance last year that the Emperor of the French had abstained from all intention of annexing Savoy.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: At that time he did, as will appear by the despatch of Count Walewski.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, the despatch of Count Walewski did state a possible event in which the Emperor of the French, even at that time, considered the annexation of Savoy indispensable; which was, in case any addition were made to Piedmont on the side of the Duchies or the Legations. He wished to know whether the noble Lord had any objection to produce the correspondence in which that eventuality was described, because it was quite clear that so far back as July, 1859, the Emperor of the French and his Government, in some way or other, declared to Earl Cowley that the annexation of Savoy should follow the occurrence of certain contingencies with regard to Sardinia. It was quite clear that if such a distinct declaration had been made, the Emperor of the French had a right to say that Her Majesty's Government received full warning.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) with respect to certain despatches relating to France and Savoy, I have to state that no such despatch has yet arrived, and I do not know if it has yet been written. As soon as the reply of the Sardinian Government has been communicated I shall be ready to lay it on the table of the House, but it is impossible for me to say when that may occur, or to what further correspondence it
2264
may give rise. The despatches of M. Thouvenel have appeared in all the newspapers, but if the House wish for copies they will of course be laid on the Table. Respecting the discussion of the question of annexation in 1859 there is no public despatch whatever on the subject. Earl Cowley, from time to time in his private letters, said Count Walewski agreed that the annexation of Tuscany to Sardinia was impossible, but if such a case should ever by possibility occur, it would then be for France to consider whether her frontiers would be safe without the annexation of Savoy. But Earl Cowley, who has acted throughout with great discretion, did not think proper to introduce loose conversations or casual intimations into his official correspondence.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I wish to explain a matter which is not clearly understood by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier). What I did state to the hon. Member for Sunderland was, that if he would suffer us to discuss the proposition which he proposed as an addition to the Address to Her Majesty as a separate and substantive Motion, the Government could have no possible objection to the opinions which it embodied being expressed to the House; and they might even think that such an expression would assist them in any negotiation which might be made officially with France.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CUSTOMS ACTS.—COMMITTEE.
House in Committee according to Order.
Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
Moved, That the Duties of Customs chargeable upon the goods, wares, and merchandise hereinafter mentioned, imported into Great Britain and Ireland, shall cease and determine, namely:—
"Ammunition, as denominated in the tariff."
COLONEL SYKESinquired, whether there would not be some restriction on the importation of arms, such as existed with respect to the sale of fire arms manufactured in this country, which required to have the Tower brand upon them?
MR. LAINGsaid, that the present Resolution only affected the import duties upon the articles specified, and had nothing to do with police regulations for the public safety.
"Butter."
In reply to Colonel UPTON,
MR. LAINGsaid, that it would be declared duty free, and that if there was anything deleterious combined with it, it would be the duty of the Excise to interfere. As regarded the item of dates, they had gone on the principle of protecting the sugar revenue.
9. Resolved,
"That the Duties of Customs chargeable upon the Goods, Wares, and Merchandise hereinafter mentioned, imported into Great Britain and Ireland, shall cease and determine, namely,—
Almonds, not Jordan nor bitter.
—Jordan.
Ammunition, as denominated in the Tariff.
Apples, dried.
Baskets.
Beads, as denominated in the Tariff.
Boxes, namely, Brass.
—not otherwise charged with Duty.
Butter.
—of and from a British Possession.
Candles, as denominated in the Tariff.
Capers, including the Pickle.
Cassia Lignea.
Cheese.
—of and from a British Possession.
Cinnamon.
Cloves.
Coculus Indicus.
Copper, Manufactures of, not otherwise enumerated or described, and Copper Plates engraved.
Coral negligées.
Daguerreotype Plates.
Dates.
Eggs.
—of and from a British Possession.
Extracts, as denominated in the Tariff.
Ginger.
Glass, Flint Cut Glass, Flint Coloured Glass, and Fancy Ornamental Glass of whatever kind.
Gongs.
Grains, Guinea and of Paradise.
Japanned or Lacquered Ware.
Liquorice Paste.
—of and from British Possessions.
—Powder.
—of and from British Possessions.
—Juice.
Mace.
Mustard, Flour.
—Mixed or Manufactured, except Flour.
Nutmegs, as denominated in the Tariff.
Nuts, small nuts.
—Walnuts.
Nux Vomica.
Oilcloth.
Onions.
Opium.
Oranges and Lemons.
Pears, dried.
Pewter, Manufactures of, not otherwise enumerated.
Pimento.
Platting, as denominated in the Tariff.
Pomatum.
Quassia.
Rice, not rough nor in the husk.
—rough and in the husk.
Salacine.
Sauces, not otherwise enumerated.
Scaleboards,
Seeds, Caraway.
—of and from British Possessions.
Ships, Foreign built, broken up, or sold to be broken up or abandoned by the owners, or sold as wreck, whether afterwards recovered or repaired or not.
Soap, as denominated in the Tariff.
Soy.
Spa Ware.
Spelter or Zinc, manufactures of, not otherwise enumerated.
Stearine.
Tallow.
—of and from British Possessions.
Tin, foil.
—manufactures of, not otherwise enumerated.
Veneers.
Washing Balls.
Yarn, namely, Woollen or Worsted, as denominated in the Tariff.
Resolution 10.
"Gold Plate."
MR. AYRTONsaid, that no homelmanufacturer could sell an article of god or silver till it had been submitted to the assay of Goldsmith's Hall, and obtained their stamp as a proof of genuineness. If it was not exactly up to the standard, the article was liable to be broken up. This was often the cause of great expense to the manufacturer, and involved the necessity of being a little above the standard. He thought that gold and silver plate imported into this country ought to pay some amount of duty above that proposed (17 s. per oz. troy for gold plate, and 1s. 6d. per oz. troy for silver) to represent the expenses of this process of assay, or be made liable to some similar process after importation.
COLONEL SYKESthought the public should be assured that the articles imported were really gold and silver.
MR. LAINGsaid, the measures necessary to ascertain the purity of the articles would be taken by the Customs on the clearance, and the proper place to introduce the requisite provisions would be in the Customs Bill. He would take care before this Resolution was reported to be in a position to give full information to the hon. Member of what was intended to be done when the Customs Bill was introduced. He should be able to say, at a later stage, what those measures were.
10. Resolved,
"That, in lieu of the Duties of Customs now chargeable on the articles undermentioned im-

2267
ported into Great Britain and Ireland, the following Duties shall be charged,—

s.

d.

