The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-08-07 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-YESTERDAY

The royal assent was given by commission tAi:the Cedelis
(England and Ireland), and several other bills. TO Indus-
trial Museum (Scotland) and Tramw,r, erfelanA) Bill 4 passed
throngh committee, asdid the Adroitity hrisdiction Bill.
The Earl of SHArrEserav asked if the force about to be sent
to Syria was to be employed tinaply in the preservation of
reace, without interfering in civil and religious matters. He
trusted that the vigorous policy inaugurated by Lord Sratford
de Redeliffe Would be maintained, expressing his d-strnst
of
the intentions of the Emperor of the Frentb.
• Lord Worznorsr replied that 'there vans to tuttlier inter-
ference contemplated thrui what was necessary to restore peace
and Order.
The Mamuis of CLANIVICA:fi.DE the'flPht that steps should be
taken' beyond the immediate otcaion, to bring abbut a final
settlement of the affairs of the.Ptitintry. -• •
The order of the day for the committal of the Landed
property Improvement (Ireland) Bill was withdrawn.
The House adjourned at hal.f.past six.

OUSE OF qr,IMMONS.---i-Ys'rEilelY.
Mr. Tiznicrazy asked the Chandelt4t.• of the teieheeuer
whether in consequrence of the More of the Atlantic Tidegraph
Company in their attempt to. lay doWn a submarine line to
Ainerica; 'the agreement entered into between them and her
Majesty e
dvernment had tbt 'become void, and whether the
63verar" :at will be pretttted to entertain' applications • from
other erties willing to undertake the same enterprise, subject
to theeeenditeens tet forth in the Select Committee of Packet
Telegraph Contracts which have been, recently affirmed
43- the 'house.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQ,VER replied that the con-
tract, though not repealed, had beeothe void in law. No
application had been made froth any other company for the
Purpose of constructing a telegraph, on similar conditions.,
laioking to the success of the deep sea telegraph and the pre=
tent state of 'the question, the Government would exercise
'great cantion•in entertaining applications for the construction
'of any further telegraphs.
In reply to Mr. Caicd,
The Loan ADVOCATE said it was the intention of the Obi.ern-
111ent to appoint a commission to enquire into the etale of the
Switch herring fisheries. •
Mr. Gaserirn asked the Secretary of 'State for Foreign
.Affairs whether he has now.reeeleed official information that
Abd-el-fiader, by his active and courageous exertions, had
saved the lives of a large nninber, said to be several thousands,
of the Christian inhabitants Of. Damascus, who 'Weald other
wise undoubtedly have been massacred ; seOfhether it •
would not be generous and sound policy en, the part of this
•eountry that we should make sortie Public acknowledgment of
'such services, as an example and encouragement to the cause
naf humanity in those cotintneS.
Lord. Joan Rosetta, protesting against the repetition of
those inconvenient Question., rep'it.d that the only information
he had received was, that Abd-el-Kader had saved the lives of
several hundred Christians.
The'illeuse then went into committee on the thietores Act.
'The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHETCLE, to bringing foiniaid
his resolution on the duties, observed that he had proposed
two resolutions, because one part of the sobjett Wetted the
.commercial treaty, while Vat other Nit liiVOl.Vel Commercial
considerations alone, without any referente to the treaty. The
'effect of his resolution Ott the revente*ill be but small, neither
'will it-greatly influence the price of the article. On this sub-
ject the grossest exaggerations prevailed abroad. The pur-
chaser and consumer ot. paper would have the advantage
common to all others-eCt reducing the pressure upon the home
iniarliet by resotting to: foreign supplies. But the question
involved high considerations of policy, not only as regards
',their honourable engagements of the treaty; and yet more,
;whether those great principles of free trade were or were not
'tb be adopted to their full extent by the present Haase of
'Commons. Adverting; in the first instance, to 'the french
:treaty, 'he avowed his surprise at the opinions he had heard
.expretted that the treaty did not reduce the customs duty
on raper to the level of the excise. He slowed, froth •the
tereenof the treaty, that A was perfectly clear upon that point,
and that no power was left them '
to place a protective ditty
4355 any article whatever imported from France. the same
thing was proved by the official correspondence on the subject.
Re ceentended that the House, in adopting the principles of the
treedy, had done so with its eyes °pea, alter tine consideration,
