Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-02-18 00:00:00

straw has also been employed for the commonest descriptions of

11. Notwithstanding the long-continued high pricfrof rags
1u"9.1 anniltrf And in America, ar.d the largo- reward
offered for the discovery of any substitute for them as a paper
making material, none has been discovered.
111. The discovery. of any material so cheap as rags, even at
their present price, is in the highest degree improbable as
any raw product sufficiently fibrous to be converted into
printing and writing paper, would also be applicable for
spinning and weaving, and would command a higher price for
such purposes.
IV. The paper manufa stutter is in an exceptional position,
as compared with all other manufacturers ; the supply of his
raw material not being drawn from a common source to which
all nations have access, =dime being dependent on the demand,
but on the extent of the population and the manufactures
among which rags and refuse fibre can be collected.
V. In all the countries cot Europe, from the pot tof Hamburg
to that of Trieste, the export or rags and other paper making
materials is strictly prohibited, and an artificial cheapness thus
produced ; so that in those countries rags are not more than half
the price they are in Britain, where the price is enhanced by
the exportation to America, in addition -o the home consump-
tion ; in other word., a rag which in England costs 3d. can be
bought for 13d. in France, making a difference of 30 per cent.
on the manufactured article.
VI. Notwithstanding the impost duty of Id. per pound,
beyond the excise duty which is now levied on foreign paper,
large quantities are being brought into this country, and keep
down the price of paper, in the face of the late advance in the
price of materials.
The admission into this country, duty free, of paper
manufactured in countries from which the export of rags is
prohibited, will expose the Britisl manufacturer to an
unfair and ruinous competition, which can only result in the
complete extinction of a large, portion of the manufacture at
home, and its transfer abroad ; and, instead of the repeal of the
the paper duty giving an impulse to the manufacture, thousands
of families will be thrown out of employment.
VIII. It is therefore earnestly hoped that the Legislature
will refuse to sanction so serious an injury to all connected
with the British paper manufacture, as will ensue from the
reduction or abolition of the present differential duty of one
penny per pound, on foreign paper and card-boards, proposed
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, except in the case of
countries from which the free importation of rags is permitted.

Seme discussion took place as to the mode in which
the business of the meeting should be conducted. It
was agreed that, as a memorial had been prepared by a
gentleman, it should be at once submitted to the meet-
ing as a substantive propositioß.
Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSON said—ln order to put the
meeting in possession of his views he would bring for-
ward the memorial which had been alluded to. It runs
thus :

" That your petitioners have had under consideration
the proposed treaty of commerce between England and
France, and also the financial statement of the Right
Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as piesented to
your honourable House on the 10th inst.
" That your petitioners would desire to express the
high satisfaction at the comprehensiveness of these
melsures, more especially as regards the abolition of
duty on a very large number of articles imported into
this country ; on its reduction upon others within
moderate limits; and also the suppression of the excise
tax on paper, in continued recognition of the principles
of free-trade, to which the general property of this
country is so largely indebted.
" That your petitioners would, however, express their
regret that in a treaty which would have the amicable
relations between the French and English nations in-
reciprocal interests, the French Government had not
arranged for a complete reciprocity to" British shipping
in French ports of those advantages long rince granted
to French shipping in British ports; but your petitioners
would express a strong hope that, ere long, powers
reserved by the 31st article may be exercised for the
withdrawal of an exception so obviously opposed to the
spirit and the principles of the treaty itself.
" That your petitioners would pray your honourable
House to. give the proposed French treaty and the
Budget your best consideration, to improve the details
as far as may be possible, and to pass the same with• all
convenient speed, so as to obviate to the utmost extent
the doubt and uncertainty inseparable from a great
change in our fiscal system.
"And your petitioners will ever pray, &c."
Now, the point here is, that we agree generally with
the Commercial Treaty and with the Budget, on account
of the great principles that it embodies, because of the
great changes effected in the tariff, and of the prospect
of greatly extended commercial prosperity with France ;
but we regret in doing that, the French Government
has not made arrangements for reciprocating with us in
affording our shipping in French ports those privileges
and advantages conceded to their shipping in our ports,
and we hope that the article of the treaty which em-
powers the two Governments to conclude some engage-
ment in that respect may be acted upon. Lastly, we
ask Parliament to pass this treaty with all possible
speed, and to improve the details as far as possible, with
a view to removing the reasonable objections taken to
details by numerous traders. Now, that memorial
embraces the whole question of warehouse charges,
export and import duty on packages, &c., to which
several trades have taken exception.