Plate of Gold the oz. troy

17

0

—Silver, gilt or ungilt, the oz. troy

1

6

Powder, namely,—

Hair Powder the cwt.

0

4½

Perfumed the cwt.

0

4½

Vermicelli and Macaroni the cwt.

0

4½

Currants the cwt.

7

0

Figs the cwt.

7

0

Fig Cake the cwt.

7

0

Raisins the cwt.

7

0

Resolution 11.
"Wood and Timber, hewn, and Lathwood."
COLONEL SYKESasked, whether any drawback would be allowed for the duty paid on stocks in hand?
MR. LAINGsaid, the payment of drawbacks, unless under special arrangements, had been discontinued. On timber no drawbacks was intended to be given as there was no Excise survey.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, there were some kinds of timber that could be identified, and which were fairly entitled to a drawback.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that this was a question not affecting timber only, but was applicable to almost all descriptions of foreign goods liable to the law and duties of Customs, although there were some that could not be identified from their appearance with others that could. The holders of silks and of French gloves were in the same position with those of wood, and there was no way of dealing with the question except by drawing a line between those goods that were under survey and those that were not.
11. Resolved,
"That in lieu of the Duties of Customs now chargeable on Wood and Timber, as denominated in the Tariff, Foreign and Colonial, on importation into the United Kingdom, the following Duties shall be charged:—

s.

d.

Wood and Timber, hewn, and Lath-wood the load

1

0

—sawn or split, planed or dressed the load

2

0

Firewood, not exceeding three feet in length the load

1

0

Resolution 12.
"Teak and Wood for ship-building purposes 1s. the load."
MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved the substitution of 5s. for 1s.
Amendment proposed to leave out 1s. and insert 5s. instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That 1s. stand part of the proposed Resolution."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the nominal duty of 1s. had been put on in compliance with the representations of the trade. So far as the Government could ascertain, the general feeling of the trade was in favour of this nominal imposition which would afford the parties an opportunity of obtaining a correct idea of the quantity, measurement, &c., through the Customs-house lists.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.

s.

d.

Mahogany, Hard Wood, or Furniture Wood the ton

1

0

Staves, not exceeding 72 inches in length nor 7 inches in breadth nor 3¼ inches in thickness (except Staves for Herring Barrels) the load

1

0

13. Resolved,
"That so much of Act 16th and 17th Vic. c. 107, sec. 44, as prohibits the Importation of Malt, be repealed, and that the following Duty be charged thereon, on importation into Great Britain and Ireland, namely,—

£

s.

d.

Malt the quarter

1

5

0

14. Resolved,
"That the Duties and drawbacks of Customs now charged and allowed on the articles under-mentioned shall continue to be levied, charged and allowed, on and after the 1st of April 1860, until the 1st of July 1861, on Importation into the United Kingdom, or on Exportation there-from to Foreign parts, or on removal to the Isle of Man for consumption therein, namely,—

Tea.

Sugar, as denominated in the Tariff.

Molasses.

Cherries, dried.

Comfits, dry.

Confectionary.

Ginger, preserved.

Marmalade.

Plums, preserved in Sugar.

Succades, including all Fruits and Vegetables preserved in Sugar not otherwise enumerated.

House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow. Committee report Progress; to sit again on Wednesday.

WAYS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.
House in Committee according to Order.
Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would now move the Re-

2269
solutions by which he proposed to allow the British distillers a drawback of 2d. per gallon on raw spirits, and of 3d. on rectified in the case of exportation. These amounts were calculated by the officers of revenue as a just compensation to the distillers in respect of their Excise disadvantages.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that it was usual to print Resolutions of this kind, in order that those who took an interest in such matters might have an opportunity of being present at the discussion of them.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the substance of the Resolution had been printed, and had been in the hands of Members some four or five days ago; so that full notice had been given to everybody interested.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that manufacturers of British wine had complained that by the propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer they were unfairly placed with regard to the foreign manufacturers, and he wished to know whether any relief could be afforded to them?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had taken the case of the British wine manufacturers into his consideration, and could not see that they had any claim for relief. The articles of which they manufactured their wines were sugar, on which the duty would he reduced if we could have afforded it, and brandy and raisins, on which the duty would actually be reduced considerably. In fact, the manufacturers of British wines would pay less duty on their materials than the importers of foreign wines would pay under the reduced scale of duty. They could not therefore have much claim for relief.
Resolved,
"That, in consideration of the loss and hindrance caused by Excise regulations in the distillation and rectification of Spirits in the United Kingdom, there shall be paid to any distiller or proprietor of such Spirits in a duty-free warehouse, on the exportation thereof, on or after the date of this Resolution, an allowance of two pence per proof gallon.
"And to any licensed rectifier, who on or after the date of this Resolution, shall have deposited in a Customs warehouse for exportation Spirits distilled and rectified in the United Kingdom, the following allowances on the exportation thereof (that is to say): On rectified Spirits of the nature of British compounds, not exceeding 11% O.P., as ascertained by Sykes' Hydrometer, an allowance of three pence per proof gallon; and on Spirits of the nature of Spirits of Wine, an allowance of two pence per proof gallon.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES INVESTMENTS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not proceed with this Bill in the absence of several hon. Members who were interested in the discussions on the Bill, but who had left the House not believing that there was any chance of the second reading being moved that evening. The question was an unfortunate one involving as it did the sum of £43,000,000 of money, while many savings banks objected to the measure. Perceiving by a gesture of the right hon. Gentleman, however, that he meant to press the second reading, he (Sir Henry Willoughby) begged to move the adjournment of the debate on the second reading.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved that when the House was in Committee he made a full statement of the nature of the Bill; and in accordance with the pledge then given, he had allowed it to remain for several weeks in the hands of hon. Members before he had placed a notice of the second reading on the paper. Not having had the slightest reason to suppose that the proposed legislation was really deemed objectionable, he felt bound to persevere, knowing, as every hon. Gentleman must know, the difficulty he should otherwise have, in the pressure of business, to find opportunities for carrying forward a Bill of this kind. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) said, that some savings banks had objections to the Bill. Why, savings banks could have nothing to say against it; for what it proposed was that every depositor in a savings bank should have an absolute legal title against the State—as absolute as that possessed by the holder of Three per Cents. The hon. Baronet himself had often complained that the depositors in savings banks had not that security. If this Bill passed they would have it by as strong a title as it was in the wit of man to devise. If the hon. Baronet wished him to again explain all the

