The Sun. — London, England, 1860-08-07 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 7, 1866. article they manufacture—that is to say the publications they bring out, the paper being the raw material and the finished book the manufactured article P If they buy paper from abroad they must pay upon it a duty of 235. 4d. per cwt., but a competing article printed in Germany, which I now hold in my hand, is introduced to drive Messrs. Cassell . , out of the market at a duty of 15s. (Hear.) That is the state of British legislation. By the British law as it stands you refuse Messrs. Cassell leave to purchase the paper on which their book is printed at 155., but you allow a German publisher to print a similar edition of the Bible and send it here at 15s. in order to drive Messrs. Cassell out of the market. I call upon the committee to dismiss from their minds any visionary and unpracticable schemesfor regulat ing our legislation by the proceedings of other countries, and to stand fast by the sound principle approved by the experience of 20 years, of minding our own business, amend ing our own laws, and setting an example of equity, fair ness, and equality, so far as depends upon ourselves. (Hear.) There are other cases where the inequality, unless removed, i s the direct result of our own proceedings. It is only this year that you have said to the manufacturers of paper hangings and to the card-board maker that the maker of French hangings shall come in at 145., and the card-board maker at 15s. per cwt. But what are hangings and card board ? They are articles of which paper is the raw mate rial. Are you then positively to say to these men, "By the British law we will compel you to run in a fair field and with no favour against the foreign producer; but with re spect to the raw material we will hamper your access to it by artificial restrictions, and will forbid you to purchase it unless you pay a tax levied for the benefit of the clients of the hon. member for Hertfordshire." In my opinion those who are prepared to adopt that course must have ramed their notions on very different grounds from those which British justice would mark out. It is precisely the same in principle as the case of the miller would have been if we had said, "We will admit foreign flour duty free, but we will maintain the duty upon corn." (Hear, hear.) These are really my last words upon the subject, and I must say , that so far as regards the first resolution which is now before us, I cannot for a moment doubt the course which the dictates of our own self-respect and our sense of honour and dignity as a house of legislature will lead us to adopt, and the conclusion to wards which policy, prudence, and justice must direct us. It has been said by observers of human nature, that how ever insignificant a thing may be, there is always something touching in doing it a last time. It makes an appealto the feelings, however small the thing may be, if we know we shall never have to do it again. Now, I believe that this is the last time we shall be called upon to settle the old question of protection. The most microscopic eye may now address itself to the British tariff, and will find that it has attained a normal state, so far as the establishment of equality between the domestic and the foreign producer is concerned. Even into the paper trade itself the principle has found its way. Certain classes of paper goods are irretriev ably exposed to foreign competition. The last stage of this ong journey, and that too a very short stage, is all that re mains to be accomplished, and the question is whether you will accomplish it now, or will atop short. It has been said that there is a speciality in the case of the paper makers. I confess that I know of but one speciality in the case, and that is the extraordinary advantage which the arguments in its favour have derived from being supported with the greatest power,vigour, ingenuity, and assiduity in quarters of the greatest influence. It has but one speciality, and that is in connexion with what I may call the royal family of the daily press. (Laughter.) But that is not a speciality of which the House of Commons can take notice, and I should be much indeed surprised and much disappointed if there should be doubt and hesitation under the circum stances as to the course we are to pursue. The vote of this committee to-night, I feel satisfied, will once more, and now once for all, affirm and give its sanction to principles which for so many years have contributed to develope the resources and confirm the prosperity of this country, and which, fertile as they have been in benefits to 'every class of the community, have upon the whole done the most for those for whom it was feared they would do the worst, namely, the producers themselves of what were once pro tected commodities. (Loud cheers.) Mr. PULLER said he had listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it had convinced him that his perseverance with those resolutions was founded upon an insufficiency of information respecting a great interest which dreaded extinction. (Cheers from the Opposition.) All that that interest asked for was the very natural privi lege of being afforded an opportunity of substantiating its case before a select committee of that house, and of dis proving the grounds upon which the resolutions of the right hon. gentleman proceeded. He did not despair before he sat down of satisfying the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had taken a wrong view of the matter. He tried to im press upon the house that the hands of the Government were tied by the treaty, and that they were thereby pre cluded from considering the hardships of the paper-makers of this country. Now, when the treaty was under conside ration the noble lord at the head of the Government dis tinctly said that the house was not asked to bind itself by any one resolution, but that it would have the opportunity of going through the whole provisions point by point. That was the course pursued by Mr. Pitt, and that was the course the present Government would pursue. That promise, made by the noble lord, was repeated three days after by the Chan cellor of the Exchequer himself. The right hon. gentleman now contended that both he and the house were bound by the treaty. But if he held the views of the 7th article then, as he did now, it was his duty to have told the house dis tinctly that under that article they were bound to reduce duties irrespective of any provision that might be made for the duties remitted. (Hear.) The house had not the whole facts before them. But, indeed, the Chancellor of the Ex chequer enumerated the articles which were under the treaty and articles not under the treaty, and pap:: r was men tioned by him as not under the treaty. (Opposition cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted he had said so. (Hear, hear.) Mr. PULLER did not wish to do injustice to his right hon. friend ; as no doubt he had his reasons for the statement; but undoubtedly the effect of his whole finan cial statement was to keep the whole of the facts before the house. (Hear.) He included paper with hops and other articles which were to be dealt with, not under the • treaty—(laughter)—while other articles were. He had not told the house to what extent he intended they should be bound. The right hon. gentleman had treated the subject in a very discursive manner, and in the course of his speech had founded some of, his statements upon a communication which had been received from the French Government within the last 24 hours. As, however, that communication had not been laid upon the table, it was clear the house could not be bound by it. With respect to the papermakers, the right hon. gentleman had disposed of them very summarily as a body who were actuated by causeless panic, and who did not know their own business half so well as he did. (Laughter.) Before the right hon. gentleman proceeded to deal in this summary way with a body of men whose capital was counted by millions sterling, and whose workmen were numbered by thousands, they had a right, at all events, to a commit tee of inquiry previous to their coming to a decision. The right hen. gentleman had endeavoured to show that the price of rags in Prance was not and would not be much lower in France than in this country. But the fact was , that while the rag market of F rance was c l osed ours was open, and the Americans were great competitors with our own makers. He read a letter from Mr. Cowan, of the emi nent firm of Cowan and Sons, of Edinburgh, in which it was stated that the price of fine French rags was •10s. per cwt. less than the same rags in this country, and common or in ferior rags between 6s. and 7s. a cwt. The effect of that on the home manufacturer must be obvious. The hon. member for Birmingham had presented a petition from Messrs. Pet ter and Galpin, who stated that, on the faith of a resolution of that house, and while the measure had not received the sanction of the Legislature, they had entered into contracts for the purchase of foreign paper and the erection of premises, which had cost them some thousands, and they prayed for compensation. But if compensation were granted to persons who, on thefaith of a mere resolution, had expended money, what would compensate the paper manufacturers, who, under the guarantee of an act cf Parliament, had invested their large capital in a great and staple manufacture. There could be but one effect of such a change, and that was, to shut up the English paper mills. The profit on the manufacture of paper, as he was informed, was not more than one farthing a pound, while the reduction in the duty on foreign paper was rather more than seven-eighths of a penny. The effect of this change must be to encourage the importation of large quantities of foreign paper produced from cheaper materials than were available to the English manufacturer, and this also under circumstances which would give the foreign maker an advantage of 7s. 3d. a cwt. over the Eng lish producer. Those of them who were lucky enough to escape bankruptcy would, under the new arrangements, go abroad, and carry with them the capital, skill, and energy which were denied fair play here. The paper-makers were, despite the sarcasms of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, free traders ; but they asked