Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-02-15 00:00:00

a commercial authority, and it quite borne out by
what we can gather from other sources.
The Shipping Interest is naturally very in-
dignant at the treatment it is to receive under

the French treaty, the third clause of which

guarantees differential duties in favour of shipping

which must be Tery injurious to British shipping.
It is stated, we observe, that the value of the
trade to France is nearly four millions, almost the

whole of which is carried in. French bottoms.

Surely, where a treaty was had recourse to, -it
might have been quite possible to rectify so unfair

a state of things as this.
One cannot wonder that the Chamber of Com-
merce of a town like Manchester should declare
in favour of the entire Budget, and pronounce
it " a sound fiscal, industrial, and commercial
measure." The treaty with France, upon which

so large a portion of the Budget is founded, is
pre=eminently calculated, they think, to benefit

Manchester interests ; and, of course, they care

nothing, that all the rest of the country should
be called upon to pay a heavy income-tax for
that purpose. The Manchester Chamber have
petitioned the-House of Commons not only "to

afford the measure its calm and impartial con-

sideration in its many important details," but also,
and more particularly, as a matter of course, " to
pass the measure with all convenient speed.''
If this, however, is to be the certain result,
there can be but little need of " calm and im-

partial consideration ;" for such consideration I
might not unnaturally happen to issue in
creating great doubts as to the expediency of
passing such a measure " with all convenient
speed." It were not unreasonable to conclude,
therefore, that the Manchester Chamber is far
more anxious for the " convenient speed" than
for the " calm and impartial consideration."
We trust our readers were made fully
aware; by the report of Mr. Ma,cfie's excellent
speech, in our Chamber of Commerce, on
the Budget, that it is not a Conservative journalist
who has declared respecting the French Treaty,
that " Louis Napoleon has fairly outwitted Mr.
Cobden." It is the admission of a thorough-going
Liberal, and one, of course, "heartily approving
of free-trade ;" but who further declares, that to
call the treaty " a measure of free-trade is merely
an abuse of terms."' The actual nature of the
measure is thus laconically set forth by our Li-
beral contemporary,—" We are to give to France
those articles and commodities that will render
France richer—we are to receive from France
those articles and commodities that will render.
Britain poorer." Well may the Liberal journalist
exclaim that " this is a commercial treaty with a
vengeance !" _ _

- -
The Times, in an able article on commercial
liberality and industrial progress, as now being
expounded in France by M. Michel Chevalier,
declares that " manufactures must be ever imper-
fect without the possession of power and machi-
nery, and in the days in which we live power
means coal, and machinery means iron,"—justly
adding, that " these are the things with which
France should have provided herself as the
necessary supports even for a system of restric-
tion and prohibition ; and these thing she has
never been in a position to obtain at anything
like their market prices until the conclusion of
the present treaty of commerce." The plain
English of which is, that we are now going to
put France into possession of that " power and
machinery" which will enable her all the more
, -
effectually to promote her own manufactures, and
thereby furnish the greatest possible reason for
excluding those of our own country.
The Morning Herald notices that important
item in the Budget, the retention of the duties on
tea and sugar—of ls. ad. per lb. on the former,
and an average of 3s. per cwt. on the latter,—
observing that, " the promise in 1853 for their
reduction in 1860 was as solemn as that for the
abolition of the property and income-tax, so that
another breach of faith has been committed, fatal
to the honour of statemanship." Mr. Gladstone's
professed justification of this falsification of his
engagements, is one that he bases upon a principle;
—the principle, -namely, of " sound political
economy, applicable 'to commercial legislation ;"
arguing, that it is a mistake to suppose that you
benefit the labouring classes by simply operating
upon the articles they consumed. "If you want
to do them the maximum of good," he adds, "you
should rather operate upon the articles which
give them the maximum of employment." This,
we say, is his excuse for retaining the tea and
sugar duties. We very much question if the
labouring classes, at any rate, will consider it a
valid one.
We give, elsewhere, an abstract of the report
of the committee of investigation, appointed
.by the proprietors of the London and Liver-
pool Insurance Company, at their special general
meeting in December last. This meeting,
it will be remembered, was called in conse-
quence of the pamphlet published- by Mr.
Forster, impugning the management of the com-
pany. The report takes cognisance of eight dis-
tinct subjects: first, the loss on railway shares ;
second, foreign business and agencies ; third, the
purchase of the business of other companies ;
fourth, valuation of life assurances ; fifth,
London offices ; sixth, London Board of Direc-
tors; seventh, shares of the Company;
eighth, investment of the funds of the company.
On
pretty al
plainlyappears prieao ku s,
t hese several;
butin pointsdoiog
sothdeoersepnoortt
to afford much, if any, support to the mcrJ se
charges of Mr. Forster.
briefly refer our readers to our sixth and seventh
e
Strand Fanc Ball,
Pages for full
account
oht, t tine St. George's Hall,
which came off last night,
with such brilliant success.
We have no space left us here to do more than

is
n nsaoti part of the Budget, perhaps, that
is more
unpopular, than that concerning the spirit duties;
usfactory, or that deserves to be more
and society owes a debt of gratitude to Mr.
BUSHELL for the very able exposure he made of
the gross anomalies. of the CHANCELLOR of the
ExcHEQugit's proposition respecting them at the
Liverpool Chamber of Commerce on Monday.
We say society, because it is not merely a financial
question, although as such it is of very great im-
portance to do what is right and just ; but because
it le a question directly and deeply affecting our