  2271
  provisions of the Bill he would repeat what he had stated when introducing it.
  MR. GREGSONsaid, he took as great an interest in savings banks and friendly societies as the hon. Baronet could do; and he regarded the measure as one of great importance to the interests of the depositors in those institutions. He hoped the Bill was to be read a second time, and the discussion taken on the Speaker's leaving the chair.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, it was expected that a great political question would occupy the greater part of the night, and that the Customs Committee would take up the remainder; and under these circumstances he put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it was fair in the then state of the House to proceed with the second reading? The Bill was a most important one and reserved an objectionable power to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he, in common with other hon. Members, had always opposed.
  MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, he would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone the Motion. He could not see that under its provisions the functions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were much less powerful than they were under the present arrangement. He had himself asked several questions on this subject, and he understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to explain the provisions of the Bill fully on the second reading. He had no idea that the Bill would be discussed that night, and he had been in communication with several other Members, who agreed with him that the discussion should be taken when due notice had been given, and when all were prepared for it.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that he confessed he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to promise an explanation of the measure on the second reading. He (Mr. Ayrton) had moved for some Returns which he thought necessary to demonstrate the operation of the existing system. These had not yet been produced, and he felt it impossible to go into the discussion without them. The House was entirely taken by surprise, this Bill having come on when the whole evening was expected to be occupied with a great debate. The measure was most important both in its principle and in the application of it. They were to begin a new system—the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to sit before a great hook, on which he was to inscribe debts against the nation, and what
  2272
  the effect might be it was extremely difficult to foretell. He objected to going on now with the second reading of the Bill, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated it to be a matter of paramount necessity. If, however, he gave that assurance, he would offer no impediment, although he considered the plan of taking discussions on going into Committee, as a rule, very objectionable.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he very much doubted whether, if notice were given, a fuller House could be got together than was then assembled. If Bills were not read a second time after notice given, the business of the House must come to a stand-still; and Governments had often been justly blamed for not pushing through their measures when they had the opportunity.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSthought that the subject ought to undergo a full discussion, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had offered an opportunity for its consideration at a future stage, it might be as well taken then.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could not agree with the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, and he thought the second reading ought not to be taken that evening. The House was quite taken by surprise, in consequence of the rapidity with which they had gone through the various articles in the Customs Acts Resolutions during the half-hour that Members were absent at dinner. He begged to give notice that it was his intention, in the course of the evening, to ask the right hon. Gentleman when it was his intention to bring up the Report on the Customs Acts.
  MR. LONGFIELDremarked, that he did not wish to obstruct the progress of the measure, but he thought it would give more satisfaction if it were brought forward after due notice.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he thought this Bill extremely important. Many thousands were interested in it, and it was a little unfair to proceed with it after the notice given by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, to move "That the other Orders of the Day be postponed until after the notice of Motion for an Address to Her Majesty on the subject of the Commercial Treaty with France."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must protest against the course taken by hon. Gentlemen on this matter. He was quite ready at that mo-

  2273
  ment to explain the provisions of the Bill, and he hoped that this stage would be allowed to pass.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would, perhaps, be agreeable to some hon. Members that he should state the general objects of the Bill. They were of such a character that he did not expect any opposition to the second reading. He could conceive it possible that there might be some difference of opinion on some points in the clauses, and he quite agreed that great attention ought to be paid to the Bill when in Committee. But those who spoke of the enormous powers conferred on the Executive Government by the measure, should bear in mind that, if the Bill dropped, the Executive Government would retain their present powers intact, and that by passing the measure they would impose material limitations and restrictions on the powers which the Executive Government now possessed. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to write clown obligations against the public in a book, and was greatly alarmed at the consequences which might ensue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was only taking power to write down against the public a debt for which the State was already, partly in law, and partly in honour and equity, entirely liable. The present law authorized certain institutions called savings banks, acting to a great extent under voluntary and independent management, to receive the monies of those who were disposed to place them in their custody, with conditions as to interest and as to time and amounts of deposit and withdrawal, which were fixed in a certain degree by law, and in some points left to discretion. The law likewise presumed that these institutions would forward the monies which they received to an institution in London, where they passed into the immediate custody of the Government, The House would observe then, that the savings banks constituted an intermediate body between the Government and the depositor, and it was essential to keep that distinction in view, because the subject divided itself into two great departments, one which related to the conditions upon which the savings banks were constituted, and on which they received the money of depositors; the other
  2274
  which related to the receipt of monies from the savings banks by the Government, and the manner in which the Government managed the monies while they retained them in their custody until they restored them in answer to the calls of the savings banks. With the first of these departments the present Bill had nothing whatever to do. The government and management of savings banks, the responsibility or irresponsibility of the trustees or their officers, and the security which the depositor should, might, or did enjoy, constituted a subject well demanding the attention of the House; and he confessed it was a great disappointment to him to find that the Committee appointed a short time ago for the purpose of investigating the subject of savings banks paid no attention to the constitution or management of savings banks, or to the relations between them and the depositors, but confined their inquiry mainly to the management of the monies by the Government, which was, in point of fact, a great question of State policy, and absolutely distinct from that of the management of the banks themselves, when once they had complied with the conditions which were necessary to give an absolute title to the depositor for everything which had been received by the savings banks. The great principle advocated by the Committee and the first principle contained in this Bill was a substitution of a real and correct statement of that portion of the National Debt, which represented those monies, in lien of an uncertain and untrue statement. At present the system was this,—The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, who received the funds of savings' banks and friendly societies, invested those funds in Government securities, retaining such balances as they pleased. But from various causes, some of them political causes, some relating directly to the interests of savings banks, the money value of stocks held by the Commissioners, added to the cash in their hands, did not represent a sum precisely equal to the obligations. Their assets, in point of fact, were not equal to their liabilities. It was very much disputed as to what cause or what class of causes the deficiency was to be attributed. Those who had had the financial management considered, and he thought rightly considered, that it was mainly owing to the nature of the terms on which the monies were received. A fixed rate of interest was allowed by the State to the savings