Mr. BUSHELL—What do you say about the paper
duty ?
Mr. ROBERTSON—The memorial agrees to the aboli-
tion of the paper duty. Now, gentlemen, allow me to
occupy your attention in entering into these questions,
as to the nature of the treaty with France, and the
position in which it places us with regard to our
extended commercial relations with that country. I
think this chamber should view the matter in its com-
mercial aspects for we have nothing "to do with its
political ielations. (Hear, hear.) We have always
avoided politics in this chamber, and I do think it would
be unadvisable that we should allow any unpleasant or
irritable feelings in connection with that point. Let us
look at this treaty as commercial men, and let us give
it that amount of support to which we believe
it is entitled at our hands. And, before asking you to
do that, I would wish to refer to a letter which I sup-
pose has been very widely circulated, signed " An Ex-
Director of the Chamber of Commerce ;" and I allude
to it because of the signature, from which we should
suppose, if it is a genuine signature, we should infer
that the writer has been connected with the chamber,
and, therefore, on that ground it is entitled to some con-
sideration, although the arguments adduced in it do not
merit any consideration. (Hear, hear.) It seems to
me, sir, that that letter is ene reviving an old and ob-
solete controversy which we have long outlived. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.)
r. WILLIAM BROWN—If it is an anonymous letter
it should not be read here. If there is a signature to it
we can then jadge of the weight to be attached to the
opinions contained in it.
Mr. MACFIE—I have no hesitation in avowing myself
as the author of that letter.
Mr. ROBERTSON continued—l agree partly with Mr.
Brown, that it is better not to take any notice of it.
(Laughter.)lt really revives, as I said before, a contro-
versy which has died out; it turns upon a principle
which has long ago been settled by the legislature of
the country,.and to which no political party of any kind
whatsoever is likely to revert in the management of the
affairs of this country, and therefore it is quite out of
place, and quite out of date. (Laughter, and " Hear,
hear.") I will now refer to some objections entertained
by some parties with respect to the manner in which the
treaty will affect the commercial interests, and more
especially the shipping interests of this country.
I have heard it said that whilst we have conceded much
to the French, we have obtained very little in return ;.
but I would point out that here is a great fallacy, and
that what the midget does by the abolition of the duties
involved in the treaty with France is really an entire
gain to us. Now, supposing that the French did not
admit a single article of our manufactures into their
ports, and that the exclusion was perfect at this time,
yet the remission of duty on goods that we import from
France would be a nett gain to us. The Chancellor, of
the Exchequer offers to give up the sum of £1,700,000
to the British public, which has hitherto been extracted
from them in the shape of taxes, and which is now to
be given up
.to them to fructify in their pockets—to be
turned over in the way of trade, or to be invested in some
good security. It is therefore nonsense to talk about get-
tingnothingfrom France in return for what we shall give
to her. We in fact give up nothing, but we gain im-
mense advantages to ourselves by the abolition of taxes
which are now levied upon us, and additional benefits
will accrue to us from the concessions that are yielded
to us by France. The opening of their ports to us will
be of great benefit to us in reducing the duties on our
own manufactures exported there, and on articles of
consumption which we shall import in our own ships
from France. It is, therefore, simply untrue that we do
not get anything; and when gentlemen say that the treaty
is not satisfactory, and should not, therefore, be accepted
by us, I would say to them, surely that is no reason
for 'rejecting the treaty as a whole ; if it does not go so
far as it ought, don't let us 'eject that which it does
give us, and which will be advantageous to .us. At the
present moment our manufactures are shut out of
France ; they are never seen, and the French con-
sumer does not know what they are. What does the
Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us ? He states that
out of £13,000,000 of exports to France—excluding
Machinery, which is valued at £280,000—not more
than £250,000 worth of goods were of pure British
manufacture, and these' circulated amongst a popula-
tion of at least thirty millions. Now, if this treaty
shall be adopted, the whole of that vast empire will be

j opened up to us by moderate duties being imposed on.