rand with fall. cognisance of its -reeenitig. It had been said
that the redaction of the duty on paper was contingent to the
removal of the prohibition of the exportation of rags froin
Trance. This he denied; observing that the French govern-
ment hid efikeiVoured to induce their legislatUre to remove
the prohibitien;. but the protectionists had proved too stitifg
for them. Let not the House, by its example, short aia appro-,
. -sal of that* proceeding. The questiencf Tag eipertation was,
in itself most insignificant. Rags were dear in France,
and we could not under 'any 'circucittances expect from '
thence a- large -supply. The PrenCh goVernment had
throughout acted -with the most extreme liberality. They had
long ago offered to give up the article of coal, and now they
offered not to press for the immediate execution of the
article, as regards the duty on paper. That handsome offer,
as in the former case of coals, her Majesty's, dovernment had.
declined, trusting in the principles 'el-their win policy. If,
indeed, they had done any wrong by their proposal to Britiob •
producers, they might, inconvenient as it might be, accept the
,:bcon of the French Government; but when the proposal was
.one of strict justice Os the other 'classes of the communitY—
when it tended to remove the state of paralysis in which the
trade-reinaitrail atthis moment, however they might-acknow-
ledge the a-g.ease- offered .to -them, they could not accept it.
let them hot prolong the suspense in which the papermakers
-would he if they postponed the settlement of the questions
The 'exaggerated notion of the importance of the proposed
cluutre which was bewildering the inin6 of the papermakers
I,'slOsroducing a stagnation injurious to trade,.and it would be
•=r. act of humanity to remove it. Freedom of commerce had at
the commencement of the session received the adhesion of
most inveterate protectionists, and yet, hoWever widely
.admittetfin the general principle, it was always opposed in its
particular applications. So it: was, the paper makers enter-
frain!a,o_the.present instances such unfounded apprehension.
The' paper
,maker had received the full benefit of free trade,
in obtaining without duty all the commodities he uses either
'in his trade or out of it. What right had he to' rleiaand
‘-vauetaptiOn. from the general rule. He complained without any
reason that he was subject to special burdens, a complaint
made in succession by all classes when their, protection was
taken away. The special burden of the paper maker was the
."prOhibition Of the exports of rags from abroad. The case was
lltostradically misrepresented. We had an ample supply of
rags in this country. The material at 'home was increasing in
quantity, and lessening in price. The wkole cry was a delusion
and an error. We were not an importing country .of rags
as we exported in paper More than we imported 'in rags—
the paper being of the finest kind. As a proof of
this absurdity of the dread that we Shou'd be overwhelmed
'with, a deluge of French paper, he showed that in foreign
'markets, undee many disadvantages, the British manufacturer'
'outsold the French. This point he proved by direct quotations
from. .the American returns. Iri conclusion, he urged the
-claims of the publishers of cheap 'publications; who had no
.right to be compelled to purchase in a protected market, and
who were exposed to competition from books, printed ahroad,
.and admitted under duties lovier than those, charged on the
material of -paper. Finally, he called upon the House to
'follow the grand principle of recent legislation, to disregard
'the; proceedings of foreign countries, and to carry out, without
'extraneous consideration, their own domestic measures of
"equity, fairness, and equality. This was the last remnant of
-protectibil yet lurking in our legislation, and by its removal
theTtook a. last and affecting farewell of that antiquated
system, Let them carry out to its full extent those principles
whch had aided, not alone in the prosperity of the nation,
but in the.direct advantage of the producer of the once pro-
tected commodities.

Thb Chancellor then put the first item of the first resolution,
reducing the duty on books to 16s. per cwt.

Mr. Pur„LLB. called upon the House to consider the details
more minutely before adopting the proposal now offered to
them. He contended that so serious a step ought not to be
taken without further enquiry, and that the matter should be
referred to a select committee. After adducing many facts to
chow the danger of thus encouraging the foreign manufac
-turer, he moved, as an amendment, a resolution that, " without
(desiring to prejudice the question of a reduction at a future
period of the customs duty on French books and paper, this
,committee does not think fit at present to assent to such
reduction."