  2275
  banks. It followed that when the funds were high and the rate of interest generally low there was great disposition to invest in savings hanks, because then the fixed rate of interest offered to depositors something better than they were likely to obtain elsewhere; but when the Funds were low the case was exactly opposite. There was a great inducement for depositors to call for money, and sales of stock must take place to satisfy those calls. Therefore, the normal operation of the system was that the Commissioners were buyers of stock when the market was high, and sellers when the market was low. That was an obvious cause, and he believed the main cause, of the difference which existed between assets and liabilities. But, on the other hand, these funds were also made subservient to great public objects. At times, when financial operations of the utmost benefit and advantage to the public were in prospect, the purchases made on account of the nation through the medium of these funds greatly facilitated those operations. The examination of these proceedings was a matter of great consequence to the House, but had nothing to do with the security of the savings-banks depositors. However well the Government managed, and whatever profit they might make, it was admitted that the depositors had no claim to a single farthing. On the other hand, if the Government made ducks and drakes of £20,000,000 out of £40,000,000, the moral obligation existed for the restoration, entire and scathless, of the monies which the State had received. Therefore the financial part of the question was not a part in which the depositors were interested, and, to his mind, nothing could be more mischievous to the depositors than to pretend they had any concern in it, because it would recognize a liability in respect of it in them which they had not at present. At present there was no liability on the part of the depositors. They were entitled to say, "We have a fixed definite contract with you, and we do not expect or desire to claim anything beyond that contract." The management, however, was a matter of great importance to the public and one of the consequences of the mode of investment up to the present time had been that there was no correct statement of the liabilities of the State. At the present moment there was a difference of somewhat more than £2,000,000 between the sums of which the Commissioners stood
  2276
  possessed—if they realized all the stock they held—and the sums for which they were liable to different savings banks. The mode in which they proposed to manage the finances in future was, as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) truly said, by opening a great book, in which would be written the sums themselves, with a provision for the rectification of the account from year to year. Instead of holding that vast amount of stock, with its varied and fluctuating value, they would cancel a great part of it, and in lieu of it enter in a book, which would contain the State deposit account No. 1, the capital sum. From time to time, when the accounts were nearly balanced, that capital sum would be so regulated as to represent as nearly as possible the total amount of the real obligations of the State to the savings banks and friendly societies instead of their being unaware of what was the actual amount of their engagements, and, in fact, supposing it to be a couple of millions less than it was. That was the explanation of the 1st and 2nd clauses of the Bill. The 3rd clause was framed on the principle of maintaining the annual charge somewhere about what it was now, and when construed in connection with a subsequent clause it provided that a limited portion of the stock should be held as dead—stock not liable to bear interest. The principle on which this would be done was exactly analogous to that on which they now regulated by law the unclaimed dividends on the National Debt. The arrangement proposed by the Bill was to convert into that actual statement of capital liabilities the greater part of the stock now held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, but at the same time to retain in their hands such a portion as might be sufficient to meet any probable, and perhaps any possible, amount of calls. The abstract possibility of calls which might go beyond the limit was, indeed, provided for by certain parts of the Bill, which gave powers for the reconversion of the State deposit account into marketable securities in case of need. Practically, however, they might treat that as a contingency to be almost put out of view. The general rule would be that about three-fourths of the liabilities would be hereafter represented by means of the sum inscribed in the State deposit account, and the other part would be held in stock, in various securities, and in cash. And this was the first

  2277
  important restriction applied by the Bill to the powers of the Executive Government. At present the powers of the Executive were entirely uncontrolled with reference to the whole of these stocks. For the future they would be applicable only to about one-fourth part of these stocks—that was to say, to the portion of the assets of the Commissioners which would be ordinarily held in these securities, and not to the portion represented by the State deposit account, for that account could not be diminished by any act of the Commissioners, or of the Executive Government, except for the purpose of meeting absolute calls when they came from the creditor, that was, from the savings banks, and after all other means of meeting those calls should have been exhausted. The 5th clause provided another most import- and limitation of the powers of the Executive—namely, that deficiency Exchequer bills, and Ways and Means Exchequer bills, might not be funded by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, The House will remember that at present, whenever there was a deficiency in the public revenue, or, indeed, whenever there was a deficiency in the sum applicable to meet consolidated fund charges for the coming quarter, it was in the power of the Executive to supply that deficiency by means, not of the revenue of the current year, nor of the funds which Parliament when appealed to should provide, but by means of money obtained from the savings banks and friendly societies. Indeed, even when the revenue of the year was amply sufficient for the purposes of the State, still, from the peculiar arrangements of the quarterly charges on the Consolidated Fund, and from the power which the Government necessarily held to cause an issue of deficiency bills to meet the excess of those charges, it was now positively practicable for the Executive, from quarter to quarter, to issue deficiency bills, and subsequently convert them into part of the permanent debt of the country without obtaining the consent of Parliament. That power was entirely cut away by the fifth clause of this Bill. It was another question whether it was necessary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should possess the power of converting Exchequer bills into stock. He was not prepared to say that this power ought to be done away with, or whether it would be proper to limit it, but he did not wish to preclude the discussion of it in Committee. He
  2278
  came next to a set of provisions in which, following not the details, but the principles of the Report of the Committee on Savings Banks, the Bill gave a larger liberty of investment for these funds than had heretofore existed. Hitherto the investments had been entirely confined to the Parliamentary stocks of this country, to Exchequer bills and Exchequer bonds. It would, of course, be very exceptionable to give any large latitude of investment to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, provided they were to exercise any judgment on the sufficiency of the securities, dependent on their own choice only, and not limited by Parliament. Parliament ought to define very rigidly the space within which they should have the power of selecting investments. The limitations expressed in this Bill were therefore very strictly defined. It was proposed to leave them entitled, as they now were, to invest in any Parliamentary stock or security—that was, in any instrument issued by the authority of Parliament, and chargeable directly on the revenues of the country, whether by way of supply service or on the Consolidated Fund. But besides these there were other Parliamentary liabilities. There were certain guaranteed stocks with respect to which the ultimate liability of Parliament was just as full and entire as with respect to the stocks of this country. There were stocks, for example, like the Proprietary Stock of the East India Company, with regard to which a certain amount of guarantee had been provided by the Legislature. The Bill proposed, therefore, that the power of investment now possessed by the Commissioners should be so far enlarged as to include that description of security. The effect of that would be, that they would in no respect go beyond stocks with reference to which Parliament had made a special provision to secure them; and at the same time they would be enabled, as to a certain portion of their assets, to get a better interest and manage their funds more profitably for the country than heretofore. They would not, however, go beyond a certain amount, especially in a given time. He would take the Canada guaranteed loan of a million and a half for the sake of illustration, although a considerable portion of that was now provided for. It was not at all desirable, where a third party was the debtor, and the Parliament of England only backed him with a State guarantee, that the Commissioners for the reduction of the National