iticiaTiereiti,--ashaving to do with a vice:-The
vice of Nelrunlienness--which is a' more fruitful
source of, demoralisation and crime than almost
any other social evil that prevails amongst us.
It is proposed to lower the duty on French brand)"
from 15s. to BS. 2d., which is the amount of duty
on Colonial spirits, the duty on British spirits
being :Bs. Now this reduction is one that will
operate altogether" in favour of France, and to
the injury, no doubt, of British and Colonial'
interests. Mr. BUSHELL therefore suggests, that
the reduction on 'French brandy should be, not to
Bs. 2d., but to 10s. per gallon,.and that the dutO
on British and Colonial spirits should be rail"
to the same amount. By this arrangement, in a
financial point of view, a
.considerable acquisition
of revenue will be gained. By the CHANCELLOII.
of the EXCHEQUER'S proposal, a lossof upwards
of a quarter of a million sterling will inevitably
arise; whereas, by raising the duty on Colonial
spirits ls. 10d., and on British spirits 25., and
only reducing the duty on French brandy to 105.1
there would be an increase to the revenue
of nearly two millions and three-quarters sterling
—a sum equal to 2d. in the pound of Income"
tax ; so that, financially, there would be a great
gain; and even if, in a moral and social point of
view, no advantage arose, no evil would result
from it.

There can be no doubt that one of the 111°8t
powerful arguments against the treaty :With
France, on which this part of the Budget is

'ounded, is that we are reducing the duties on

French wine and brandy, the of the rich,
and placing upon the middle classes an increased
Income-tax, in order to supply the deficiency that

will be created. We are not of those who think

:hat any considerations of revenue can fully jus-
tify- such a course as this. Bit, as Mr. BUSHELL

so clearly showed, it is possible, by limiting the
reduction of duty on French brandy to 10s.,.and
raising that on British and Colonial spirits to the
same amount, the revenue would be so increased,
as to actually save 25 per cent. of the proposed
Income-tax, and thus its imposition to that
amount be rendered quite unnecessary. "They
were going to tax the middle classes, who would
feel the tax most oppressive, with an Income-ta%
of 10d. in.the pound, while they had the poirer
to tax voluntarily, and had it in their power to
obtain by that means 2i millions of clear revenue.
Such is the plain matter-of-fact light in which
Mr. BUSHELL puts the question before us. The
Income-tax there is no escape from. But as to
the spirit duties, since the consumption of spirits i 4
altogether a voluntary act,—one from which a nlo
may readily, and generally even with advantage,
refrain,—they who, by consuming them, pay the
duty, do tax themselves voluntarily, and cart.-
therefore, have no reason to complain. It appeal*
from the correspondence between Lord Jefirl
RUSSELL and the British Plenipotentiaries at
Paris, on the subject, that the Government ati
first thought 10s. was a sufficient reduction of
the duty on French brandy, being 33 per cent•
on its present amount. Why that -limit has been
departed from we are not informed. But is there
not only too much reason to conclude, that it hag
been, done at the instigation, if not at the demand?
of the French Emperor ; and that, therefore, it
is doubly obnoxious, as a concession, not to 01
reasonable expedient for our own, or for the
general advantage, but to the arbitrary will of
a foreign potentate ?

Any such increase of duty on British and Colo-
nial spirits, especially accompanied as it would b°
by that reduction of the duty on French brandYr
would not be likely to create any sensible dimi-
nution in the consumption of spirits, and, there-
fore, no sacrifice whatever of revenue could be
apprehended. So that, financially considered,
But
there would be a considerable advantage.
when one looks at it in a social point of view, no
consideration of revenue should be allowed to in-
fluence the judgment on such a question. Any
increase in the consumption of spirits would be
an unmitigated evil to society. " Every inordi-
nate cup," it has been well observed, "is un-
blessed, and the ingredient is a devil." And it
could only be by an indulgence in " inordinate
cups" that any increase in the consumption of
spirits could well arise. "0, that men should put
an enemy in their mouths to steal away their
brains,'.' is the exclamation of one who is serP('s of
to have witnessed, in all its horrors, the curse
such " inordinate cups," --since he who indulges.
in them has let 'go himself, as it Were, from the
hold and stay of reason, and laid himself open to
the mercy of all temptations ; there being no lust
but finds him disarmed and defenceless, and which.
can, with the least assault, enter and take posses-
sion of his soul. It is on this account, then, no
less than because such duties as those on French
commerce
with
tso f
the o
high
i
brandy affect the rich, rather than the masses of
the people, that their reduction is so undesirable.
astehrees treaty
France is concerned, there is evidently too much
gh er classes, and
reglanrdso fafortrhe interests
little or none whatever for
body of the people. French • wines, and silks, an&
gloves, and b t
ijouter •e, are just the things which
can best bear heavy import duties, •
since they are
indulged in by theh • ric , who can well afford to
pay for them ; while
just in proportion as such
things are made to furnish revenue, will taxation
on the real necessaries of life, or on anything else
that would press heavily
upon the great body or
the people, be rendered unnecessary. When we
consider; therefore, the sacrifice which it is pro-
posed, by this treaty with France, to make of se
many of our substantial interests, in return for
French luxuries, we are forcibly reminded of a
question once put by Dr. Franklin, that " if there
be a great nation that exports her beof and linen
to pay for the importation of claret and brandy-,
while 0, great part of its people must live u; on