our manufactures, instead of prohibitive duties, as here-
tofore. The duties at first are to be at a maximum of 30
per cent., and in a, few years are to be reduced to a
maximum of twenty-five per cent:, but it should
he remembered that the French Government may reduce
below that amount of duty. Now, at a meeting in
London of parties from various chambers of commerce
in London, Liverpool, Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol,
Glasgow, Bradford, Hull—all these parties declared
they had no doubt whatever that, with moderate duties,
not,exceeding 30 per cent., they will be able to send
air immense quantity of our productions to France.
(Hear, hear.) Again, look at the advantages it will
give to the carrying trade of this country. I admit
that the treaty is defective, in so far as it will not allow
to British shipping in the French ports the same advan-
tages which we, by the repeal of the navigation laws,
have conceded to all other ships entering our ports; and
that whilst this is a treaty of trade, it is not a treaty of
trade and navigation. It will not touch the French
navigation laws; and yet that there is a direct advan-
tage to our shpping is obvious from the fact that
by the French treaty of 1826 all produce is as ad-
missible into French ports in British bottoms as it is
in French bottoms, so thgt they have no advantage over us
in the direct carrying fade between the two countries.
Now, if the trade is thrown open for goods, we shall
have our ships employed to carry those goods there, and
we shall bring goods back. Will any one then say that we
shall not derive benefit in that way ? (Hear, hear.) My
own impression is, that we shall have an immense direct
benefit, even though the old'restriction is kept on.
A V oice—Does the treaty extend to our colonies ?
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROBBRTSON—It only extends to British produce
and manufactures, not to colonial productions. That is
the present state of things according to the treaty,which
leaves out much that we could desire to see, but we must
recollect that this is but the first step to free-trade in
France. (Hear, hear.) The French, as a nation,•have
been rigid protectionists. They have carried out that
principle to a legitimate conclusion, and rejected
everything that they thought would come in
competition with their own manufactures. Now,
however they have taken a step in advance—doing what
we did some years ago ; come down from prohibitive
duties to moderate duties. Having then taken the first
step, and having got our manufactures on cheaper terms
than they could get . them before—having felt the
increased demands for their own goods in this country,
do you not think they will go faster, and compel their
Government to place a fair duty on articles of consump-
tion, and reduce the restrictions which now exist on
British shipping; for those inequalities will hurt the
French consumers more than they will injure this nation.
Let us look for a moment at the opinions of Monsieur
Chevalier who has taken so great a part in conjunction
with Mr. Cobden and Lord Cowley in effecting these
great commercial changes. - In 1852 he published an
examination of the protective system in France, and
foreshadowed the changes which are now proposed to be
made, and pointed to further necessary changes. I
would, therefore refer you to those views, because the
man who has been made instrumental in effecting
these changes has proposed to carry out to a legiti-
mate conclusion what I am about to state to you.
The steps which M. Chevalier proposes in his Exami-
nation of the Protective System, are the following :-
1. All prohibitions to be suppressed. 2. All high
duties, which are prohibitory, to be reduced to a point
that would allow of their competition with foreign
products. 3. Duties on raw materials to be abolished,
—coal, cotton-wool, wool, flax, hemp, silk in cocoons,
skins, yarns, seeds, furs, oil. 4. Yarns of silk, cotton,
wool, flax and hemp, to be treated as raw materials.
5. Steel and iron to be admitted free of duty. 6. Iron
and lead, and other metals in pigs, to be admitted even
before manufactured steel and iron. 7. Permission
to admit and re-import in bond, free of duty, raw
manufactures, after having received a certain addition of
French industry. 8. Provisions of first necessity of all
kinds to be exempted from duties. 9., Customs and
excise duties purely fiscal on articles not pro-
duced in France, *to be reduced to such rates
as would be most productive to the revenue. 10.
Foreign flags would be admitted to transport
commodities between France and other countries, in-
cluding our colonies, on the same footing as French
ships. The extraordinary restrictions which prevent us
from availing ourselves of the commodities of Asia,
Africa, and America, warehoused in European entrepots
would be abolished as' they have just been in England.