  2279
  Debt should acquire such a proportion of that stock as to become themselves the principal creditors. Parliament would then be placed in a false position. The Bill, therefore, proposed to limit the proportion of any stock of that character which the Commissioners might hold, as well as to limit absolutely the amount they might in any of these cases invest. It might be that other limitations would be suggested in Committee. Those he had specified were at any rate sound in principle, and would, he hoped, be taken as indications of the spirit in which the Bill had been framed. The Bill also contained other powers, enabling the Commissioners to make exchanges of securities under certain circumstances; but these could be better explained in Committee. Suffice it to say, that one of the objects of that exchange was to give the Commissioners the power of from time to time buying up certain stocks, of which the quantity was so very small in the market that they did not form a convenient medium of investment. The eighth and ninth clauses of the Bill related to the balancing of the whole of the accounts on the 29th of November, so as to represent the real amount of the liabilities of the State to parties. In the eleventh clause provision was made for giving to savings banks and friendly societies an absolute title in the funds vested under this Act in the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; and it was intended likewise to provide, in the case of the failure of those securities, that they should have a claim on other funds of the State. He might mention that the general effect of the measure would be to create very considerable public economy. He could not say precisely to what extent that economy would go, because he did not know yet what the Commissioners would find it practicable and advisable to do in the way of varying their investments; but various sources of economy would he opened up. At present, for instance, the Commissioners were holders of some £40,000,000 of stock, out of which they proposed to cancel £31,000,000; and the law fixed £300 per million payable to the Bank of England for the management of the National Debt. That arrangement was a very reasonable one as long as the different portions of the property that constituted the debt were continually undergoing transfer from hand to hand; but now that the State had itself become the possessor of a vast sum, nearly the whole of which remained en-
  2280
  tirely without involving any cost or trouble in transfer or management in any form whatever, the bargain required revision. The change which was now proposed would therefore effect a saving on that account of between £9,000 and £10,000 a year; and over and above that he expected the Commissioners would realize a considerably better income from whatever investments they might make under the authority of the Bill in funds guaranteed by Parliament, though not regular Government stock. There would be no sudden or wholesale alterations, but in the course of two or three years the effect of the Bill would be to secure a permanent saving to the country of not less than £40,000 or £50,000 a year. He ought also to mention that, in addition to the forms of investment he had mentioned, the Bill gave power to the Commissioners to invest money for the purposes of the Exchequer Loan Fund. He did not intend in submitting that provision to ask the House at that moment to give effect to any practical proposal on the subject. The power would remain dormant till the House had the opportunity of considering whether it was really desirable we should go on advancing money out of the Exchequer to the Exchequer Loan Fund Commissioners for the purpose of enabling them to lend it to various parties in the country, or whether it would not be better to transfer that function altogether to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, who would then have a new and profitable mode of investment open to them. He did not mean to throw any disparagement on the Exchequer Loan Fund Commission, which had proved a very useful institution, and had worked exceedingly well. But it was certainly a question to be considered, whether a State heavily indebted as we were, and holders of means of that kind continually falling in, ought not to use a portion of those means to carry on useful works, in preference to advancing money for that purpose from a fund which had to be raised by taxation. A Bill would have to be brought in to provide for such advances, for the receipt of the money by the Exchequer Loan Fund, and for its management, and the question could then be fully discussed. These were the principal provisions of the present measure, which he hoped would meet with the favourable consideration of the House, both on that occasion and in Committee.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the second reading

  2281
  of the Bill. As far as he understood the measure, its chief aim apppeared to be to make such arrangements as would prevent £30,000,000 of the savings banks funds from being jobbed—he did not use the word offensively—for the purposes of Government at particular times. It was the general opinion that if that object could be gained without inconvenience it would be most desirable. He thought, however, that some of the provisions of the Bill would require great consideration in Committee. There was no doubt that legislation on this subject was necessary, inasmuch as the Government were pledged to pay to those depositors every farthing of their money which passed into their hands. The simpler the accounts were kept the better for all parties concerned. There was, no doubt, an impression abroad—whether ill or well founded he could not say—that great losses had been sustained by the improper treatment of the funds by those persons who had immediate control over them. These were the only observations which struck him as necessary to make on the present occasion. He hoped they would go into Committee at such a time as would allow the matter to be fully discussed, as they had all one interest in getting this question put on a sound and satisfactory footing. It was a matter on which no party feelings could have place as all must be anxious to do the best they could to promote the welfare of these most useful and valuable institutions.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not done complete justice to the Committee which sat upon this subject when he said that it had been chiefly employed in considering the transactions of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; because that Committee had also made a full inquiry into the proceedings of the savings banks throughout the country, and their relations to the Commissioners, and had made a report thereupon. The assertion that this Bill would give great security to the savings banks might lead to misapprehension, by giving rise to the opinion that such security did not now exist, which, as far as the capital was concerned, would certainly be erroneous. The real question at issue was, what was to be done when the funds in the hands of the Commissioners were insufficient to pay the claims of the banks for interest? It was felt that, whilst that was the case, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  2282
  would come down to the House and propose the reduction of the interest, so that, in point of fact, the loss on all the dealings with the funds that had taken place would in the end fall on the depositors. At pre -sent the capital funds belonging to depositors in the hands of the Government was deficient about £4,000,000. That deficiency had arisen from three causes. The first was, that at the outset the House of Commons authorized the Commissioners of the National Debt to pay the savings banks a very high rate of interest, higher, in fact, than the funds yielded immediately after the Act was passed. The ordinary rate of interest subsequently declined, and there had been every year an increasing deficit accumulating at compound interest. He estimated the loss from that source alone at £3,000,000. The second cause of the deficit arose from the practice of buying at a high rate when money was abundant and when the investments in savings banks were considerable, and of selling at a much lower rate when there was a disposition on the part of depositors suddenly to withdraw their deposits. The loss on that account had not been frequent, but had occurred only on two or three occasions. Its amount was not clearly ascertained, but it could not be less than £100,000. The third cause of the deficit was the mode in which successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had dealt with the funds belonging to savings banks for the purpose of sustaining the credit of the country. He did not blame them for the manner in which they had used those funds, but the objection was that all the profits and advantages went to the nation at large, while all the loss was placed to the debit of the special account of the savings banks with the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. There was still another cause of the deficit. The Commissioners, in order to pay the very high rate of interest which Parliament had allowed to depositors, had purchased 3½ per cent stock to a large amount, for which they had paid 10 per cent more than they would have for 3 per cent Consols, but in course of time the 3½ per cent stock was reduced to 3 per cent, and now it bore the same value as Consols. They had gained in the rate of interest, for a certain time, but in the end a deficiency of 10 per cent had been created on all the 3½ per cent stock so purchased. All these causes combined had occasioned a gap in the capital of about £4,000,000, and the result was that at the