that they should be allowed to compete under fair and equal—not unfair and unequal con ditions. It was because the case of the paper-makers was an exceptionable one that he would call on the committee to reject the resolutions of his right hon. friend the Chancel lor of the Exchequer. He admitted the general principle that we should buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market; but there was at the same time a wise and judicious doctrine that ought also to be followed, which was recom mended in the Scriptures, in this form—" We should bear one allOtilef burdens," and which wits also inferred in the homely maxim, " Live and let live." (Hear, hear.) He asked, was thererhe anynatural superior advantage in foreign countries in r efere n ce t i nce to the manufacture of pap er ? O n th e contrary, hi s hon._ friend the Ch ance ll or o f th e Exohe quer admitted that ni g ht in ght that nat ura lly we h a d an a d van t age over forei gn countri es regard to the man u f ac t ure o f paper , a nd that the only advantage foreigners had arose from the var i ou s monopolies whi ch g t 2 Z enjoyed in res p ec t t o th e raw material from which pape r m anufactured. Well, was his r i g ht hon. friend so faint-hearted a free-trader as to give wa y to this opposition of a foreign monopoly to the preju dice of the paper manufacturers of this country ? He cor - teased that he was surprised to hear hi s right hon. friend _make a proposal that would perpetuat e) this monopoly which the foreigne r now enjoyed in th is matter. o Sup pose our manufacturers had to p a y an import duty y upon rags, would his right hon. friend then say that the paper-makers would have no claim upon his consideration ? The honourable gentleman then proceeded to argue that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was acting incon- sistently in the case of paper, having regard to the altera tio; which had taken place with respect to wines and spirits. The whole object of the treaty between this country and France was to equalise the duties in the two countries. This being se, why were they in this case to give a benefit to the foreign paper manufacturer over the English manu facturer? He was not making this opposition to the Go- vernment on the ground of his desire to upset the Govern ment. Quite the contrary. He had been asked to lay before the house the case of many of his constituents who had em barked large sums of money in their manufactures, and he was doing so to the best of his ability. He believed that great injustice was about to be done to the paper makers of this country, who had £.5,000,000 or ;6,000,000 embarked in the trade, and who gave employment to upwards of 20,000 persons ; and this was to done to carry out the prin ciple that they should buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market, and although to carry out this principle they would sacrifice a great manufacturing interest in this country. (Hear, hear.) He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer could produce a single instance in which the Government had asked the house to reduce the price of native manufactures without affording some compensating advantages to the manufacturer of the article. Let the house look at the 7th article of the treaty. It stated that , her Britannic Majesty premised to admit into the United Kingdom merchandise imported from France at the same rate of duties as those imposed in the United Kingdom. Now, the word " merchandise" was a comprehensive term, and under it might come in tobacco, seeds, beer, corn, &c., and many articles without any duty at all. That article would cut away all those resources at present derived from the Customs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, how ever contended that the word merchandise meant all " ex ciseable articles." Well, if he meant that, why did he not say so ? (Hear, hear.) The question, however, was not as to what the Government meant, but what the plenipo- tentiaries did. Did the plenipotentiaries follow out the construction of the noble lord ? Those instructions were more clear and precise than the formal instrument founded upon them. He (Mr. Puller) contended that if the con struction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were a fair one, it would render all the articles of the treaty, espe cially the Bth, of no value whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer contended thatthe Bth article fixed the maximum in the case of brandy and that only. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—And on card-board. Mr. PULLER—Then he had done the Chancellor of the Exchequer an injustice. He (Mr. Puller) contended, how ever, that the 7th article would render the treaty mere waste paper. By the Bth article it appeared that if we lowered our excise duty on paper we were to lower it on paperhangings. This would give the French an enormous advantage over our producers in that department. The ob ject of the 7th article was, no doubt, to limit the word "merchandise" to a certain commodity, but the article did not do so explicitly, and we were therefore liable to this dis advantage, that if at any time we took off the duties on any of the articles mentioned, the French would be at liberty to increase the duty on the same articles. But if the Govern ment should still adhere to the construction of the Chancel lor of the Exchequer as to the letter of the treaty, he (Mr. Puller) would say still, that the spirit of the treaty was to afford the paper manufacturer protection against unfair competition. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, he would move that it is not yet expedient to assent to the motion of the right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) Mr. CHILDERS said he should give his cordial sup port to the resolutions. (Hear.) Mr. F. CROSSLEY hoped that this would prove the last night that the House of Commons would have a discussion upon free trade. " Protection" meant robbing some one and he considered it was no longer tenable. He might state that some of his constituents were paper manufacturers ; but he believed their true interest consisted in abandoning protec tion. (Hear, hear) In the last year they imported 2,000,000 tons of foreign paper, and they exported 20,000,000 tons of the article. (Hear, hear.) Again, in the silk trade, there had been great alarm on the subject of free trade, but he thought it not rightly founded. The French were disposed certainly to raise revenue by the imposition of duty upon British goods, but it should not be forgotten that they could not impose any duty upon them until they were first sold, and what the British producer wanted was sale for his goods. (Hear, hear.) Mr. MAGUIRE said no member would address the house who was more anxious "than he was for the general interests of the country. He was in a position to give an independent vote on this question; and if he could he would support the Government, as he had from the begin ning of the session given the Government support as an independent member. There was a great demand for rags in this country, but the British papermaker dared not show his nose in France to make a purchase of rags. He there fore asked hon. members would they permit foreign paper manufacturers, who acted in that spirit, to come here and avail themselves of free trade, to the injury of the home manufacturer ? Let France make some advance, and we should be ready enough to follow her, without which we should be only strengthening the hands of her Monopolists. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have dealt boldly with the greater question of the Excise duty instead of which it was left to the hon. and learned member for Marylebone. There was no man in that house who could act upon the other house with so much power as the right hon. gentleman, and it was idle to undertake any other measure until that was done. He (Mr. Maguire) asked the house therefore, for the sake of its own dignity, not to say to the French manufacturers, "The more you are protected and unjust the more we shall be weak and foolish ; " but to say to them, " Act in a spirit of fairness between man and man, and we will faithfully carry out every free trade principle to its fullest extent, both to your advantage and to our own." (Cheers.) Mr. MARSH said, with regard to the price of rags in France being lower than:in England, it was only because the manufacture of paper in France was not so active as it was in this country, and the moment France began to ex port the manufactured article to a greater extent than she did now, the consequence would be that the price of rags would rise, until they eventually realised as much as they did in England, when the imaginary and delusive evil would immediately cease. (Cheers.) Sir H. CAIRNS observed that the Chancellor of the Ex chequer had stated that the house was bound to the resolu tions by the provisions of the treaty, and also by the princi ples of free trade. He (Sir H. Cairns) could not help thinking that there was something suspicious in that division of the argument, and that it betrayed the weakness of the right hon. gentleman's case. If they were bound by the treaty provisions what need was there for further argument ; but if they were not bound by the treaty provisions, what justi fication was there for renewing on the 6th of August a dis cussion which had slumbered since the 7th of April, and which might very well have been allowed to slumber on till the next session of Parliament. (Conservative cheers.) The object of the right hon. gentleman, however, was obvious. The principles of free trade were to catch those hon. gentle men who could not perceive that, they were bound by the treaty provisions, and, on the other hand, the provisions of the treaty were brought iu aid of the principles of free trade. However, the net had been laid in their own sight, and ho trusted it would have been laid in vain; for it would be strange indeed if two lame and halting propositions could be combined into a sound and trustworthy demonstration. Now it was important that they should consider at what time, and by whom, the paper duties were settled. They did not date farther back than the year 1853. In that year the right hon. gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretary of the Treasury was a well-known free trader, Mr. James Wilson. And