The Sun.
London, England, 1863-02-18 00:00:00

the principle of which is unrestricted competition, to I
my mind it would be more dignified if they were to bold
aloof; and did not pretend to negotiateihese treaties. (Hear,
hear.) Every day we are told that we have had a success-
ful commercial treaty with France, and we are asked why
not with Austria—why not with Italy? You cannot have
the same result with Austria and Italy as with France.
You had something to give to France. You had the prin-
ciple of reciprocity to act with, which no man in the present
day can claim the merit of discovering, but which was the
means looked to for the accomplishment of these objects by
some of the greatest statesmen who have ever existed. It
is past. (Cheers.) The age of commercial treaties is past,
because you have no means and no materials for negotia-
tion. (Cheers.) All that you can do is to exercise that

moral influence of which we htar so much with the various

countries with which you are placed in communication, to
induoe them. from your own example, from your own pros-
perity—(ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches)—tor
the old as well as the present system of commerce has

equally brought prosperity to this country—from your own
prosperity, and from the conviction that must grow in those
countries that they are not raising a revenue in due relation
to the resources with which nature has endowed them, to
adopt the principle of reciprocal exchange in commercial
transactions. (Hear.) But you will gain that as soon, if not
sooner, without the embarrassment of commercial treaties
as with those conventions. I regret that, through the con-
duct of the Government and through the extraordinary be-
haviour of the Free Trade party in pa.ronising artificial

agreements of exchange, there has arisen in this country
the impression that the best aid most politic mode of stimu-
lating commerce is to have recourse to that method.
That was a good theory twenty years ago, and not only
a good theory but a good theory which could be put in
beneficial practice. (Hear, hear.) I will not enter upon the
barren controversy whether if, 20 years ago, you had fol-
lowed the principle of commercial exchange you would
have derived more advantage than by suddenly adopting
the principle of unrestricted competition. You have adopted

unrestricted competition as the principle of your commer-
cial code. By accident certain articles were excepted, and
two years ago you used them as the means of negotiating

a treaty of commerce with a great country, having a large
population and rich and fertile resources. You have played

all your cards, and to attempt at the present moment to assist
and kupport commerce by commercial treaties is a mere de-
lusion. No doubt the Government may make use of its
legitimate influence to obtain commercial advantages, but
to obtain treaties on commercial and political principles are

two different subjects ; and my hon. friend is perfectly
right in pointing out how important it is that the Govern-
ment, when holding out the principle of commercial treaties
as one highly advantageous to our allies, should not follow
at the same time a general policy which irritates the feel-
ings and offends the pride of foreign Governments. (Cheers)
In taking that line my hon. friend is highly to be com-
mended, and no doubt what he has said will lead to sug-
gestions in the public mind which will be very advanta-
geous. (Hear.) I regret very much that the hon. gentle-
men opposite, who have held with so much tenacity abstract
opinions on commercial exchange, should now seem to
foster a policy of artificial arrangements which is not only
not founded on right principles, but cannot practically be
carried into effect, because any commercial treaties which
England now negotiates must be negotiated by political in-
fluence, and not by the influence of commercial principlee.
(Cheers.)

