The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-21 00:00:00

/02-t---7
k. 7-:•:',-;*<'Zt....V,-79,\;?,,,-4,
1...;,' 4.:-.,: .t.;;sfr---,Z *O`i
klti , wf .
• •
.. . , .. •.. r
, »..,
~....,;„" .•,:,-;:•..i. -•.....„."^-,..t: .
.44.-.. .o :
. .
, ..>Ol4
n • AT-4 4 II
- ' ' ',X -,
. ,
.le 'i' • -
• ...... t• 4,:,. •
,
,5..14.1.1,1'.. '2.' -r•,.. ,•,1,40".4f le( ' • 10.,`...k•414 '''.... , ''4ll'.„, • ,
t'. ~. ' • 'SS, te t 1'
;
.... ,? .% .--' 1' .
N..... ..,.. . ''' •li-.' - I°.l^, ' 'ca -0.1 1,..,. '
4.• L'..."•-••;. •••6 1-1-1. ''
l' 410 --'. % .. -•
• +_ i 1,...! ••,- `., :•'
~},ll, -3--..----
..,
...2
.3 di!....,. ....- - 4. .... .....,,, 6
~„ , . 4041 k _ ,
,- • .t.:.4 W- 4444 :.
. ...
qt- -tr.
-.* . .
D, «A- ;$ - 7,/ 1111111t' - '... -: ' ..o.,'' * 167)---:1114j1/2:77,-5ltP::',11 ' '.':4111111h.;:rr."14. '.`7434 1"N,7?"-",,,.....44:4.:: "----N"
-4-
N„ ~, ,
- - , . , i.........„,, ,:.
.....
„c.....

negative. Suppose it were announced to you thxkior h S
branch of manufacture, a machine had been invented which
would reduce the cost price by 10 per cent„ would .you
oppose the introduction of such an improvement ? Certainly
not. But it is precisely such a saving free trade effects. A
celebrated writer on politic,ll economy, now deceased, M. •
Bastiat, had enunciated this rule, which cannot be cv.tes,.(l,
that when tee produce is dear, labour is cheap, and when.
the produce is cheap, labour is dear, and the part attributed
to wages augments unceasingly. The reasm is that when
prices are low for goods, the quantity produced is so great
that where a middling workman was found previously you
must place several able ones, and of course pay them znozc.
I have said enough to show that the treaty of commerce is
useful-in a popular and democratic point of view, and elt
that ground I oppose the amendment.

PRICE .4d.
STAMPED ....sd.

that in following the course of the river from 5 deg, south
latitude to 3 deg. north latitude, where they were met by
Consul Petherick's party—a distance of at 'east 500 geogra-
phical miles—they had done quite enough to make their
names famous, he contended they had left some things un-
done which were essential to the full success of their expe-
dition. They had not followed the river from its exit from
Nyanza along its whole course, but Lad left at least 200
miles of it unexplored. In this unexplored portion there
was a fall of upwards of I,ooolt. in the level of the river,
which had yet to be explained. Dr. Beke also remarked on
" ;:
the phenomenon recorded by Captain Spoke, that in tra-
velling from the Kuruma Falls to Madi they hid beaten
the stream ;" and though he did not expressly dissent from
the explanation that the Lake Luta Nzigi acts as a great
back--water to the river, he believed it to be a poict which
required still further investigation. While agreeing
with Captain Speke that the southern extremity of
Lake Nyanza is the " top-head" of the Nile, Dr.
Beke reiterated his denial that the lake was the source of
the river, and expressed a strong conviction that in the
snowy range of Alps on the east side of the lake would before
long be found the true fountains of the Nile, or at least
such of them as form the principal stream which runs into
and through Nyanza. This side of the lake, he pointed
out, had been left totally unexplored by Captain Speke. In
conclusion, Dr. Beke announced that so dissatisfied was he
with the results of the last two expeditions, and so certain
was he of the truth of his own theory, that he intended to
undertake an expedition in person which should set the
question at rest for ever, and a public subscription would be
opened for this purpose. To Signor Miani, Mr. Baker, Baron
von Henglin, and Madame Tinn6 might safely be left the
task of exploring the river north of the equator, and he
should therefore confine his labours entirely to the regions
south of the equator, and he felt convinced that one result
of his success would be to throw open to British commerce
the largest and most important district of Eastern Africa.