what happened that year? With the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Wilson addressed himself to the consideration of the paper duties, with a view to their adjustment in reference to the subject of the exportation of rags. In the end, the Chan cellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Wilson proposed a foreign duty, which was now the ruling duty. They fixed it at 2fd., but he (Sir H. Cairns) contended that it ought to be 3d., and not 21d., on the ground that the calculations of Mr. Wilson were erroneous, from not making a sufficient countervailing allowance for the duty on rags. However, he was not supported in the committee, and the duty was fixed at 2id., and still remained so. The sound principles which should regulate the customs and excise duties depended upon an equitable adjustment of commodities which competed with each other in the general mar ket and the raising of revenue. He said that upon the authority of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and those were the principles laid down by him lately for the guidance of Lord Cowley, and those were the principles upon which the duties as they now affected the paper makers were originally imposed. The paper makers say that if the duty was altered they would be no longer able to compete with foreigners at all. They said 'they did not ask foreign countries to admit their paper duty free, but the proposed duty would prevent them from hav ing the raw material for the manufacture of the paper, and without which, as at present introduced into this country, it was impossible to compete with foreigners. The answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that they exported rags to France, but the reply to that assertion was that they were woollen rags, and were not for the manufacture of paper at all. He demurred to the way in which the Chan cellor of the Exchequer met this queStion. The right hon. gentleman read letters to the effect that other trades had cause of complaint, but that was no answer to the complaint of the paper makers. The right hon. gentleman said that the principles applied to other trades must be applied to them ; but at that period of the session they had not time to consider whether his proposals were just, nor had they before them the materials to form a judgment. (Hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the proper con struction of the treaty justified his propositions, and he appealed to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown ; but he thought they ought to exercise a little common sense on this subject, and if they carefully considered the articles of the treaty as a whole, he thought they would not bear out his construction. The hon. and learned gentleman here referred to various portions of the treaty, and com mented upon the language in support of his argument. He would ask when this new construction of the treaty first dawned on the minds of her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them to-night that he could not have believed it _possible that any one could be found in that house to doubt that under the treaty the, customs and the excise duties should be equalised, with only the difference of a sur-tax as com pensation for the inconvenience of the excise duty, and the right hon. gentleman had - further told theM that the Government had been careful not to entrap the house into any approval of the principle of the treaty until they had placed before the house all the circumstances connected with it, and the engagements which it involved. The hon. member for Herts, in moving his amendment that night, had reminded them opportunely on this question that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had produced two lists of ar ticles, one of which was under treaty, and the other not under treaty, and in the last list paper was expressly in cluded. (Hear.) Well, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not tell him or the committee that he ex cluded paper from the list of articles under the treaty, be cause he contended that the excise duty on paper should cease. (Hear, hear, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.) If that was the answer of the right hon, gentleman he would refer him at once to what he had himself done in the case of hops, which were also incladed in the list of articles not under treaty. The right hon. gentleman had told them that five months ago he could not have believed it possible that any man in that house could have thought otherwise than that the excise and customs duties should be equal, with a small sur-tax on the latter. What was the course of the right hon. gentleman himself ? On the sth March he placed on the paper notices of thirteen reso lutions, one of which was to the effect that on and after the Ist January, 1861, there should be, in lieu of the customs duties now levied upon the importation of foreign hops, a charge of 15s. per cwt. Hops, it woule be remembered, were not under the treaty. But on the 7th March, the day be- :ore the noble lord the member for Middlesex invited the house to sanction the principle of the treaty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer put an amended resolution on the paper, to the effect that from the lst of January, 1861, to the lst of January, 1862, a differential duty of 20s. per cwt. should be levied on the importation of foreign hops. (Hear, hear.) Well, if there was any mistake in the matter, it was the mistake of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; if the treaty was thereby violated, as he now contended it would be in the case of paper, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government were the parties who were guilty of that violation, because they proposed and carried it through the house. (Hear, hear.) That the right hon. gentleman knew what he was doing was clearly shown by the answer he gave at the time to a deputation of hop-growers who waited upon him to appeal against the course he pro posed to take. He Aid them upon that occasion that he had done his best to meet their views by reducing the duty on hops grown in this country to the amount equal to £lOO,OOO a year, and at the same time that he proposed a differential duty in favour of the English producer of 6s. per cwt. (Hear.) Yes I in the face of the treaty, ache now construed it, the right hon. gentleman impOsed a differen tial duty of 6s. per cwt. (Laughter.) And yet this was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who told them that night that five months ago he could not have supposed there was a man—out of a lunatic asylum he (Sir H. Cairns) sup posed—because that was the favourite phrase on the oppo site benches now a-days—(laughter)—who could have had any doubt as to the construction of the treaty. (Cheers.) This was the. Chancellor of the Exchequer who had laid the resolutions on the table, and who had included paper and hops in the list of articles nil under the treaty-=who had proposed a differential duty on foreign hops, and who now protested that a differential duty on foreign paper would violate the treaty. (Cheers.) The argument was conclu sive. If the treaty was violated, it had been violated by the Government. If the hop growers could have a diffe rential duty for a year, why not the paper makers for a year also ? Hear.) Was this treaty meant for the benefit or the torment of the paper makers of this-country ? Surely under its operation one interest should not be treated to the bene fit of a differential duty and another excluded. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer had talked of class interests, but in all his life he had never seen such partial and unequal treatment of glass interests before as this. With regard to the question of paper, however, much more remained to be said, having a direct and not an illustrative bearing on the question. It occurred to the hon. member for Norwich (Mr. Warner) to put a question to the Chancellor of the' Exchequer on the subject the night the bill assenting to the treaty stood for a third reading ; he asked whether by as -senting to the third reading of the bill the house would be compromised, or in any way bound with respect to the duty on paper ? In reply the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "The house in passing this measure will not fetter in any way the discretion of Parliament as to the imposition of any Customs duty upon paper. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) He knew the' Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that he expected the Excise duty on paper would be abolished, and therefore that paper would be free under the treaty ; but, then, that was answered again by the case of hops, for neither the right hon. gentleman nor the Government expected or contemplated the removal of the Excise duty on hops. On the .17th May, however, a new light began to dawn on the mind of the right hon. gen tleman, and that under remarkable circumstances. On the 17th May the bill for the repeal of the paper duty was !sent up to the other House of Parliament, and it began to be rumoured that the other house was not going to accept the bill. Well, a question—a very friendly question—was put to„ the Chancellor of Exchequer by the member for Hali fax—a friendly question, for the hon. member had given no notice of it—and as it took a hypothetical form, the right hon. gentleman had no hesitation in answering it. The hon. member asked, in the event of the other House of Parliament throwing out the Paper Duty Repeal Bill, what would be done with the Customs duty on foreign paper ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that " the ques tion of the hon. member had reference to a question which had been under the consideration of her Majesty's Govern ment at the time the treaty with France was negociated" —a statement which in view of other facts seemed to him (Sir H. Cairns) very odd, but the right hon. gentleman went on to say that no doubt had, could, should, or would be entertained about the construction of the treaty on tha t point, namely, that the customs duty onforeign paper must be reduced to a level with the excise ; and with respect to -the third point raised by the hon. member as to a sur tax as compensation to the home papermakers, he said that the pressure of the excise upon them was of so inappreciable and impalpable character