Mr. M. GIBSON said—l rise to make reply to those
inquiries which have been addressed to me, otherwise I
should have very little to add to the speech of my hon.
friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. We have
had a narrative of the proceedings of the Government since
the conclusion of the French treaty in reference to making
commercial agreements with foreign countries. The debate
has been called interesting, and probably is so. But I have
been unable to follow many of the speakers, and throughout
the discussion I have observed a certain confusion, as if the
speakers were thinking of different subjects, and not discuss-
ing one particular motion. There is a remarkable diffe-
rence between the hon. gentleman who submitted the
motion, and the right hon. gentleman the member for
Buckinghamshire. The former reproved the Government
for not seizing every opportunity to make commercial bar•
gains with foreign nations. The latter tells us that the
age of commercial treaties is past, and that all we can do
is to use political influence or pressure, I suppose, to make
foreign countries alter their tariffs. (Cheers.) We have
had an account of the French treaty in the time of Mr.
Pitt. The French treaty two years ago nearly met a
similar fate at the hands of the right honourable gentle-
man, and he appears in these days to have taken up what
I understand him to call the error of the Whigs. (Cheers.)
But the hon. gentleman who submitted the motion en-
tirely approved the last French treaty, and his whole
speech was a comment upon the conduct of the Govern-
ment since that period. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the
Belgian treaty, the hon. member for North Warwickshire
asks why the text is not given. The treaty is to be
found in the library, and the hon. gentleman will there see
what it was intended to accomplish. I contend that
it has accomplished great benefits for this country.
The Belgian treaty contains first of all the favoured nation
clause, which had no existence before in our relations with
Belgium—a most important stipulation, because before the
treaty France enjoyed a preference in the Belgian market,
and since its conclusion France and England are treated
with perfect equality. (Hear, hear.) The second advantage
is that we have assimilated the British and Belgian flags.
(Hear, hear.) Produce, whether carried by a British or a
Belgian ship, is to be admitted for the future upon equal
terms, and that is acknowledged by the salt trade of this
country to be a great benefit, because heretofore saltimported
in English ships was subjected to a differential duty. (Hear,
hear.) But the most important result of all is the favoured
nation c ause, because by putting an end to the system of
p reference which was given to France in the Belgian
market we have reduced the Belgian tariff as against Eng-
lish productions 50 per cent. (Cheers.) There were many
duties which ranged up to 40 per cent--but, taking an aver-
age, the duties upon English textile fabrics imported into
Belgium ranged as high as 30 per cent., and they have
been reduced to a rate not exceeding 15. (Hear, hear.) I
think, therefore, we have accomplished through that Belgian
treaty important results for the benefit of England. (Hear.)
It has been said by the hon. member for the King's County
that our trade with Italy has not increased, and that the
Board of Trade returns contradict those which have been
supplied by her Majesty's Consul-General at Naples. I
have not seen the returns which my hon. friend quoted as
coming from Naples ; but I have no doubt that the figures
which he quoted are correct, and they show in the particular
articles referred to a probable diminution in the trade with
Italy, comparing a certain number of months of 1862 with
the same months in 1861. But from what I heard fall from
the Under-Secretary (Mr. Layard), I think the Consul-
General's returns were made in the gross, and it may be quite
true that particular articles have fallen off in 1862. I laid
on the table only this evening the annual returns made up
to the 31st December, 1862, and they are not as yet printed.
I dare say it may turn out that the export trade to Italy in
1862 may be less than in 1861. There arc many reasons why
that should be the case. The high price of cotton and its
diminished production must have had a tendency materially
to affect the whole export trade of England. (Bear, hear.)
But I think it would be only fair to compare 1860 and 1861
with 1857 and 1858, omitting 1859, which was a year of
war, and therefore not to be taken into the comparison for
the amount of trade. Now, the whole value of the British
exports to Italy in 1857 was £3,246,261, and in 1858
£3,677,663 ; but in 1860 it was £4,220,112, and in 1861
£5,333,261. (Cheers.) Such is the declared value in
those years of British export to Italy—that is to say, to
Sardinia, Tuscany, and the Two Sicilies. I think, there-
fore, when the honourable member for the King's
County looks into the facts of the case ho will find that the
trade with Italy for the last two years has materially in-
creased. Now, with regard to the Italian treaty, to which
my hon. friend (Mr. Fitzgerald) has alluded, as a case in
which the Government were not showing the vigilance
which they ought in watching our commercial interests, all
I can say is that—as far as my knowledge goes, and it must
be considerable—as soon as we found that Italy was about to
revise hertariff, and that France was almost forcing from
the necessities of the country such a tariff as would be
favourable to her interests, her Majesty's Government set
themselves to work, and represented to Italy those reduc-
tions which might be made in our interest, and which might
well be considered while the tariff was under revision. But
there is no doubt that whatever Italy gave to France she
would give to England under the operation of the favoured
nation clause. (Hear.) It is quite true we have it in our
power to go to different countries and say, "If you make
this reduction in your duties we will make that in
ours ;" but I am rather inclined to agree in some ob-
servations which fell from the right hon. gentleman
the member for Bucks as to commercial treaties. I, for
one, never held the doctrine that we should wait before
making reductions of duties in this country favourable to
ourselves because other countries would not co-operate.
(Hear, hear.) I have always held we ought to make those
reductions which we consider beneficial. (Hear, hear.) I
look upon the French treaty as an exception to the general
rule, though I would rather not lay down any general rule
on the question. Ido not think tariff treaties in them-
selves desirable, speaking abstractedly, or that any
country should shackle itself by engagements with other
co. untrtes as to the particular mode in which it would
raiseits own revenue. I think in these matters it must
obviously be the interest of this country to act for herself.
(Hear, hear.) But because the French treaty has been con-
cluded, and there has been a stipulation for the reduction of
duties on the part of France, and concessions of duty on the
part of England, it does not follow that England is to run
about endeavouring everywhere to make tariff treaties.
(Hear, hear.) That policy has never been recommended,
nor has it been encouraged by the recent proceedings of the
Foreign-office. All that has been done is to ask, where
we have not had the favoured nation clause, to get it, and
we have never ceased to urge upon other countries the ne-
cessity of considering the duties which affect our interests.
I do not think the experience we have had since the,
French treaty is at all discouraging. (Hear, hear.) AV°
cannot expect that foreign countries should change their
opinions upon protection all at once. We, in this coun-
try, were a long time before we were convinced that
protection was a bad thing, and I am not certain that all
the members of this house are as yet convinced that
it is. (Hear, hear.) lam sure the right hon, gentleman