The Express.
London, England, 1853-01-01 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, JANUARY 1, 1853.

A leading article by M. Michel Chevalier, now
I that journalism has fallen upon evil days, is quite en
event. The distinguished political economist to.dey
makes a merciless onslaught in the columns of tie
Debate upon that passage in M. Troplong's report, 01
which I particularly directed your attention, wheran
the apprehension that the Emperor might use his,
absolute power in the direction of free trade, is et-
pressed in strong language, but little in keeping with
the obsequious tout that otherwise pervades the at-
material composition. M. Chevalier is astonished
that the Senate, while professing merely to interpret
the constitution of January, 1802, should have gose
out of their way to describe the principle of com-
mercial liberty as "a fatal theory, which
would ruin agriculture, annihilate manufacturer
and overturn our entire system of poll-
cal economy." He refers to the experience of
England since 1816 as conclusive proof that this
policy is the only sound one, and he observes the;
with the exception of France, every government of
any importance in the civilised world has begun, of
is preparing to follow, England's example. While
Austria, Russia, Spain, Belgium, Holland, th
United States have nll relaxed their tariffs, and
nearly abolished prohibitions, France alone main-
tains an absolute prohibition ugainst nine-tenths of
the articles most connuouly required for daily use.
If M. Troploug, who is wont to display so much
ability in tracing laws to their source, would talc*
the trouble to examine the origin of the French cus-
toms tariff, he would find that the basis of our eases-
tially prohioitive commercial policy was a law voted
under the Directory on the 1001.1irumaire, year Y.
which was a law made with a special view to
war, and consequently wholly inapplicable to the
present timcs. The title of that law was " A law to
prohibit the importation and sale of English mer-
chandise ;" und, although by Articled the prohibition
was extended to goods from other countries, the
reason given was that English merchandise might
perchance creep in circuitously, under other flags,
or by land carriage from the continent. The innu-
merab!e prohibitory regulations made from time to
time during the desperate wars of the revolution and
the empire, to carry out that occasional law, are
almost all in force at this moment, after thirty-seven
years of peace. The Committee of the Senate stig-
me tised free trade as a cleverly-contrived " snare." M.
Chevalier retorts this argument : It is in the nature
of things that protectionists should be on de con-
stant watch to lay traps for foreign nations.
The essence of their doctrine that the supreme
good consists in selling without buying, and
that to buy of the foreigner is to pay " tribate "
to him. that is a consecrated expressios in
the protectionist dictionary. Consequently, in
a protectionist point of view, the only good
commercial treaty is that which facilitates the
lexportation of the produce of national jocosity
without permitting foreign merchandise to k im-
ported in return. Diplomatists, acting upon these
notions,have frequently boasted of their skill in laying
snares for the nations with which they have been
employed to treat. After showing that all such glares
are unnecessary according to the free trade irinci-
ple, M. Chevalier proceeds to refute an assumption
lof M. Troplong's, that the Emperor Napoleon was a
protectionist. It is true that Napoleon was the author
of the continentalpilockade, but he declared positively
at St. Helena, in a reported cool ersation of Jute 24,
1816, that he conside. ed that blockade purely as a
war measure. That blockade was substantially against
England only. Matiuructurcd articles could then
scarcely have been imported from any other country,
but with regard to raw materials, the Emperor
adopted most of the liberal regulations of the glorious
constituent assembly of 1789. In the following
passage he shows that the Emperor's tariff was much
more liberal than that of France at the present
moment :

Under 'she empire corn and meat paid no duty. Now,
wheat is subjected to the aliclilig scale, which without any
benefit to the grower trammels our millers, hurts our navi-
gation, and has above all the enormous fault, now so well
wailtratood, of actine as an auxiliary to famine in the case
of a bad harvest. Wheat pays an ezoroitant import duty,
and by an inhuman regulation, salt meat, which is chiefly
used by the poor, pays double. Wool, now heavily charged,
was admitted fn e under the empire. Cast iron was also
free of duty ; it now pays 77 fr. per 1,000 kills/rummies.
Und..r the empire steel paid 99 fr. per 1,000 kilogrammes ;
the duty now is 1,320, more than themes n timrs the amount.
Iron in bo was charged 44 fr., it now pays 206. The
injury done to French industry by the artificial prams
caused by these duties is immense.
M. Chevalier says the, friends of free trade would
be only too delighted to accept the tariff of the em-
pire as an instalment. He quotes an expression of
the Emperor at St. Helens, to the effect that it would
be necessary to fall back upon free navigation of the
seas and entire freedom of exchange. 'I he article
concludes thus:

Let us, therefore, live in the hope of seeing established
this commercial regime, which would lead France to such a
high point of prosperity and power, and which would be in
perfect harmony with the necessary programme of the
domestic poli y of states in modern times, namely, the
improvement of the condition of the masses. We
have reason to hope fur this, at a not far distant
period, for the government does not allow any oppor.
tunity to escape of making known that the amelioration
of the condition of the people is the foremost of its wishes.
This is why I have here the boldness to contradict ()many
the authority of the tint President Troplong. In recom-
mending ti the government in the most urgent manner to
perpetuate a system hostile to free trade, those who give
that advice would drive it from perhaps the only path by
which it might rapidly attain popular ameliorations which
are not chimerical, and, against that pressure, it is desira-
ble that at least one Letsle voice should publicly protest.
- -

. . .
In the above article, of which, owing to its length,
I have necessarily given but an imperfect summary,
M. Chevalier conducts his argument with the confi-
dence of an advocate who expects, if not to gain his
cause, at least to command attention. What
influence M. Chevalier may now have with the
Emperor it is impossible to say. He himself tells
M. Troplong that he need not have been so
frightened, because the government has given
no reason to suppose that it meditates anything
like commercial temerity. I believe that no one, up
to this moment has any solid grounds for
forming an opinion one way or another as to Louis
Napoleon's present opinions or intentions with regard
to this momentous subject. It is, however, certain
that he has on many occasions shown much
consideration for M. Michel Chevalier, and evinced
• disposition to listen to him. The panic
terror of the Senate is of good augury, and induces a
hope that the Emperor may yet, in the interest of
France, not only listen to him, but follow his advice.

and political support in the new English cabinet,
which, as we learn this day (the 25th ult.), includes
the Earl of Aberdeen and Mr. Gladstone. It will be
remembered that the latter lays it down in his well-
known letters on Naples, that the maintenance of the
independence of constitutionality in Piedmont is an
essential condition of English influence in Europe."