that it could not be estimated in money. (Hear.) Really, taking all that had occurred he was net without hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not go back to his original construction of the treaty and throw over the sur tax and return the differential duty. He (Sir H. Cairns) had no hesitation in saying that the construction now put upon the treaty by the right hon. gentleman went far beyond the question of the Customs on paper, and that if the house assented to it the French Government might demand the admis sion of timber,. of tobacco, and many other articles on which we had no Excise duty, and if they made such a demand he did not know how the right hon.. gentleman would answer it. But that night in the course of his speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken his stand upon a despatch—a private despatch of the noble lord to 'our am bassador in Paris—and contended that we were bound by the terms of that despatch on this point. Now, in the first place, that despatch had never been laid before the house. No deubt it was one of several that had.been sent for the guidance of our Minister, but the house was not to be bound by such instructions or such statements. All they had to deal with were the treaty as it had been put before them, the statements of the Government in that house, and the treaty as they had accepted and understood it. (Cheers.) Well, then, it was important to remember that much had been said about paper, and especially about the removal of the prohibition on the export of French rags ; and a night or two before the second reading of the treaty bill came on, the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) came down, and, amidst the cheers of the house, stated that the French Government were going to recommend to the Legislative Chambers the 'move' of the prohibition from the export of rags. That was intended to have an effect on the house. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on that occasion that the Government had intended to remove the duty on rags. (Hear, hear.) It was on these statements the House of Commons consented to the treaty between this country and France, and yet they were called upon as gen tlemen and as men of honour to carry out the treaty, which was now violated by the French Government itself. The view of the French Government on this matter was no doubt the desire of the paper makers of France. They said in their memorial to the French Government that they did not care about the reduction of the duty upon paper. What they wanted was to uphold the protection of the duty on rags. Those who supported the treaty in that house said that they ought to afford the Emperor of the French an opportunity to go down to the Legislature of France, and say, " Here the Legislature of England had agreed to terms that will serve you. Act upon the same principle, and reciprocate this act on the part of the people of England." It might be very right to do this, but he thought they ought to wait until next year to see what 'course they should really pursue in this case. On this ground, then, he thought the Government was not wise in pressing the reso lution upon the committee. He denied they were bound to adhere to the treaty in the way proposed. He thought the committee had a fair proposition made to it by a supporter of the Government, and it would be most judicious to adopt that amendment, and thus save from ruin one of the most valuable interests of this country. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained that, not having been enabled to attend to business during a great portion of the session, certain titles were affixed to the resolutions laid upon the table of the house. These titles were said to be the declaration of the Government on the subject to which the resolutions referred. Owing to his ill ness, he was not able to give that attention to the matter he could desire. The consequence was an error or two had crept in, one of which took place in the case of hops, and the other had reference to gold and silver plate, which was not entered as in the treaty. His attention had not been called to the inaccuracies until too late. With regard to the paper duty, he might state that so long ago as the 12th of March last—and not on the 7th of May, as the hon. and learned gentleman had said—the President of the Board of Trade said it would be the duty of the Government to re• duce the Customs duty on paper to a level with the Excise duty in any event. Sir H. CAIRNS said he accepted the statement of the right hen. gentleman; but if the President of the Board of Trade made such a declaration on that date, it only added to the chapter of wonders something more wonderful still, be • cause on the 15th of March a differential duty on hops was imposed, and paraded as a differential duty by the Chan cellor of the Exchequer. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL .said that the hon. and • learned gentleman had addressed the committee with a forensic ardour unusual in such an assembly, and the terms absurd, ridiculous, and the like, were used as regarded the able and lucid statement of his right hon. friend the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer. 'But he (the Attorney-General) rose to state to the house what, in his opinion, was the se interpretation to be put upon the treaty. He begged then to call the attention of the committee to the terms of the treaty. By the treaty, power was given to the British Government to impose a duty equal to the French duty. All foreign articles were to be received into this country on payment of a duty equal to the Excise duty ' which is or shall be imposed." The 7th article contained those important words, "which is or shall be imposed." The French proposed that some articles should be exempted from an increased duty, which might be imposed if they were exempted from the operation of the 7th article. With regard to some articles there was a definite maximum stated. But the French were in this position—they were exempted from the operation of an augmentation duty, as stated by the 7th article, to which they might have been subjected by the terms of the Bth. The paper manufacturer had this advan tage, that the French importer had a limitation placed on him with regard to the weight of the raw material,. and this limitation would impose on him a larger duty than that im posed on the English manufacturer. For every exemption mentioned in the Sth article there was a reason assigned. The particular things mentioned in the Bth article were enumerated for the purpose of taking them out of the ope ration of the 7th article, but not for the purpose of limiting the operation of that article. (Hear, hear, from the Minis terial side.) The maximum duty on paperhangings was given in the Bth article (and this . applied to cardboards) amounting to 15s. per cwt., and at that duty we would be compelled to admit French cardboards into this country, so that instead of its being true that the rule was given in the 7th, and the subject matter for the application of it given in the Bth article, both the rule and application of it were given in the 7th article. There was a common observation that an ounce of fact was worth more than a pound of ar gument—certainly worth more than a pound of some of the arguments heard that evening. (Laughter.) It was said that the 7th article would admit every description of mer chandise from France, including even tobacco, duty free, provided those articles were not subject to Excise duty in England. Now we had laid down this general principle, that where there were home productions liable to an Excise duty, the correspondent articles abroad might be ad mitted into this country on the same terms as our own. There was, therefore, this simple and uniform rule that all those things not liable to Excise duties were to be admitted free of Customs duties, and those that were liable to the Excise duty were to be admitted at a duty equal to that which was imposed on the English producer. He wished to impress upon the committee that if there was a rule of honesty, it was this that they should adhere to the interpretation put upon the treaty in the terms and condi tions of the contract. To frame an article upon the duties to which articles were subject on importation from France, the duty should be equalised as nearly as possible to that to which they were subjected under the operation of the Excise duty. Nothing could be more fair than the inter pretation of the 7th article of the treaty. There was an alteration made in May in the duty on spirits ; but it was agreed between the two contracting parties that if any additional duty should be placed upon articles- of a similar description, an equivalent change should be made in those of spirits. The hon. and learne&gentleman here enume rated the articles, and said his view in having done so was to show that the feelings and opinions of the two Govern ments were harmonious and uniform. He should, therefore, looking at all the circumstances, be exceedingly sorry if the House of Commons were not to act upon the terms of the contract. Indeed, he should be ashamed if the House of Commons were not to carry out its terms, and in relation to the terms of an agreement he was sure he might appeal with confidence to the hon. gentlemen now before him. His right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued the question upon the ground of expediency, and he argued it also upon the ground of distributive justice; but his hon. and learned friend opposite seemed to forget the ordinary rules of the agreement, and argued diffe rently, doubtless because he did not know the facts. The House of Commons, however, knew them, and the paper maker knew them, and as a legislative body the house was bound by the conditions of the contract, and justice to the paper maker and to the great body of the community of this country required that they should put an end to the system by voting for the resolutions. (Hear, hear.) Mr. NORRIS contended that it was rash to reduce the duties onpaper in this country until they had succeeded in inducing other countries to adept a principle of reciprocity. The entire arrangement was an anomaly, and he ventured to say that if the right hon. gentleman recognized the principle . ef a customs ditto is. 3d. was not by any means an adequate compensation