  2283
  present moment the funds belonging to savings banks produced £100,000 a year less than the interest annually paid to depositors. No Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever frankly come to the House and said—This is a loss which we must incur every year, and which should be provided year by year; but it had been added to the National Debt. This was a most injurious state of affairs. Mr. Hume had brought this matter before the House, and the Minister had twice met him by proposing a reduction of the interest, and he had no doubt the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his persuasive eloquence, might induce Parliament to authorize a further reduction. But the right hon. Gentleman, instead of doing that, bad drawn up the Bill now before the House. What was the object of that Bill? It dealt in a very circuitous mode with a simple subject. It proposed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should sit before a great book, and open an account No. 1, in which the first entry was to be a liability of the nation to the extent of £31,000,000. He did not know whether No. 1 was to be followed by No. 2 and a series of accounts, but certainly this provision of the Bill shadowed out a system which ought to receive the careful consideration of the House. The object which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in view was to save £300 a year, paid to the Bank of England per million of stock for doing nothing at all; but what was there to prevent the right hon. Gentleman, instead of erecting the cumbersome and ominous system indicated by the present Bill, making the simple intimation to the Bank that it should no longer receive £300 per annum for keeping the account of each million of the capital fund of £31,000,000, which stood in the name of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and with respect to which no transfer or transactions of any kind ever took place? But it was said that the Bill gave improved powers of investment. It seemed to him, however, that those powers were exceedingly small. They were confined to a small part of the balance of the fund after deducting £31,000,000, and would give so small an additional interest to the Commissioners that he doubted whether it was worth while embarrassing the account with the responsibilities of the varied investments suggested by the Bill. What the Committee proposed was that a very large proportion of the entire fund,
  2284
  instead of being invested at 3 per cent, should be invested in securities, which for all practical purposes were as good as Consols, at the rate of 4 per cent, thus making it possible that the interest of the whole investments might be sufficient to meet the annual charge of the savings banks. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give this point his renewed consideration, enlarge the field of investment, and so practically carry out the intentions of the Committee. It was said that very much was to be effected by the Bill for the safety of the depositors, but he could not discover that it placed them in a better situation than before, for he ventured to insist that the country already was absolutely pledged to make good the whole of their funds. On the other hand, there were certain funds of individual savings banks—the gains and savings which constituted a guarantee to make good deficiencies by losses and frauds—which were put in considerable jeopardy by the Bill. Then there was the power still remaining in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of dealing with the funds. The Committee were of opinion that that power should not be left entirely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that some persons should be joined with him in order to guarantee that the funds were not hastily and inconsiderately dealt with. If this power were given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer it should be given on definite principles, so that he should use the funds for the benefit of the savings banks alone, and not for the benefit of the nation by sustaining in the market this or that security. It was evident that these several points did require looking into by the Government, and he hoped that when the Bill was next before them, some attempt would be made to elucidate the difficulties that he had felt it his duty briefly to notice.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, he was not aware that the Bill would have come on for discussion that night, but he should certainly not like to give a silent vote in approbation of a measure which appeared to him fraught with great mischief. It contained all the objectionable features of the former Bill, though there was a great deal of merit in some of the new provisions. The clauses, however, which gave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer power over a very large amount of stock, enabling him to increase the amount of funded debt by conversion of unfunded debt without applying to

  2285
  Parliament, were clauses which ought never to be inserted in a Bill of this kind. At the same time he approved that part of the measure which permitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cancel certain parts of the debt; but it was a dangerous thing to give that functionary the power of propping up in the market one description of security by selling stock at one time and buying stock at another. At a future stage he should point out how, in his opinion, the objectionable features of the Bill could be removed.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

PACKET SERVICE (TRANSFER OF CONTRACTS) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. HOPEsaid, he should like to know what would be the effect of the passing of this Bill on the labours of the Select Committee upstairs? If the Government were able to deal with the subject so much the better; but if they were, he trusted that the labours of the Committee would not be unnecessarily prolonged by their being called upon to go into the part of the inquiry embraced by this Bill.
MR. LAINGsaid, that the question involved in this Bill had been brought before the Committee on Packet Contracts, and their opinion was that as this proposal merely provided for the transfer of the contracts from one department to another, and did not involve the mode in which the contracts were entered into, the Government might take upon themselves to deal with it.
MR. HOPEsaid, that as a Member of the Committee he was in a position to state that what they had declared was that if the Government thought fit to take the subject into their hands the Committee would leave it with them.
Clause 1.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he was exceedingly glad the Government had decided upon taking the Packet Service contracts into their own hands, and out of the hands of the Board of Admiralty. He thought if the Government would make a regulation that no man should belong to the Packet Service vessels unless he belonged to the reserve it would be well for the service, and there would be no difficulty in the matter.
Clause agreed to; as were the remaining Clauses.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.
To be read 3° To-morrow.