ENGLISH GATT:IOI,IOISM.
Lord EDWARD HOWARD preside.ti cn Ti.l.lSady night over
a largo social meeting of Roman Catholics, held in IheTown
Hall, Birmingham. His lurd,hip was supported by the

light Rev. Dr. tillathorne.
3irmingharn; the Right Ecv. 'D

-I;:.shop

Isr9rthqmplon, awl other hm(!ing

Llistriet, Aftcr some iatrodei.ttory r,

alar

M, Chevalier on Free Trade in England
and France,

At the sitting of the French Legislative Body,
on Saturday, M. Chevalier opposed the protec-
tionist amendment on that part of the Address

which affirms boldly that France is now able, by

her own exertions &nil sacrifices, to successfully re-

sist foreign competition. He said :
When I, yesterday, read in the Moniteur that the receipts
of the indirect taxes for the past year exceeded those of

1861 by 144 millions, and those of 1862 by 53 millions, I
certainly did not expect to hear the same day that the

treaty of commerce with England was ruining our manu-
factures,,our merchant navy, our agriculture, and our com-
merce. A people able to pay such considerable sums in

voluntary taxes, instead of being almost ruined, must be in
a high state of prosperity. M. Pouyer-Querties said that

our exports had declined since the treaty of commerce,
whilst those of England had increased 500 millions. In the

first eleven months of 1863 our exports amounted to 2,230
millions. They were 1,975 millions in 1862, and 1,700 mil••

ions in 1861. Tho difference in our favour was therefore

530 millions between 1863 and 1861, and 270 millions between

1863 and 1862, notwithstanding the war in America. M.
Pouyer• Querticr compares these figures with those of 1859,
the last year of protection, when our exports were 2,266 mil-
lions, but from this total we must deduct 151 millions for
corn. Nor is that all. In 1861 our trade with America

suffered greatly; from 363 millions in 1859 it fell to SS mil-
lions. To make the comparison fairly we must strike off 200

millions from 1859, otherwise we should take no account of
the effect produced on our manufactures by the American
war. Then again the returns for 1863 only include eleven
months, and must be increased in proportion. Atter making
these allowances, it will be seen that our exports have in-

creased considerably. On a fair calculation, it is evident
that we gained 700 millions at least since the treaty of com:

merce. It has has been said that France is impoverished

by being compelled to export specie in payment for foreign
produce. This is a mere repetition of the exploded fallac3,
of the balance of trade. Wanting cotton, we are obliged to

get it from Egypt, Turkey, and India, countries which will
only take spscie, and we gain by the exchange, as it enables
our operatives to live, and promotes trade at home. (Hear,
hear.) We are not so badly off as was asserted yesterday.
Look also at other industries. Our coalmines now produce
10 millions of tons yearly, which they never did before.

The ironmasters too have made great efforts.
The Duke de Marmier—And suffered considerable losses.
M. Chevalier—l do not admit that any trade is long
continued at a great loss. Certain industries may he in a
suffering state; I deplore the bet, but, in a great country,
we must take things on the whole. Thanks to great
efforts and improved processes, the iron manufacture has
increased 40 per cent since the Treaty of commerce. The
question lies between those who would maintain and those
who would suppress the treaty of commerce. As to the
woollen manufacture, the explanation given yesterday is
inadmissible. Two years ago the representative of Roubaix