Mr. Campers supported the resolution, which he regarded
as a step towards csmpleting the practical realisation of free-
,trade principles, and as such to be substantiated by the same
arguments which had prevailed in the corn law.
Mr. F. CROSSLLY argued on the same side, that the present
question was one of protection versus free-trade. It was, he
believed, the last time that this issue would ever be formally
presented to the legislature. Restrictisng the question between
England and France, his recent visit to the latter country had
led him to the conclusion that the French Commissio!tera were
chiefly anxious so to arrange the import duty on English com-
modities-as to secure a maximum revenue, and with this view
were specially desirous to facilitate and augment every branch
of trade between the two countries. This endeavour should, he
maintained, be reciprocated to the great benefit of both
communities.
Mr. MAGUIRE contended that, under existing circumstances,
the customs duties on paper ought not to be diminished. The
borne paper makers were still oppressed • by a heavy and
vexatious excise tax, and should not be.called upon to. contend
on such unequal terms against foreign competition. If was
giving a powerful encouragement to the protectionists in
' France to give them everything, while receiving nothing in
return-
Mr. RARSSI said that, after having accepted the treaty of
commerce, the House would stultify itself by adopting the
amendment proposed by the member for Hertferdshire. He
supported the resolution on the broad principle that all
taxation ought to be adapted to the interests of thecommerce,
and not to that of the producer.
Sir H. CAIRNS observed that the resolution had been
defended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the double
argument that the mitigation of the customs duty on
paper was enjoined by the principle of free trade,
and ..prescribed by the commercial treaty with France.
Neither of these arguments, he contended, were tenable,
and he proceeded to insist that their presentment in
union was highly suspicious. He afterwards went at con-
,siderable detail into the case of the paper makers, in defence of
.which he. argued in much detail, and with a copiourecitation of
Illustrittions and instances. Adverting to the treaty, he
analysed minutely the clauses of that convention with the view
of Shelving that they contained no engagement on the part of
England for the equalisation of the customs and excise duties
•cr Taper.
After some explanat'on from Mr: Gladstone,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL sought to discover and explain the
true import of the commercial treaty, not, as he observed, in
the spirit of a technical lawyer, but as apparent to the intelli-
gence of men of honour endowed with common sense. This
interpretation, he maintained, conveyed the conclusion that, as
between England and France, customs duties were to be
tarifeed on the English side merely so as to counterbalance the
excise duties charged on the native manufacturers. On this
understanding, which he elucidated by reference to various
articles, the aseimilation of the customs and excise taxes on
paper was, he contended, directly and incontrovertibly derived.
Mr. Nona's, as a paper manufacturer, denied that the prin-
ciple of free trade, as laid down by Sir Robert Peel, applied
to the case of the paper duty under the circumstances in which
this question was now presented to the legislature.
Mr. HENLEY reminded the House that the Goverment had
themselves established a differential duty on hops, and thus, as
be contended. had surrendered their whole ease so far as it
was based on the consideration of the commercial treaty. As
to the question of general expediency, he considered that the
unlucky paper makers had already suffered enough from the
uncertainty in which their trade had been enveloped ; and, at
any rate, deserved a short remission of further punishment.
Lord J. RUSSELL submitted that when two states had con-
cluded a mutual treaty, its conditions ought to be fulfilled
according to a wide and generous interpretation, disregarding
the advantages which might be derived by firm and settled
arguments for the benefit of either parties. The plain com-
mon-sense rendering of the treaty with France implied, as he
maintained, the general assimilation of customs and excise
duties on all articles (paper included) which Might become the
subject of mutual trade. Every treaty could be voided by the ap-
plication of quibbles such as were advanced by the opponents of
the present resolution. The amendment which had been
brought forward was, in his opinion, a mere evasion of the
treaty obligation to which the House had already given their
pledge. After the free trade question has been so often
undated, and so thoroughly settled years ago, it was strange
even mortifying to see once more revived the old hob-
goblin
of protection.
Mr. le,
Lieu argued that as the Ministerial policy had
failed wit
reductiotth regard to the excise duty on paper, their proposed
3 bit the customs duty ought to be abandoned.