SETTLED ESTATES ACT (1856) AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WHITESIDE MR. WHITESIDE moved the second reading of this Bill.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BYNGsaid, he rose with reluctance to oppose the further progress of this Bill, and to move that it be read a second time that day six months. He wished to disclaim any personal hostility to the gentleman whose interests would chiefly be affected by it; but he was compelled to object to the Bill because many of his constituents were of opinion that it would interfere greatly with their rights, as well as the formerly expressed opinion of the Legislature. The subject was not a new one, having been before Parliament for the last twenty years. The gentleman whose property would be affected by this Bill had made many vain attempts to obtain building power upon the property at Hampstead. In the year 1829 the first application was made and refused. Since that period Bills were introduced almost every Session having the same object in view, but Parliament uniformly rejected them. Moreover, in the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act passed in l856 it was provided that no such power should be granted by the Court of Chancery in cases where previous applications to Parliament had been unsuccessful. The will under which the gentleman in question took his property gave him power to grant building leases at Charlton, but not at Hampstead. The inference was that the testator had good reasons for the expection. The chief grounds on which he opposed the Bill was because he did not consider that a private Bill should override a public Act; and though the right hon. Gentleman had done his best to render the Bill as harmless as possible on public grounds, he (Mr. Byng) felt bound to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Ques-

  2287
  tion to add the words "upon this day six months."
  MR. WHITESIDErelied upon the justice of the case to induce the House to pass the Bill. The gentleman in question, Sir T. Wilson, unfortunately for himself, lived within the jurisdiction of the metropolitan Members. He had an estate at Hampstead, and it was said that he intended to build on the Heath; but he had no more intention to do so than he had to build in the moon. He had consented to the introduction of a clause prohibiting him from building on Hampstead Heath, but that did not appear to satisfy all parties. The Judges had reported four times in favour of Sir Thomas Wilson; the House of Lords passed a Bill on the subject in 1854; and when that Bill came before the Commons the metropolitan Members had influence enough to throw it out. Since that time the question had been brought before the Court of Chancery, and, Sir William Page Wood, though he was prevented from entertaining the application, said there was nothing to induce him to think that the testator had the slightest conception of precluding those who came after him from building on the property in question. Every man who voted against this Bill would vote simply for this proposition—that a gentleman should not be heard in a Court of justice; for all that Sir Thomas Wilson asked was to be at liberty to represent his case to the Court of Chancery. His (Mr. Whiteside's) argument was founded upon the justice of the case, and he ventured to think that no Gentleman who respected justice could vote with the hon. Member for Middlesex.
  Mr. EDWIN JAMESsaid he could only suppose that the right hon. Gentleman was engaged to conduct the Bill through the House because no English Member would undertake it. He (Mr. James) dared to say that if a similar Bill, affecting a suburb of Dublin, were entrusted to an English Member, no man would be more eloquent against it than the right hon. Member for Dublin University. Besides, a similar Bill had been rejected by Parliament seven or eight times after the Judges to whom it was referred had reported against it. Although the Bill pretended to exclude Hampstead Heath it included the adjoining property, and the result would be, if the Bill passed, that Sir Thomas Wilson would be at liberty to build a wall entirely round the Heath. The object of the testator was, beyond all question, that the property
  2288
  should not be built upon at all; and an attempt was now made to hoodwink the House by introducing, in the guise of a public Bill, a measure which Parliament had over and over again rejected as a private Bill.
  MR. ALCOCKsaid, he should vote against the Bill. This was the eleventh time Sir Thomas Wilson had attempted the same thing, although he bad no more right to enclose Hampstead Heath than he had to enclose the moon. The fact was that the father of Sir Thomas Wilson was charmed with the Heath, and left it in his will that no son of his should build over it.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he trusted that hon. Members unconnected with the metropolitan representation would give this matter a fair consideration. The object of the Bill was practically to modify a clause in a general Act of Parliament which prevented Sir Thomas Wilson doing that which every other subject, under kindred circumstances, was enabled to do by that Act,—namely, to apply to the Court of Chancery to ascertain whether, according to the intention of the testator, he, Sir Thomas Wilson, was, or was not, empowered to grant valid leases of the land in question. It would be an act of gross injustice to this gentleman to throw out this Bill merely because the property it referred to adjoined one of the most beautiful spots in the neighbourhood of the metropolis.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, there was but one inference to be drawn from the will as to the intention of the late Sir Thomas Wilson. He had left three estates to his son. As to two of them he had given ample leasing powers; but as to the third, that in contiguity with Hampstead Heath, he had debarred his son from those rights. It was clear, therefore, that that prohibition was intended to be permanent for the purpose of protecting one of the most beautiful spots near London. Credit was taken in some quarters for not taking in the Heath; but it belonged to the copyholders, and who would dare to interfere with their rights? They could not, however, build round the Heath without doing so in some measure; for it would be necessary to make roads, and to cart materials for the purposes of the buildings. It was desired by this Bill to obtain the prohibited right by a sidewind, and destroy the right the public clearly had to the uninterrupted enjoyment of Hampstead Heath.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, he should support the measure, as Hampstead Heath was specially excluded from its operation. If leasing powers were to be granted to any owner of a settled estate he saw no reason why that power should be excluded with respect to Sir Thomas Wilson.
  MR. HANBURYopposed the Bill. The fresh air and brown heath of Hampstead were necessary to the health and recreation of a large portion of his constituents, and they were not prepared to yield an inch of it for the benefit of Sir Thomas Wilson. Every one, therefore, who voted
  2290
  in favour of a measure that rendered its enclosure possible voted for an infraction of a poor man's right.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 86: Majority 43.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.
  House adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Qualification for Offices Abolition;
2a Administering of Poison.
3 Companies (1860);

ADDRESS ON THE COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE.