repeated here the lamentations of the chambers of CA:a-
merce: But what has happened since ? Never has Roubaix
enjoyed such prosperity as at present. We are told that
this prosperity is owing solely to the scarcity of cotton. On
this head I reply that we now export woollens to the value
of 100 millions more than in 1859, which shows that we are
fully able to compete with England in that branch also.
With regard to cotton goods I have to remark that England
has sent us one half less this year than last. Our markets
are, therefore, not overwhelmed with English products. I
will show you what sacrifices the country makes under the
protective system. The other day we heard great lamenta-
tions about the expense of the Mexican expedition. Well!
if France economised only ono half of the mysterious bounty
which she pays in a year to protected industries, it
would cover the cost of the war in Mexico. I will ex-
plain my meaning. Previously to the treaty of commerce,
the importation of cottons and woollens was prohibited,
and when the treaty was under consideration, the manu-
facturers of those goods, as well as the ironmasters, de-
clared that they could not live without a protective duty
of 30 per cent. Let us see what that costs the country.
The yearly production of cotton goods is estimated at SOO
millions, and 30 per cent on that sum is 240 millions,
Woollen manufactures amount to 900 millions, and a pro-
tective duty of 30 pee cent. on that sum comes to 270
millions. So that on these two branches alone protection
cost above 500 millions. The duties have since been re-
duced to 10 per cent., and that sum levied on 1,000 millions of
woollen goods now produced amounts to 100 millions. I say
nothing of cotton under present circumstances. If to this
100 millions we add the sums paid on iron and other pro-
ducts, it will be seen that protection now costs France at
least 300 millions a year.

M. Pouyer-Quertier—That is not correct.
M. Chevalier—lf you say 100 millions, that is still too
much. The treaty of commerce has reduced the occult
bounties paid under prohibition by very considerable sums,
N„,t_jch have been expended in the consumption of other
articles 1:,": the great increase of the general well-being. To
the relief thus (;.?casioned, I attribute the greater part of
our increased revenue. I now turn to another subject, and
I regret that our eminent coi:Zague M. Thiers, should be
leaving the Chamber, as what I about to say will, I
believe, interest him. [M. Thiers, who .b.,•1 risen to go out,
immediately sat down near the speaker.] The amendment,
continued the hon. gentleman, has received considerable
support by the signature of our illustrious colleague, of
whom I shall never speak but with the greatest respect.
Most of those who have attached their names to it are men
who pretend to guide us in the way of liberty, in which
they think we are behindhand, and nevertheless in my
opinion the amendment is an attack on liberty and on pro-
perty. (Exclamations on several benches.) Our eminent
colleague has pointed out the conditions necessary to con-
stitute liberty in free countries, but ho has forgotten the
most important of all, and one inscribed among the great
principles of 'B9—liberty of labour. It is one which pre-
sents no danger, for it requires order and security. Eng-
not,
landther therefore, re, everydayfol follow thathe
merce and labour ? No branch of manufactnre is there
ldcouupnttoryusasasreganardesxarr
protected ; the customs' tariff of England is, since 1860, the
most simple of all, as it is contained on a single sheet of
paper, whilst our fills a volume. The former bears on the
ePeldeo:mwohfy c o rn•
following articles—Chicory, chocolate, coffee, corn, currants,
figs, pepper, raisins, and prunes • spirits of different kinds,
,
raw and refined sugar, molasses, tea, tobacco, wine, and
timber. In those articles, which produce a sum of 600 mil-
lion of francs, there is not a single branch of manufacture
protected.
A Voice—The English do not require protection.
M. Chevalier—That is more easily said than proved. I
have resided in that country a long time, and I can assure
you that 25 years wore required for it to achieve commer-
cial liberty. The silk manufacturers in England long de-
manded protection against ours, but they at length found
that competition would lead to great improvement in their
articles, and they gave up their opposition, I have said that
the amendment is en attack on property, and I will endea-
vaur to prove it. The suppression of the sliding scale was
voted, and very properly.
M. Thiors—No. That I deny.
M. Chevalier—Our agriculturists arc no lonzer protected,
but when they require to purchase 1 arming implements they
must pay a duty, and they are in that manner attacked in
their property. Igo further, and say that Franco has no
need of protection. She has 38,000,000 of inhabitants, of
whom 20,000,0000 are agriculturists, who do not ask to be
protected, and there are 8,000,000 of workmen who do not
ask for it. There are moreover 8,000,000 of persons devoted
to the lih!ral arts, physicians, advocates, who ask for
nothing except that they may not leave to pay dear
for what they want. Ask the remaining 2,000,000
of men employed in large manufactories whether
they stand in need of protection, and they will reply in the