By a very. unintelligent imitation of a by-gone period,
we have imposed on ourselves, some years ago, these
annoving restrictions. At this moment these are oner-
ous absurdities. :With the active competition which
exists between our manufacturers and those of England
in neutral markets ; it is preposterous that when cotton-
wool is lower in Liverpool than in France, we could
only get it by a circuitous and costly route, and in
touching at a third port.—" After the passing of the
new navigation law in England, and the adhesion ac-
corded to it by other maritime countries, and chiefly
by the Dutch, the Piedmontese, the Swedes, the
Norwegians, and the Americans, we are compelled to
put ourselves under the same administration, on penalty,
of exposing ourselves to reprisals, by which our mer-
cantile marine, which we pretend thus to protect,
would see itself enclosed, as it were, in an iron ring.
The same ..necessity which induced us to accept, in
1822 and 1826 the law of reciprocity, will compel
us to accommodate ourselves once more to it. We may
well suppose that, trained as they have now been by
experience, our shipowners will not be able to complain
of it. The proof of it is unequivocal, and the most not-
able among them, in our principal ports, demand this
change with a zeal which honours them." Now the
treaty upsets prohibitions ; and M. Chevalier in 1852
fixed the protective duties at 30 per cent.,—just the
amount fixed in the treaty—and he did that in accord-
ance with the idea of Huskisson, who proposed to change
our system by reducing the duty to 30 per cent., and
said that an article that could not protect itself with a
duty of 30 per cent. should not exist at all. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BOOKER—We are having read to us a hook
that has not come to pass. It is leading us away
entirely from the subject. (Hear, hear, and cries of
"Order.") If we are to discuss the question that is
really before us, I hope we shall go to work at once.
We are now listening to the book of another man,
printed eight years ago. He proposed what has not
taken place, and who is to say when it will take place ?
I appeal to the sound sense of this meeting. lam not
a factious man ; but lbt us proceed to what is really the
business before us. I shall keep myself to facts, and
be as brief as possible.
Mr. ROBERTSON said, he would only say that he met
an objection raised in many quarters against this treaty
that we were not getting enough ; and he meant to
show, from the works of the very men who brought
about this treaty, that they were prepared to go much
further in the same direction. (Hear, hear.) He
thought it was of importance to know the views of the
men who originated the treaty. The writer went on to
say that the strange restrictions which prevented them
from availing themselves of the produce of Asia, Africa,
and America, warehoused in European depots, would be
abolished as they had just been in England. "We
have," he says, imposed these annoying restrictions
upon ourselves," and he calls them " onerous absurdi-
ties." He then directs attention to the injury done to
their trade when cotton was lower in Liverpool 'than in
Havre. He (Mr. Robertson) would add the opinion of
a French shipowner in Havre, as to the restrictions im-
posed upon them by the navigation laws of France.
That gentleman said "Having been a shipowner
for twenty-five years, I may tell you these obstacles.
are nothing more nor less than burdens placed on com-
mercial liberty, under the pretext of protecting national
industry. (Hear, hear.) And he went on to say that
" these were the leading-strings for children, which
were still attempted to be used for grown-up men."
He said further, "that the shipping industry of France
had no need of any protection, if other industries were
not protected at its expense." These facts would be a
conclusive argument against the gentlemen who told
them that we got nothing in exchange for what we
gave. (Hear, hear.) As Mr. Booker wanted them to
keep close to the budget, he meant to do so ; but he
wished to ask them in what better position they would
be placed if there were no treaty. ••Would their goods
enter into France ? Would their trade be increased in
France ? The very opposite of this would be the case.
But the treaty did give us—in addition to all those im-
portant benefits to ourselves—it did give us important
concessions in France, which we should not have with-
out. (Applause.) After having discussed that point,
he wanted to pass off to the budget ; and he contended
that the budget was deserving of our support for the
following reasons—that it removed from the tariff a
great number of minor articles, for which the Chamber
of Commerce memorialised very recently the Govern-
ment, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
almost entirely conceded to them. In a memorial sent
up a few weeks ago they asked for the repeal of duties
on 439 articles, yielding three-quarters of a million,