  THE ADDRESS. NOTICE.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, it would be probably a convenience to their Lordships that he should state the course which Her Majesty's Government intend to take with respect to a Vote of this House in reference to the Treaty of Commerce with France, Their Lordships would recollect that his noble Friend the President of the Council stated that as soon as the different Votes on Customs and Excise duties passed the House of Commons, a Resolution for an Address to the Crown would be moved there, according to the precedent set by Mr. Pitt. That Address would be moved in the House of Commons to-day, and, in the event of its passing this evening, and being brought up to this House to-morrow, he would venture to propose to fix Friday as the day on which the Address would be taken into consideration. His noble Friend behind him would give notice of a Motion as soon as the Address of the House of Commons was brought up; of course it would be impossible to give a formal notice earlier. It was not absolutely certain that the discussion would take place on Friday, because, in the event of there being an adjourned debate in the House of Commons, the Resolution could not come up until Thursday, and the next day would be too short a notice for proceeding upon a matter of such importance. If the Address did not come up until Thursday his noble Friend would name Monday instead. But if the more definite day were preferred, he would name Monday in either case, although some noble Peers, he believed, would prefer Friday, if possible.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he would throw no obstacle in the way of the Government bringing the question forward when they deemed it most convenient. It did, however, happen that it would be more convenient to him if the discussion was on Friday rather than Monday; but that was a matter that was not for a moment to be considered. He could only say that what-
  2216
  ever day the Government might fix upon for the discussion, he would endeavour to be in attendance. He should certainly throw no obstacle in the way of the subject being fully considered. It was most important that the whole subject should be considered, commercially and politically.
  EARL GREYsaid, that while he concurred with the noble Earl in not wishing to throw any obstacle in the execution of the Treaty, he felt so strongly on the subject that he did not join in any Address which would express the approbation of their Lordships' House to it. He apprehended that the assent of the House to the Address was not essential to the operation of the Treaty, and that being so, he should not concur in an Address which he held to be unnecessary, and which would make the House partly responsible for the Treaty.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that if the Address were brought up to-morrow, his noble Friend would give notice to move a similar Address on Friday. If it were not brought up tomorrow, he would give notice on Thursday for Monday.

LACE FACTORIES.—PETITION.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY presented a Petition from Inhabitants of Nottingham and its vicinity, signed by 10,000 persons, including merchants, manufacturers, magistrates, clergymen, and members of the town council, and praying that the Lace Factories be brought under the Operation of the Factory Act. They stated that when the Factory Act was passed the lace trade by machinery was very peculiar in its nature, and limited to a few factories, whereby the bobbin-net machines in the lace trade were omitted from the Factory Act, but since then the trade, through the many improvements in the machinery itself, and also in the fabrics, had become, and was now, almost as important a branch of manufacture as any in England; and that many thousands of women and children were now engaged in the lace manufacture without any official control of parties in authority. It was unnecessary to detain their Lordships by stating the many reasons which rendered the change desirable. The principle reasons were:—First, the many and irregular hours at which women and children are called upon to work in the lace factories have a most pernicious effect both on the mind and body. Night labour of the juvenile population is especially destructive of their health and

2217
morality. Children of both sexes are liable to be called upon at any hour of the night or day, and as it is "quite uncertain how long they may be required, whether for two hours or the whole night—a ready excuse is found for staying out, and every facility afforded for forming improper connections. "The absence of proper restraints," the entire want of parental control, "accruing from the present system of employing children and young persons as threaders and winders is the most prolific source of immorality. Secondly, perhaps the greatest evil is the entire neglect of instruction; the great majority of children employed at lace factories begin first to work from seven, eight, and nine, to thirteen years of age. Thirdly, the absence of legislative provision to guard dangerous machinery renders the workers peculiarly liable to accidents, which are often of the most serious and fatal character. Fourthly, the entire absence also of legislative sanitary measures—as lime washing, painting, &c., the heat and effluvia of the rooms in which they work, and the exposure on winter nights to excessive cold on leaving the factories—all seriously impair the constitution of the young, and render them peculiarly susceptible of disease. The master manufacturers themselves were, almost without exception, anxious that the trade should be brought under the operation of the Factory Act; and, as they had seen the benefits which that Act conferred on many thousands of workpeople, he intended to bring in a Bill to extend it to lace factories.
THE EARL OF FAVERSHAMsupported the prayer of the petition.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, it was unnecessary for him to say more than a single word on this subject, and that word was in justice to the manufacturers of a large and important town with which he was personally connected, and the seat and centre of this lace manufacture. It was only due to them to say that the principal manufacturers of the town were ready- to give the noble Earl the most liberal support in attaining the object he had in view. He did not mean to say but that some of the manufacturers, of small capital, might deprecate the enactment of such a measure; but if the small manufacturers were dealt with liberally and gently and the system introduced gradually, he believed there would be no opposition to the noble Earl's Bill.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid,
2218
he would show every consideration to the small manufacturers.
Petition to lie on the Table.

COMPANIES (1860) BILL.
BILL READ 3a AND PASSED.
Bill read 3a (according to Order).
On Question That the Bill do pass,
LORD WENSLEYDALEproposed certain Amendments to the Bill, the effect of one of which was to make it compulsory on all companies to publish half-yearly statements of their affairs.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he felt bound to oppose this Amendment. The Bill had been prepared under the direction of the Board of Trade, and he considered the Amendments objectionable.
Amendments withdrawn.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ADMINISTERING OF POISON BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of the Administering of Poison Bill, said it had for its object to correct a serious defect in the existing law in regard to the administration of noxious substances. As the law now stood, if poison was administered with intent to murder it was a capital offence, and in his own experience he had seen it punished by the extreme penalty of the law; but if no intent to murder could be proved, the law was most deplorably defective, because it was held that by common law it was not an offence to administer poison unless with intent to murder. The effect of this state of things had been that in various cases where poisonous substances had been administered, and had produced the most serious and distressing results, the offenders had escaped punishment, because it could not be proved that they had given the poison with intent to murder. The Bill consisted of two clauses. The first provided that the administration of poison with intent to endanger life or to do grevious bodily harm should be regarded as felony, and punished with penal servitude. The other provided that in the event of the administration of poison being without intent to do grievous bodily harm, and with intent only to annoy and aggrieve it should be regarded as a misdemeanour, and punished with three years' imprisonment.
  Bill read 2a.
  House adjourned at a Quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow half-past Ten o'clock.