or the disadvantage at which the British manufacturer stood in consequence of the excise duty. The Englishman was at a considerable disadvantage in his competition either with French, Belgian, or German makers, whioh it was the duty of that house to relieve him from. lie did not at all agree in the position taken by the right hon. gentleman, that we were bound by the provisions of the treaty, but even if we were, the 21st article of the treaty aff.rded them the means of making the necessary modificati,ns. Mr. HENLEY said he had paid anxious attention to the speech of the hon. end learned gentleman the Attorney- General, to see whether he would reply to the argument of the hon. and learned gentleman below him (Sir H. Cairns), but he left the main portion of his speech unanswered ;1 1 for he followed the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and did not show how exemptions could be . brought in under the expreision "in accordance with." Nor did he say anything on the subject of malt, which was an exciseable article ; and if the 7th article of the treaty were general, as the Government would wish to have it understood, he (Mr. Henley) conceived that malt would come under it, and it was not so small an item, being about £5,000,000, that it could have escaped like hops, which the right hon. gentleman told them was of no great import ance. Well, the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had looked hard at that (the Opposition) side of the house, and said something about their acting in conformity with the dictates of honour and dignity. That was paying them a compliment, certainly, though it did not appear at whose expense. (Hear, and laughter.) Then they made the specification of things that were under the treaty, and things that were not under the treaty. He preferred the specification made at the time, and he did not think that there was that clearness in the treaty which would justify the house in doing what the right hon. gen tleman wished them to do. He thought the unfortunate paper manufacturers had been so banded about this session from pillar to post, and from post to pillar, that this hard ship should not be put upon them, and he would vote for the amendment. Lord r. RUSSELL—The hon. and learned gentleman the member for Belfast made, at the commencement of his speech, a most extraordinary attack on the statement of my right :hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that my right hon. friend had relied both on the obligations of the treaty and the general principles of free trade as argu ments in favour of his resolutions, and that therefore there must be a radical defact in my right hon. friend's argu ments. Now, it appears to me that this argument of the hon. and learned gentleman was one of the most extraordi nary I ever heard. If my right hon. friend had said, this is an article in the treaty to which we are bound to conform, but which cannot be carried without injury to the country, that might have been a point to take exception to. Or, if he had said, this article is good for the country, but it is not within the scope of the treaty, the hon. and learned member might also have objected; but when my right hon. friend says that his resolution is not only conformable to the treaty but is at the same time in accordance with all the dictates of sound policy, for that reason the hen. and learned mem ber says that ray right hon. friend's argument is unsound and ridiculous. However, I was glad to find the hon. and learned member for Belfast admitting that this was not a question entirely for the lawYers, but one which any mem ber by adopting its plain interpretation might understand. I take advantage of that admission to advance some argu ments founded on the plain interpretation, and, let me say at first that if you have a treaty with another power, and if you find that by some refinements, some subtle mode of argument, you have deprived that power of the advantages it might have gained from a plain interpretation, you are not justified in persisting in those refinements and subtle arguments. With respect to the points in the hon. and learned member's speech, I find that although the principal question in dispute had reference to Art. 7, yet that he avoided that article for a long time and went into Art. 8. Then, when he had got the house completely entangled with Art. 8, he referred to Art. 7, and went cursorily over it, as 4f it were not the main article under discussion. The hon. and learned member then resorted to this extraordinary inter pretation ; either article 8 contains the meaning of article 7, and you cannot go beyond it ; or else you are bound to ad mit all articles not subject to excise duty. Why, both these interpretations are extreme, and are founded on a subtle scholastic mode of deducing interpretations, instead of an appeal to the plain straightforward meaning. I must beg the attention of the house to the few words at the beginning of article 7, which seem to me to contain the whole mean ing of that which we are now discussing. It says that her Britannic Majesty will recommend to Parliament to admit into the United Kingdom merchandise from France at a rate of duty equal to the excise duty which is imposed on articles in this country. It seems to me the effect will be that where there is an article subject to excise, and that is introduced to France, you will then have a customs duty equal to that excise duty. You may say article 7 might be better worded than it is; but the meaning is obvious. (Hear, hear.) With regard to article 8, it states the in stances where article 7 is to be applied. Article 7 lays down general principles, and article 8 refers to the instances where those principles are to be applied. The hon. and learned gentleman opposite (Sir H. Cairns) argues that it is not right at present to diminish this duty because the French Government have not completed what they pro. raised—namely, a removal of the prohibition on rags. But there is this material difference—the one is an article in the treaty, and is an engagement between the two Governments, whereas the removal of the prohibition on rags was never an agreement between the two Governments. (Hear, hear.) It was merely a declaration of the French Govern- ment to her Majesty's ambassador at Paris, and it could ' not be done without the consent of the legislative body. The French Government found the legislative body not likely to agree to that proposition, and they were there fore unable to carry the intentions they had declared into effect. The honourable and learned gentleman, however, proposes that we should set at nought our obligations and the treaty because the French Government have not done that which they volun tarily proposed to do. According to this rule there is no treaty which you could not get rid of by some quibble of this kind. (Hear, hear.) Then comes the right hon. gen tleman the member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), who re fers to what was done with regard to the duty upon hops. The right hon. gentleman has represented that we have finally settled that there shall be a differential duty on hops with the view of our obtaining protection thereby. The hop interest represented their case to the Government, and con tended they ought to have some time allowed them in order ;hat they might be enabled to compete with that duty, which was exactly equivalent to the excise duty. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to put on an additional duty for a certain time, after which it was to cease, and it will therefore cease at the time mentioned in •he resolution, and will be exactly equivalent to the excise duty. (Hear, hear.) But my hon. friend the member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller) says that if we propose to com ply with the terms of the treaty, this is not a fit time to do so. He will not tell us what the proper time is, but he says we ought not to comply with the treaty until the French Government have done something which is not in the treaty, and we are to hold ourselves free from our obliga tions until they have done something. What I say is, that an indefinite resolution like that proposed by the hon. gen. tleman would be construed in France and in other countries as a declaration on the part of the House of Commons that they will not comply with the treaty, and that they wish by evasion to get rid of that obligation and to place themselves before Europe as a body which is regardless of treaties. (Hear, hear.) That appears to me, therefore, to be the state of the case. The French Government has said, and most na turally said, that they do not press for an immediate settle ment of this article. It was, therefore, a question of policy with her Majesty's Government as to the course they should adopt. I think the right hon. gentleman who spoke last said that the papermakers have been placed in jeopardy by the various propositions which have been made, and that the question ought to be set at rest for their sakes. Well, that is exactly what her Majesty's Government think upon the subject. (Hear.) But will anybody say that that intention will be fulfilled if the resolution of the hon. member for Herts is carried ? This amendment is an indication that the question will be opened again in February, perhaps de ferred till April, and deferred again till June or July. In short, these paper-makers could never be free from alarm and jeopardy if the hon. gentleman's resolution be carried (Hear, hear.) But with regard to the arguments that have been used against the policy of this measure, they appear to me exactly the same arguments which now for a great num ber of years I have heard in this house, showing that free trade is an excellent thing, but that that class which is pro posed to be effected by it has particular claims for exemp tion. I remember when this question was debated—not 20 but 40 years ago—when Mr. Huskisson intended to take the duties off silk. Silk is not a production of this country, and it was naturally argued, how can you admit silk under a very high duty when it is not a product of this country, and you have to contend with French and Italian manu facturers—hew can you compete with them and admit foreign silk into England ? But you not only admitted foreign silk, but from that moment the trade began to flou rish, and has continued, in