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

THE BATTLE OF THE PAPER-MAKERS

AIR. GLADSTONE having ejected his venomous
and well-aimed spite upon an important branch
of British manufacture, he now, doubtless,
chuckles over the foul deed, whereby he has
once more destroyed one department of our
home industry. Having been ignominiously
defeated in his insane attempt to waste nearly
a million and a half of paper duty, he has
now taken his revenge on the papei-makers
by reducing and equalising the customs duty
on foreign
papers,—the effect of which may
be to extinguish the English trade. Viewing
the reduction of the customs duty on paper from
the narrow point of view in which it affects our-
selves as a portion of the cheap daily press, of
course we have no reason to grumble ; but, look-
ing at the question as it ought to be looked at,—
as it affects the policy of the State and the cha-
racter of certain leading statesmen we cannot
help perceiving in it many reasons for the highest
dissatisfaction. As to the motives which prompted
the measure there seems to be a marvellotr
amount of unanimity ; and the arguments em-
ployed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in
urging his motion upon the House, are equally
transparent. It may not be altogether useless,
however,. even now, that the matter seems
"decided, to mark for our future guidance, the
unworthy character of both.
The Chaneellor.of the Exchequer. has put it on
record, that in his opinion, whatever 'effect his
resolutions may have upon the paper manufacture
id this country, they can make little difference
to the revenue of the country ; neither will they
greatly cheapen the price of the article. He
insists very energetically on the accuracy of his
own views in these respects. It is not even pre-
tended by Mr. GLADSTONE, that they will not
injure the paper makers,—he evidently lays his
account for that, and views the catastrophe with
indifference. When we turn to his speech to learn
who is expected to reap the benefit, we find him
demonstrating carefully that neither the revenue
nor the people need look for any advantage worth
the while. What,. then, impels him to the per-
formance of this ungracious task ? The treaty—
nothing but the treaty, and "high considerations
the'
left us
of policy as regards our honourable engage-
meuts." Mr. GLADSTONE,:rShaO:SI:
preoawdeirngis
of
terms of that treaty is ~
to place a protective duty on any article what-
ever imported from France." He offers no
apology for having thus, according to his version
of it, tied the hands of the legislature behind its
back, leaving France free to work its will upon
our commerce; but, on the contrary, he insultingly
—almost sneeringly—tells the House that it is
of no use complaining now.
" He contended
that the House, in adopting the principles of the
treaty, had done so with its eyes open, after due
consideration, and With full cognisance of its
meaning." Members are not to be allowed to
believe that in the month of March last they
were like the hares--the victims of a temporary
delirium, which has only recently passed off.
Mr. GLADSTONE assures them that there was

no hocussing, for their eyes were' open,
there
was due consideration, and they had full
cognisance of its meaning. This was really the
cruellest thing he could have uttered to those
whose clearest conviction must be that if they
had the power to commence the labours of this
session (le novo, would they see to it that above
all things there should'certainly be no such thing

in existence as a French treaty. Be that as it
may, it is indisputable that, according to Mr.
GLADsToNE,, the treaty has deprived us of all

right to legislate in the matter of customs duties
affecting French manufactures. We shall not
stay to inquire what we have gained by having
thus surrendered our national liberty to the French

Emperor. Let us proceed to inquire how Mr.
GLADSTONE proves the truth oe the pretended

necessity for reducing the customs duties on paper.
We shall not attempt to enter into a bill dis-
cussion of how far this supposed necessity arises

out of the terms of the treaty, but content our-

selves by briefly referring to the opinions expressed
by -honourable members on both sides of the
debate. It having been asserted by no mean
authorities in the matter that no such necessity

exists in the treaty, how is the assertion met ?
Mr. GLADSTONE chiefly rests his proof, not on'the

:reaty itself, but on certain official correspondence,
ust as if that could override the principal document

and supply its omissions ; he denied that the reduc-
tion of the duty on paper was made contingent
on the removal of the export duty on French rags,
because the French Government had endeavoured
to induce the legislature to remove the prohibi-
tion, but the protectionists, had proved too strong
for them! It was, therefore, our duty to show
them a good example,---at great cost to our
manufacturers, and without a corresponding
advantage to anybody! The Attorney-General---
on rising to answer the able speech of Sir HUGH
CAIRNS, who proved to a demonstration that no
necessity existed in consequence of anything in
the terms of the treaty—was compelled to aban-
don the high ground so successfully taken by Sir
RUGii, and after admitting that the treaty would
not support Mr. GLADsToNE's views if constited
in the spirit of a technical lawyer, he proceeded

to make an ad eaptandum appeal to what he
called "the intelligence of men of honour endowed
with common sense," in support of certain iiy'e-
renees to be drawn from its clauses and provi•
sions. This froth a lawyer, we hold; was as good
a giving up the whole plea. Mr. HENLETi. very
appositely reminded the House that the Govern-
ment had themselves established a differential
duty on hops, and had thus surrendered their
whole case, so far as it was based on the
treaty. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, seeing the
great weakness, of the position Mr. GLAD-
STONE had taken up, confessed that it could
only be maintained "according to a wide and
generous (very) interpretation, disregarding the
advantages which might be derived by firm and
settled arguments for the benefit of either party."
His lordship is no believer in the " advantages"
of sound logic or the strict interpretation of
formal documents. The rule of thumb existed
before the rule of three, so three cheers for dunce-
dom ! Then, again, it was moderately urged by
Mr. DISRAELI that as many of the details of the
treaty were, in fact, still unsettled, both as re-
gards the tariff of duty and the time at which the
convention would take effect, there was no reason
why a similar delay should not be required on
the English side, in order to arrive at a fair
adjustment of an important and suffering branch
of trade. In short, the superiority of the argu-
ments founded upon the very terms of the treaty
itself were so manifestly against Mr. GLADSTONE'S
views, that we cannot see how any man can fail
to be convinced that the supposed necessity had
no existence except in the minds of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer and his infatuated followers.
Supposing, however, for the sake of the argu-
ment, that it really was imperative on us, in
terms of the treaty, to do what has been done to
please Mr. GLADSTONE, was not that difficulty at
once got over by the offer of the French Govern-
ment, mentioned by Mr. GLADSTONE himself, to
waive any claim they might have had under the
7th article, as regards the duty on paper ? Was
this not enough to have satisfied the highest
" considerations of policy as regards our honour-
able engagements ?" If it be true, as Mr. GLAD-
STONE was not ashamed to tell the House and
country, that the treaty so completely fettered
US that we had no choice left us, did not this
restore to us entire liberty of action in the
matter in hand ? Away, then, with Mr. GLAD-
STONE'S fiction about "honourable engagements."
Neither can we tolerate for a moment his jargmi
about the extended application of free-trade prin-
ciples, while we subject paper to a heavy excise
tax. It is mere nonsense to talk of making it an
article of free-trade by reducing the customs
duty on. foreign paper produced under a system
of protection. The truth of what we write,
and a great deal more, is well known
to Mr. GLADSTONE ; but it availed nothing before
his determination to avenge himself for the salu-
tary check he received in his insane attempt to
repeal the excise duty on paper. Baffled in his
threat to take "action" against the House of
Lords, he resolved to direct his "action" against
that portion of the trading community who had
exerted themselves to thwart " his distempered
ambition and inordinate vanity ;" and backed by
the motley party of coalitionists who dreaded
defeat as synonymous with a dissolution, he has
gained what we cannot but characterise as a
" disastrous victory "—as disastrous to himself in
the end, we venture to predict, as it must be, in
the first place, to his unfortunate victims—the
English papermakers.