spite of all those arguments, to flourish by competition, on free trade principles. Then we had the great question of the corn duties, and arguments were used of great plausibility, because it was said, "You are putting the food of the country at the hazard of a sup ply from foreign nations." The same arguments were used with regard to navigation; both the men who ploughed the land and who ploughed the sea were to be placed under protection; and the groat authority of Adam Smith was cited to protect navigation, and to show that it could not withstand the competition of free trade. But that was not a question of £6,000,000. Agriculture and navigation involved a sum much nearer, I should think, £200,000,000 than £6,000,000; but the house of Commons had the boldness and the wisdom to expose both the farmers of this country and the seamen of this country to competition, and that competition has resulted not only in the increased wealth of the nation, but in the great prosperity of those interests themselves. (Hear.) Then, is it not too much to say that we are to have the same predictions over again, which the hon. member for Hert fordshire has given us, that our machinery will be taken from us, that our men will go abroad—(laughter)—and that there will be no paper-making in this country, and that the House of Commons at the end of those 40 years of free trade is to be frightened by such hobgolins as these, and that property and trade cannot withstand competition ? (Cheers.) But an hon. gentleman (Mr. Childers) who spoke early in the debate, gave us important information which ought, I think, to influence the result of this debate. With regard to cottons, woollens, and silks you may be afraid that these foreign manufactures may successfully compete with you in your own markets. But the sure test is to go into a third market, and see what is the effect of trade there ; to Canada, Australia, and India. There the French have had all the advantages of this protective system. We are told that by virtue of this admirable system—by this plan of nursing and fostering manufactures by artificial heat and nourishment, French manufactures must be introduced into the third market and defeat our own. But the fact is, that out of £78,000 worth of paper, £50,000 is manufactured in this country, some £lo,ojo in the United States, and only £l,BOO comes from France. And so of £300,000 of paper imported into India, £227,000 is of British manufacture. Such is the effect of competition upon a system which has been fostered and dandled by protection. No doubt it will be the same in England. There will probably be improvements introduced into the manufacture, and men will be led into more useful and less wasteful application of their capital. If those paper manufacturers are not unlike the rest of the country—for we know the energy and industry which have enabled our manufacturers, our farmers, and our sailors to compete with their rivals all over the world, whatever ad vantages they might have—l don't think they will suffer by these changes. I ask this house, therefore, on the ground of the obligations of treaties, and on the plain and simple meaning of the article which I have read, on the ground, too, of wisdom and policy, not to give the descre ditable spectacle to the world of endeavouring to evade a clear obligation. (Hear, hear.) Let us rather rely upon that principle which has been tried for a number of years, and has proved to be so beneficial to the commerce of this country, and let us not again resort to prohibitions and protection as the means of securing our prosperity. - (Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI The resolutions and amendments which we are now discussing have assumed so many shapes that I feel some perplexity in addressing myself to this question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us a very able summary of the advantages of free trade , but I shall commence by at once clearing the subject from all that surplusage. I do not conceive that any question of that kind is now under consideration—(hear, hear)—and the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to me to have been framed and fashioned to answer another amendment of Mr. Puller's, which stood for a considerable time on the paper, and which probably would not have given rise to a controversy so interesting and important as the present, which I think must be felt to be unexpected and unnecessary at this period of the session. Concluding, as I do, that the principle of unrestricted competition was ac cepted by the house seven or eight years ago, I do not think it necessary to comment on, or differ from, the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I conclude that those who adopt the principle of unrestricted competition as the principle of our commercial system are also of opinion that that principle should be applied with discretion and pru dence, and that those who apply it should at least have a knowledge of the subject they have to deal with, and of the circumstances of the different trades. I know that there is another school of economists who take what I may call a more extravagant view of the principle of unrestricted competition, and of the mode in which it should be ap plied. They say that we are not to consider what are called exceptional circumstances, nor in any way to regulate our conduct by the conduct of foreign countries. I don't go so far as that opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have before me the words of an eminent statesman, who ex presses in language much better than I could employ what ought to be the aim and object of free trade. He says, " Some persons say that the chivalry of free trade is de graded when it becomes a matter of bargain; whereas it appears to me that bargain is the end and aim of the whole." Those were the sentiments and observations of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Hear.) Therefore the house must have been somewhat surprised to hear him lay down to-night, in a manner so perfectly unre stricted, that we were not to consider in any degree the policy and legislation of other countries on matters of re venue and commerce. It may be supposed that these ob servations were made years ago, when the right hon. gentle man was a stout protectionist. Quite the reverse; for this was a quotation from his budget speech of the present year. (Cheers and laughter.) How he can reconcile the opinion he has given to-night, on the unadvisability of regulating our own trade by any reference to the tegulations of foreign countries, with the sentiments so glowing and favourable which he then expressed, I confess it is totally out of my power to conceive. At the commencement of the year a variety of measures affecting the commerce and trade of the country were laid on the table of the house, and recommended to our support. The trade under consideration was indepen dent and irrespective of the treaty of commerce so far as we can be guided by the papers before,the house: We have heard so much and have had so little explained that the right hon. gentleman cannot blame the House of Commons if they have been under the impression that the question of the paper duties was to be dealt with irrespective of the treaty with France. The right hon. gentleman brought forward the case of the manufacturers of paper independently of the treaty of commerce in a clear and intelligible proposi tion. If the object was to cheapen the price of raper and to s-irea,,r e outti nut have introduced a more beneficial proposition than that for the repeal of the excise duty on paper. But there are better and more important:things than even cheap paper, and the opinion of Parliament, after long discussion and debate, was that the measure of the Government for the repeal of the excise duty on paper was not expedient in the then state of the finances of the country, and I may say in passing that was a resolution which subsequent events justified. (Hear, hear.) That plan of the Government having failed, what was the state of this particular trade ? Was it one that had never been reformed or revised ? Was it one the regulation of which had been exempted when the general subject of the regulation of duties had been dealt with, and when those revisions which were prevalent during the last quarter of a century took place ? Quito the reverse. This very branch of manufacture included amongst those which underwent that scrutinising examination, adjustment, and arrange ment to which I have referred ; and the Minister by whose advice and counsel this critical examination took place hap pened to be the same Chancellor of the Exchequer who now brought it forward. (Hear, hear.) Therefore the Govern ment at the commencement of this year having failed in their policy with regard to the manufacture of paper, could not turn round and say, we have not had our measure carried as we intended, it is absolutely necessary to consider the state of a trade the condition of which is disgraceful to the country, and is not in accordance with the commercial prin ciples which prevail in this country, because the Govern ment had examined and considered the circumstances of this branch of industry, and had adjusted it to those principles which the house had examined and sanctioned. (Hear.) That being the case it is somewhat extraordinary that on the 6th of August we are now called on to consider the position and circumstances of this particular branch of in dustry, and that the paper manufacturers, harassed by what has already passed in the session, should have their condition suddenly brought before a jaded House of Com- • mons to the surprise of everybody, and that a'great Parlia mentary debate and struggle should take place upon the condition of a branch of industry which had already been revised according to the new principle of our commercial system. (Hear, hear.) What is the cause of this strange proceeding ? It is supposed that we are bound to do this under and by virtue of the commercial treaty. Are we quite clear that there is a stipulation of that kind ? Every one will agree it is highly desirable that public documents should be drawn in language so clear and so precise that there shall be no doabt as to their meaning. That that is not the case in the present instance no one will pretend to say. I have listened to the discussion which has taken place upon the question of our engagements under the treaty ; and I confess that as between the arguments of the rival expositors it does appear to me that the case set up . by my hon. and learned friend (Sir H. Cairns) has not even been encountered. (Hear, hear.) The most remarkable observation that has been made throughout this debate is that which has just fallen from the noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who of all others should be careful in expounding a public treaty. The noble lord, whoa he dealt with the 7th article, in which foreign mer chandise is admitted on payment of a duty equal to the ex cise, felt that it was impossible to vindicate the conduct of the Government on the subject of hops; that subject on which, according to the Attorney-General, there was so much unfortunate vacillation. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord therefore found fault with the motion of the hon. member for Hertfordshire, on the ground that it did not propose any ultimate result. He said, "If you had pro posed that the duty should fall a shilling a year, as was done in the case of hops, I could have understood that; but the motion as it stands is too vague. But the proposal which the noble lord makes is one that is just as much a violation of the treaty as was the regulation respecting hops. Lord J. RUSSELL—I did not make any such propo sition. Mr. DISRAELI—But the noble lord said it would be in accordance with the treaty. (Cheers.) It would, however, have been as much a violation of it as any that has been made in the course of the debate. (Hear, hear.) But after all what is this treaty ? The circumstances connected with its execution are remarkable. One would have supposed from the language of the noble lord that we were preparing to violate an engagement into which the country had en tered in the most complete and public manner. But I find, looking at the papers before us, that a treaty of commerce was negotiated and ratified, and that when it was laid on the table and explained by the Minister, it appeared that it was to be followed by a supplementary convention, which was in fact to regulate the details of the measure. I find that a specific date was mentioned by which that supplementary treaty was to be completed, namely, the Ist of July. On that day, however, the supplementary treaty was not exe cuted. On the contrary, instead of a supplementary treaty I find that there is no arrangement between the English and the French Governments by which these separate conven tions were to be successively concluded. One of them is to refer to bar and pig iron, machines, tools, &c. The second is to have reference to yarns and manufactures of flax and hemp ; and the third, to all qther articles of British pro duce and manufactures, enumerated in the first article of the treaty—the time for the completion of these three con ventions being extended to the Ist of November. Now what security have we that when the first of November comes these three conventions will be completed ? (Hear, hear.) You now have taken five or six months to negotiate this supplementary treaty, which you have not completed, and who can tell that the three conventions will be finished within the time specified ? Well, then, sir, I say this is not a complete engagement betweenthe two countries which we are now proposing to violate. This is:an incomplete and un finished negotiation, and there is nothing unreasonable, or dangerous, or unjust in our suggesting to the Government that it is quite unnecessary to arrive precipitately at any re.- solution on the subject of the paper duties after the country had beengreatly disappointed in regard to the matter of the raw material ; but that it is wise and expedient that we should avail ourselves of the same delay as the French Government has done, and that we should have negotiations with the French Government in order that we may arrive at a fair adjustment of this question. (Hear.) The motion of the hon. member for Hertfordshire proposei merely that the Government should not call upon this house to consider at once a question which may be postponed by the French Government. (Hear.) It appears to me that not only is the motion of the hon. member for Hertford shire one which is fair and reasonable, but that it is one which indicates a course which it would be, I believe, wise on the part of the Government to follow. But neither the speech of the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs nor that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the amendment of the member for Hertfordshire. They have totally avoided the real merits of the case, which may recom mend themselves to all men of temperate opinions. Let the Government recollect fora moment the great disappointment of the country at the manner in which this treaty has been negotiated. (Hear, hear.) I have ne doubt the difficulties of the negotiation are very considerable ; but at the same time expectations were held out to this country as to the mode and time at which the 'treaty would be negotiated, and as to the advantages which this country was to derive from it, which have certainly not been fulfilled, and which is a source of great disappointment, and the reasons never have been explained to the people of this country why the engagements promised were not fulfilled. It appears to me, then, under these i circumstances, that the Govern men t can b e scarce ly surprised if a particular trade should hesitate before they conclude an arrangement which they think will be highly injurious to their industry and without receiving any of those advantages on the part of France which were held out to them by the Government of this country. Every , body recollects that when this treaty came before the house variouS commodities were enumerated which caused alarm, and among which paper was one, and everyone will recollect the interest and satisfaction caused by the an nouncement twice made by the Government that the French Government had resolved to reduce the duty upon the raw material for manufactures. (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances it is not unreasonable to call upon the Go vernment to obtain a boon necessary to the profitable exer cise of the paper trade, and which is a sound principle of commerce, and which the Government more than once an nounced their intention to accomplish. (Hear.) Under these circumstances I trust that the Prime Minister will, instead of taking an exaggerated view of this matter, such as I think has been taken by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, feel that it is a question in which the Go vernment may fairly interfere, and without violating the engagements of the country under treaties of which we have heard so much, that he will prevent the necessity of a divi sion on this subject by accepting in the spirit the amend ment of the hon. member for Hertfordshire. The noble lord may in the interval that will elapse between this and next meeting of parliament use that influence which I have no doubt he possesses with the French Government, in order to obtain the result which is sought by the amendment. I myself would much prefer this than that we should b. dividing on the 6th of August—have leen dividing the house on an object which of itself is not of first-rate impor tance. It is not like the constitution of the country. It is the legitimate interest of a thriving trade which is still un der the disadvantage of an excise duty. It is all very well to say you will get over that by a farthing or two, more or less. I defy any one to tell the disadvantage of an excise duty on a trade. No doubt when you compensate a trade for an excise you should make not only an adequate but a liberal allowance. Considering that this subject has been brought before the house on what I believe to be an erro neous construction of the treaty—considering that the treaty is an uncompleted document and an unfulfilled engagement —and considering that the French Government has in con sequence of this great difficulty, in a spirit of great concilia tion, expressed its willingness not to press us to come into this engagement, I think it would be the wisest and the moat conciliatory course to the trade whose interests are at stake, and to which I myself would apply the commercial principle which we have adop ted think that considering the French Government have not been able to fulfil their engagements although they are desirous of fulfilling them, tthta our att consideringm fulfilmentor e t ti once they have expressed their desire tha should be deferred till we can make m ore equal terms, and mutually fulfil our engagements -1 say h all these circumstances I wish that the noble lord would prevent at this moment an unnecessary ditvisionbyaccept ing in spirit the policy re commended member for Hertfordshire, and w ould allow this question to be so dealt with that the noble lord should use his influence with ,tb.c Fandi ti ernment, e) that they ,11,n1f1 dflov, ILL/. raw material to be exported, and that we may have the satistac tion of feeling that when the paper trade is called upon to enter into competition, it will enter into it with all those advantages to which it is entitled. But if the noble lord will not do that, the only course I can take is to support !wiiw MMN the temperate and well-considered amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member fer Hertfordshire. (Cries of" Divide.") Lord PALMERSTON—I entirely agree in the opinion expressed by the right hon. gentleman that a division on this question is not necessary, and I think it would be well .• avoided by those who sit on the other side of the house. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman has urged me not to adopt unnecessary and exaggerated opinions. Now, undoubtedly, if I have the disposition to adopt such opinions, I think that the course followed on the other side has been such as to warn me to avoid the example set by them ; for I think that not only have their opinions been stated with unnecessary energy, and exaggerated ex tremely, but, as I will beg leave to show, their opinions are inconsistent with former opinions expressed by those very gentlemen. The question before the house is whether we will fulfil the conditions of a treaty concluded with a foreign power, and whether we will, with regard to this manufacture, apply the principles of free trade which has been adopted by all sides of the house. (Hear, hear.) Now, I really am surprised, I will not say at learned gentlemen, because they are in the habit of using refined arguments, and what is called splitting hairs aLd . finding difficulties where unlearned men find none—l am not surprised that learned gentlemen should be inclined to argue away the 7th article of the treaty, but that unlearned men who look at the matter with plain common sense, look at words according to their ordinary meaning, and at engagements according to the spirit as well as the letter-4 am surprised that gentlemen not belonging to the learned profession should entertain any doubt as to the obvious intention of the 7th article of the treaty. Nothing can be plainer. It is stated in the article that the duty on merchandise coming from France shall not exceed the excise duty levied on the same articles produced in this country. What can be clearer and more precise than that engagement ? It is said that paper was not supposed to be included originally among the provisions of the treaty; bat my right hon. friend has explained how it happened that at that time it was antici pated that the excise duty would be repealed, and that the article would not apply to paper. But when the course of events prevented the duty from being repealed the 7th article of the treaty came into operation. It is alleged that the French Government,--not by treaty, but by diplomatic communications—offered to do its utmost to change the law in France with regard to the exportation of rags, and it is said that because the French Government have failed in their endeavours to procure that change, the English Go vernment' ought also to fail to carry into effect a solemn engagement entered into between the two countries, and ratified by the Sovereign of each. No •doutt the French Government in the most handsome manner stated that if it * was inconvenient for her Majesty's Government to carry out the stipulation they would waive its execution for the present, but is such handsome and liberal conduct to be met by conduct diametrically opposite ? I cannot believe that a British House of Commons can ever assent to such course. The right hon. gentleman who had just addressed the house had stated that conventions are to be signed regulating the duties on iron and other things, and he says we can, under those circumstances, readily postpone the paper duty. But the right honourable gentleman is con fusing things totally different in their nature, be cause that which is the subject matter of the convention is the conversion of duties ad valorem into specific duties, and therefore that fact has no bearing whatever upon the question under consideration. What has the house already done in reference to the treaty ? It has unanimously voted the address approving of the treaty and engaging to sup port the crown in the performance of its stipulations ; but yet we are now called upon to evade indefinitely the execu tion of the engagements into which we have entered. It is said to be a very trifling matter, but I should be glad to learn if that was the light at which it was represented to the carious gentlemen who have been called up from different parts of the country, and even from foreign lands, to take part in this unnecessary division. (Laughter and cheers.) I will undertake that to them the matter was represented in a very different light. I trust that the house will look at the question in a plain, straightforward English manner, and I have no doubt they will see that there is an obligation and will take the earliest opportunity of fulfilling it. With regard to the bearing upon this particular trade I must be allowed to say that I really thought we were - all free-tradere- I remember a time, not very far distant, when hon. gentle men on the other side of the house raised the standard of protection, and that was the rallying cry of the party. But/ if I mistake not, in 1852 Lord Derby stated, when he dis solved Parliament, that ho referred the question of free trade or protection to the decision of the country. When the general election was over, Lord Derby and its Govern' ment stated that they felt the country had decided in favour of free trade, and that henceforward they adopted frankly and fairly the principle of free trade. (Hear.) But now this free-trading Parliament is called upon to break a treaty for the sake of retaining a little fragment of protection in one particular trade. My honourable friend the member for Pontefract made an important statement to-night es to the way in which the paper trade of this country beats the paper manufacture of France from third markets, in which no protection operates, and in which the/ start on fair and equal terms. By their superior skill and the better article they manufacture, they gain the predominance in third markets, to the exclusion of the manufacture of France. That shows, even on the narrow ground that protection may be wanted to foster a manufac ture which cannot stand on its own legs, that paper does not want that protection. Even if you admitted the ril e that it was sound policy to make the consuming public buy a dearer or a less good article merely that the persons who manufacture that article should have a profit which they would not otherwise gain—even if that false and exploded principle were a good one; it would not apply, because it ill demonstrated that the paper manufacturers of England are capable of meeting all the difficulties of getting raw mate' rial and competing successfully and' advantageorts ll with the foreign manufacturers. Therefore, whether ife take it on the principle of the treaty or of free trade spa protection, I have not heard a single argument which lul l any weight in it. lam pursuaded the House of C e mmorns will feel that it is bound to maintain the honour of th e country by fulfilling our obligations, of the nature and es' tent of which no reasonable man can doubt, and also tha t they are too far advanced in the principles of free trade 0 retrace their steps now. To make this an exception tc' that general rule, the application of which has tended ° 0 greatly to improve the industry and increase the prosperitY of the country, would be a dereliction of the duty of the House of Commons, and I cannot believe that by all t h 4 ingenious arguments which have been used the house Wl' be persuaded to do so. (Cheers.) The house then divided : For the resolution For the amendment .. 233-3 3 The announcement of the numbers was received with loud and prolonged cheering. The resolution was then agreedto. The CHANCELLORof the EXCHEQUER then moved " That in lieu of the duties of customs now charged on the articles undermentioned, other duties of customs shall, 011 and after the 16th day of August, 1860, be charged there: on importation • from countries other than' France it Algeria. He presumed that as between the first and i al differe ncew h as ad s °EI simple O a ly an d discussed so w e 1i theunder stood, and thethe committee ject of free trade and protection, and the question of the treaty, that the committee would go forward and take thi° question at once. Mr. PULLER did not think it necessary to make another speech to-night, but there was an important distinction he' tween the two resolutions, and all the arguments upon the faith of the treaty had no application whatever to this reso" lution as regarded the interests of that class of manufa ° turers whose case he had supported ; it was of vital iraPor tance to them that this resolution should not be agreed to. He therefore begged to move an amendment, "that, with out desiring to prejudice the question of a reduction st s future period of the customs duty on books and paper, an % committee does not think fit at present to assent to suc h reduction." Mr. DISRAELI could not support the amendment. The question at issue in the first resolution was of great impor: tance, and the house had well and fully discussed it. Thl: resolution would, if carried, involve this country in gre 4 trouble with those countries under the name of favoured nations. The hon. gentleman must not, therefore , coun t on his support if he went to a division. Mr. NE WDEGATE supported the amendment. ifs should not be doing his duty to his constituents if he did not vote for it. A division was called for, but the resolution being put the amendment was withdraws, and it was agreed to with' rateincreasingthe on wine, from the Ist ':J anuar y , 1861 , so as to adjust th e duties on the stronger kinds of wine to meet the late inereai e on the duties on spi rits. EXCHEQUERofdutyohchargeable ea u neat After a few words from Mr. AYRTON, the resolution We i agreed to, and the house resumed. The R e freshment-houses and Wine Licenses (Irelan d) Bill was read a third time and passed. The second reading of the Plea on Indictments Bill ar° moved by Mr. DENMAN, and agreed to. The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the house adjourned at half-past two. [ADVERTISEMENT.] Pills and medicine invariably nr gravate and perpetuate diseases; their annoyance, di . : appointment, and expense m a y b e avo id e d b y pe ns t" in indifferent health sending only their address to S. Barry, E sq., 77 , R egen t- street, W., London, an d the/ will receive gratis and free by post the "INVALIDS' 00 , GUIDE," or Natural Restorer, without me di c i ne or 0 6 pense, of perfect digestion, strong nerves, moun d lungs, 411 , refreshing sleep, to the most enfeebled, insuring the remoi'.l_l! of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver complaint . ' nausea, epilepsy, paralysis, debility, nervousness, palpitatio¢ cough, asthma, consumption, dropsy, flatulency, diarril.: dysentery, biliousness, fevers, sore throws, catarrhs, COLd noises in the ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities, erupt - ! , w i n hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessness, acidity, Pal o , tation, heartburn; headache, despondency, cramps, W B 4 B .o siiski' g, fits, bronchitig.—"Ungve , ,t , ,onally the safest (111, LONDON : Printed and. Published by MURDO YOUI4 a ,/ of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun aflice,No. 11 1 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the count/ Middlesex, Tuesday, August 7, 1860. • . th t 11 E 0 to in to di Ir fa an th be 1)1